Proposed Rule2025-19268
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category-Deadline Extensions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 2, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or Agency) is proposing a Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to extend deadlines, promulgated in the 2024 "Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (2024 rule), update the transfer provisions to allow facilities to switch between compliance alternatives, and create authority for an alternative applicability dates and paperwork submission dates, based on site-specific factors. The EPA is also seeking comment on several issues relevant to a separate, future rulemaking on the underlying standards.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 189 (Thursday, October 2, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 189 (Thursday, October 2, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47693-47713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19268]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 423
[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819; FRL-8794.3-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG48
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category--Deadline Extensions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or Agency)
is proposing a Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to extend deadlines,
promulgated in the 2024 ``Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category'' (2024 rule), update the transfer provisions to allow
facilities to switch between compliance alternatives, and create
authority for an alternative applicability dates and paperwork
submission dates, based on site-specific factors. The EPA is also
seeking comment on several issues relevant to a separate, future
rulemaking on the underlying standards.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 3, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2009-0819, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> (our
preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The
Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, including personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Public hearing: If requested, the EPA may conduct an online public
hearing on this proposed rule on October 14, 2025. After a brief
presentation by EPA personnel, the Agency will accept oral comments
that will be limited to three (3) minutes per commenter. The hearing
will be recorded and transcribed, and the EPA will consider all the
oral comments provided, along with the written public comments
submitted via the docket for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Benware, Engineering and
Analysis Division Office of Water (Mail Code 4303T), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: 202-566-1369; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6103040f160013044f13080209001305210411004f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b090e051c0a190e45190208030a190f2b0e1b0a450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.
Information about the Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards (ELGs) is available online at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines">https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Relevant Effluent Guidelines
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
4. Best Professional Judgment
C. 2015 Steam Electric Rule
1. Summary of the 2015 Rule
2. Vacatur of Limitations Applicable to CRL and Legacy
Wastewater
D. 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule
1. Summary of the 2020 Rule
2. 2020 Rule Litigation
E. 2024 Supplemental Steam Electric Rule
1. Summary of 2024 Rule
2. 2024 Rule Litigation
3. Administrative Petitions for Reconsideration of the 2024 Rule
4. NOPP Submission Extension Requests
F. Executive Order Summary
V. New Information
A. National Energy Crisis
B. Regional Energy Reliability and Resource Adequacy Concerns
C. Data Center Expansion
D. Supply Chain Risks
E. Other Pressures on Retirement
VI. Proposed Rule
A. NOPP Submission Date Extension
B. NOPP Companion Direct Final Rule
C. New Transfer Provision
D. Extended BAT Applicability Timing for Zero-Discharge
Limitations
E. Tiered PSES
F. Alternative Applicability Timing and Notice of Planned
Participation Submission Timing Flexibility
G. Clarifications to Sections 423.18(a) or 423.19(i)
H. Economic Achievability
I. Severability
VII. Data Request
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
[[Page 47694]]
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
I. Executive Summary
The EPA is proposing regulations that apply to wastewater
discharges from steam electric power plants, particularly coal-fired
power plants. In 2024, the EPA finalized a CWA regulation that revised
the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards
(ELGs) for the steam electric power generating point source category
applicable to flue gas desulfurization (FGD), bottom ash (BA) transport
water, and legacy wastewater at existing sources, and combustion
residual leachate (CRL) at new and existing sources. 89 FR 40198 (May
9, 2024).
In the last year, the EPA has observed extraordinary increases in
energy demand across the U.S., decreases in energy reserves,
difficulties in transmission across the electricity grid, and decreased
energy reliability. This proposal, if finalized, would revise the
compliance deadlines for existing sources subject to the 2024 rule, as
seen in the following table, at a time of growing energy crisis. These
compliance deadline extensions would give utilities flexibilities
needed to provide affordable and reliable power.
Table 1--Summary of Proposed Deadline Extensions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastestream/ Extendable by 40
Rule submission Current deadline Proposed deadline CFR 423.18?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Rule................. BA Transport Water December 31, 2025.... December 31, 2025... Yes
(Generally
Applicable BAT).
FGD Wastewater December 31, 2025.... December 31, 2025...
(Generally
Applicable BAT).
FGD Wastewater (VIP December 31, 2028.... December 31, 2028...
limitations).
2024 Rule................. NOPP for the December 31, 2025.... December 31, 2031... X
Permanent Cessation
of Coal Combustion
by 2034 Subcategory.
BA Transport Water May 9, 2027.......... Promulgation Date X
(Generally Plus Three Years
Applicable PSES). and One Day-or-Site-
FGD Wastewater Specific Date for
(Generally BAT.
Applicable PSES).
CRL (Generally
Applicable PSES).
BA Transport Water No later than No later than Yes
(Generally December 31, 2029. December 31, 2034.
Applicable BAT).
FGD Wastewater
(Generally
Applicable BAT).
CRL (Generally
Applicable BAT).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised deadlines would also extend the date for existing steam
electric power plants that would seek to achieve permanent cessation of
coal combustion by December 31, 2034, to submit a notice of planned
participation (NOPP), allowing utilities additional time to assess
evolving power demand needed to inform operational planning and
decision making. In addition to specific extensions to regulatory
deadlines, this proposal would also update the existing transfer
provisions at 40 CFR 423.13(o) to allow facilities to switch between
compliance alternatives and would create authority in 40 CFR 423.18 for
alternative applicability dates and paperwork submission dates, based
on site-specific factors. This proposed rule would further establish
tiered pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). In so doing,
it would create a compliance pathway for indirect dischargers that plan
to become direct dischargers and, furthermore, would change the
compliance deadlines to provide consistency between the compliance
deadlines proposed for direct dischargers meeting best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) limitations. This proposal
would not change the underlying technology bases for the effluent
limitations based on BAT. However, this proposal solicits comment on
new pilot plant studies and other data on technological availability;
new engineering analysis, bids, and actual costs data; and reliability
changes in the previous integrated resource planning cycle. The EPA
intends to reconsider the 2024 BAT requirements in a subsequent notice
of proposed rulemaking.
II. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American Industry
Category Example of regulated Classification System
entity (NAICS) code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......... Electric Power Generation 22111
Facilities--Electric
Power Generation.
Electric Power Generation 221112
Facilities--Fossil Fuel
Electric Power
Generation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47695]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not included could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 423.10 (Applicability). If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
The authority for this rule is the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., including CWA sections 301, 304(b),
304(g), 307, and 501(a); 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314(b), 1314(g), 1317, and
1361(a).
Unless otherwise provided by law, agencies may reconsider past
decisions and revise, replace or repeal a decision so long as the
agency provides a reasoned explanation and considers significant
reliance interests. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502,
515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v.
EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1038 & 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (a revised rulemaking
based ``on a reevaluation of which policy would be better in light of
the facts'' is ``well within an agency's discretion,'' and ``[a] change
in administration brought about by the people casting their votes is a
perfectly reasonable basis for an executive agency's reappraisal'' of
its policy choices) (citations omitted).
IV. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The CWA establishes a
comprehensive program for protecting our nation's waters. Among its
core provisions, the CWA prohibits the direct discharge of pollutants
from a point source to waters of the United States (WOTUS), except as
authorized under the CWA. Under CWA section 402, discharges may be
authorized through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. 33 U.S.C. 1342. The CWA also authorizes the EPA to
establish nationally applicable, technology-based ELGs for discharges
from different categories of point sources, such as industrial,
commercial, and public sources. 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314.
Furthermore, the CWA authorizes the EPA to promulgate nationally
applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges
from facilities that discharge wastewater to WOTUS indirectly through
sewers flowing to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), as outlined
in CWA sections 307(b) and (c). 33 U.S.C. 1317(b)-(c). The EPA
establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Pretreatment
standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. See CWA section 301(b), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b). In addition, the
EPA has by regulation required POTWs to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy
any local requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5.
Direct dischargers (i.e., those discharging directly to WOTUS
rather than through POTWs) must comply with effluent limitations in
NPDES permits. Indirect dischargers that discharge through POTWs must
comply with pretreatment standards. Technology-based effluent
limitations (TBELs) in NPDES permits are derived from effluent
limitations guidelines (CWA sections 301 and 304, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and
1314) and new source performance standards (CWA section 306, 33 U.S.C.
1316) promulgated by the EPA, or based on best professional judgment
(BPJ) where the EPA has not promulgated an applicable effluent
guideline or new source performance standard. CWA section 402(a)(1)(B),
33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(c). Additional limitations based
on water quality standards are also included in the permit in certain
circumstances. CWA section 301(b)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C); 40
CFR 122.44(d).
The EPA establishes ELGs by regulation for categories of point
source dischargers that are based on the degree of control that can be
achieved using various levels of pollution control technology. The EPA
promulgates national ELGs for major industrial categories for three
classes of pollutants: (1) conventional pollutants (i.e., total
suspended solids or TSS, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand or
BOD<INF>5</INF>, fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in CWA section
304(a)(4) and 40 CFR 401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic metals
such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, and chromium; toxic organic
pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene),
as outlined in CWA section 307(a), 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 CFR part 423
appendix A; and (3) nonconventional pollutants, which are those
pollutants that are not categorized as conventional or toxic (e.g.,
ammonia-N, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids or TDS).
B. Relevant Effluent Guidelines
The EPA develops effluent guidelines that are technology-based
regulations for a category of dischargers. The EPA bases these
regulations on the performance of control and treatment technologies.
See, e.g., Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1005 (5th Cir.
2019) (``[T]he Administrator must require industry, regardless of a
discharge's effect on water quality, to employ defined levels of
technology to meet effluent limitations.'') (citations and internal
quotations omitted).
There are several TBELs that may apply to a given discharger under
the CWA: four types of standards applicable to direct dischargers, two
types of standards applicable to indirect dischargers, and a default
site-specific approach. The TBELs relevant to this rulemaking are
described in detail below.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
Traditionally, the EPA defines best practicable control technology
(BPT) effluent limitations based on the average of the best
performances of facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect
various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. The
EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic,
and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, the EPA looks at a
number of factors. The EPA first considers the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The
Agency also considers the age of equipment and facilities, the
processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technologies,
any required process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts
(NWQEIs, including energy requirements), and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B), 33
U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B). If, however, existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, the EPA may establish limitations based on higher levels of
control than what is currently
[[Page 47696]]
in place in an industrial category, when based on an Agency
determination that the technology is available in another category or
subcategory and can be practicably applied.
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling
direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants, after BPT.
Courts have referred to this as the CWA's ``gold standard'' for
controlling discharges from existing sources. See, e.g., Sw. Elec.
Power Co., 920 F.3d at 1003. In general, BAT represents the best
available, economically achievable performance of facilities in the
industrial subcategory or category. Consistent with the statutory
language, the EPA considers technological availability and economic
achievability in determining what level of control represents BAT. CWA
section 301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors
that the EPA considers in assessing BAT are the cost of achieving BAT
effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, potential process changes, NWQEIs (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. CWA section 304(b)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The
Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be
accorded each factor. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1978). This is especially true for EPA's consideration of
NWQEIs. BP Expl. & Oil, Inc. v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 801-02 (6th Cir.
1995). Historically, the EPA has generally determined economic
achievability on the basis of the effect of the cost of compliance with
BAT limitations on overall industry and subcategory financial
conditions. BAT reflects the highest performance in the industry and
may reflect a higher level of performance than is currently being
achieved in the industry. See, e.g., Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at
1006; Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am.
Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Under
this approach, BAT may be based upon process changes or internal
controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice. See Am. Frozen Food, 539 F.2d at 132, 140; Reynolds Metals
Co. v. EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar
Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 285-88 (2nd Cir. 1977). Courts have
previously endorsed this approach. Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448
(4th Cir. 1985); see also Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at 1031.
3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
Section 307(b), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b), of the CWA calls for the EPA to
issue pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants to POTWs
(i.e., indirect discharges). PSES are designed to prevent the discharge
of pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. Categorical pretreatment
standards are technology-based and are analogous to BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, and thus the Agency typically considers the
same factors in promulgating PSES as it considers in promulgating BAT.
See, e.g., Reynolds Metals Co., 760 F.2d at 553; Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v.
EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 244 (5th Cir. 1989). The General Pretreatment
Regulations, which set forth the framework for the implementation of
categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR part 403. These
regulations establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-
domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (January 14, 1987).
4. Best Professional Judgment
CWA section 301 and the EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR
125.3(a) indicate that technology-based treatment requirements under
section 301(b) represent the minimum level of control that must be
included in an NPDES permit. See 33 U.S.C. 1311. Where EPA-promulgated
effluent guidelines are not applicable to a non-POTW discharge, or
where such EPA-promulgated guidelines have been vacated by a court, the
EPA has provided by regulation that such treatment requirements are
established on a case-by-case basis using the permit writer's BPJ.
Under the EPA's regulations, case-by-case TBELs are developed by permit
writers on the theory that CWA section 402(a)(1) authorizes the EPA
Administrator to issue a permit that will meet either: all applicable
requirements developed under the authority of other sections of the CWA
(e.g., technology-based treatment standards, water quality standards,
ocean discharge criteria) or, before taking the necessary implementing
actions related to those requirements, ``such conditions as the
Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act.'' 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1). The regulation at 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2)
cites this section of the CWA, stating that technology-based treatment
requirements may be imposed in a permit ``on a case-by-case basis under
section 402(a)(1) of the Act, to the extent that EPA-promulgated
effluent limitations are inapplicable.'' Furthermore, 40 CFR
125.3(c)(3) states that ``[w]here promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines only apply to certain aspects of the discharger's operation,
or to certain pollutants, other aspects or activities are subject to
regulation on a case-by-case basis in order to carry out the provisions
of the Act.'' The factors considered by the permit writer are the same
as those that the EPA considers when establishing effluent guidelines.
See 40 CFR 125.3(d)(1) through (3).
C. 2015 Steam Electric Rule
1. Summary of the 2015 Rule
On November 3, 2015, the EPA promulgated a rule revising the
regulations for the steam electric power generating point source
category at 40 CFR part 423. 80 FR 67838 (2015 rule). The 2015 rule set
the first Federal limitations on the levels of toxic pollutants (e.g.,
arsenic) and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen) that can be discharged in the
steam electric power generating industry's largest sources of
wastewater, based on technology improvements in the industry over the
preceding three decades. Before the 2015 rule, regulations for the
industry were last updated in 1982 and, for the industry's wastestreams
with the largest pollutant loadings, contained only limitations on TSS
and oil and grease.
The 2015 rule addressed effluent limitations and standards for
multiple wastestreams generated by new and existing steam electric
facilities: BA transport water, CRL, FGD wastewater, flue gas mercury
control wastewater, fly ash transport water, gasification wastewater,
and legacy wastewater. The 2015 rule required most steam electric
facilities to comply with the effluent limitations ``as soon as
possible'' after November 1, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2023.
Permitting authorities established particular applicability date(s)
within that range for each plant (except for indirect discharges, which
discharge to POTWs) at the time they issued the plant's NPDES permit.
For plants that opted into the 2015 rule's voluntary incentives program
(VIP), which gave plants the certainty of more time to meet more
stringent FGD wastewater limits, the compliance deadline was December
31, 2023.
2. Vacatur of Limitations Applicable to CRL and Legacy Wastewater
Electric utilities, environmental groups, and drinking water
utilities filed
[[Page 47697]]
seven petitions for review of the 2015 rule in various circuit courts.
The petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit as Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. EPA, Case No. 15-
60821. In early 2017, the EPA received two administrative petitions to
reconsider the 2015 rule: one from the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG)
and one from the Small Business Administration.
On August 11, 2017, the EPA announced a rulemaking to potentially
revise the new, more stringent BAT effluent limitations and PSES in the
2015 rule that apply to FGD wastewater and BA transport water. The
Fifth Circuit subsequently granted the EPA's request to sever and hold
in abeyance petitioners' claims related to those limitations and
standards, and those claims are still in abeyance. With respect to the
remaining claims related to limitations applicable to legacy wastewater
and CRL, the court issued a decision in 2019 vacating those limitations
as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and
unlawful under the CWA, respectively. Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at
1033. In particular, the court rejected the EPA's BAT limitations for
each wastestream set equal to previously promulgated BPT limitations
based on surface impoundments. In the case of legacy wastewater, the
court held that the EPA's record did not support BAT limitations based
on surface impoundments. Id. at 1015. In the case of CRL, the court
held that the EPA's setting of BAT limitations equal to BPT limitations
was an impermissible conflation of the two standards, which are
supposed to be progressively more stringent, and that the EPA's
rationale was not authorized by the statutory factors for determining
BAT. Id. at 1026. After the court's decision, the EPA announced plans
to address the vacated limitations in a later action.
D. 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule
1. Summary of the 2020 Rule
On October 13, 2020, the EPA promulgated the Steam Electric
Reconsideration Rule, 85 FR 64650 (2020 rule). The 2020 rule revised
requirements applicable to existing sources for FGD wastewater and BA
transport water. Specifically, the 2020 rule made four changes to the
2015 rule. First, the rule changed the technology basis for control of
FGD wastewater and BA transport water. For FGD wastewater, the
technology basis was changed from chemical precipitation plus high
hydraulic residence time biological reduction to chemical precipitation
plus low hydraulic residence time biological reduction. This change in
the technology basis resulted in less stringent selenium limitations
and more stringent mercury and nitrogen limitations. For BA transport
water, the technology basis was changed from dry-handling or closed-
loop systems to high recycle rate systems, allowing for a site-specific
purge not to exceed 10 percent of the BA transport system's volume.
Second, the 2020 rule revised the technology basis for the VIP for FGD
wastewater from vapor compression evaporation to chemical precipitation
plus membrane filtration. Third, the 2020 rule created three new
subcategories for high-flow facilities, low utilization electric
generating units (EGUs), and EGUs permanently ceasing coal combustion
by 2028. Facilities or units in these subcategories were subject to
less stringent limitations: high-flow facilities were subject to FGD
wastewater limitations based on chemical precipitation; low utilization
EGUs were subject to FGD wastewater limitations based on chemical
precipitation and BA transport water limitations based on surface
impoundments and a best management plan; and EGUs permanently ceasing
coal combustion by 2028 were subject to FGD wastewater and BA transport
water limitations based on surface impoundments. Finally, the 2020 rule
required most steam electric facilities to comply with the revised
effluent limitations ``as soon as possible'' after October 13, 2021,
but no later than December 31, 2025. NPDES permitting authorities
established the particular applicability date(s) of the new limitations
within that range for each facility (except for indirect dischargers)
at the time they issued the facility's NPDES permit. Facilities opting
into the VIP were given until December 31, 2028, to meet the revised
FGD wastewater limitations.
2. 2020 Rule Litigation
Environmental groups filed two petitions for review of the 2020
rule, which were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on November 19, 2020, as Appalachian Voices, et al. v.
EPA, No. 20-2187. An industry trade group and certain energy companies
moved to intervene in the litigation, which the court authorized on
December 3, 2020. On April 8, 2022, the court granted the EPA's motion
to place the case into abeyance as a result of a new rulemaking
announced in July 2021. The case is still in abeyance.
E. 2024 Supplemental Steam Electric Rule
1. Summary of 2024 Rule
On May 9, 2024, as part of a ``suite of final rules'' imposing new
requirements on the power generation sector, the EPA promulgated the
Steam Electric Supplemental Rule (89 FR 40198) (2024 rule). This
revision of the regulations at 40 CFR part 423 established a zero-
discharge limitation for three wastewaters generated at steam electric
power plants: FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and managed CRL. The
2024 rule also established non-zero numeric discharge limitations on
mercury and arsenic on discharges of CRL that the permitting authority
determines are the functional equivalent of a direct discharge to a
WOTUS through groundwater or discharges of CRL that have leached from a
waste management unit into the subsurface and mixed with groundwater
before being captured and pumped to the surface for discharge directly
to a WOTUS (i.e., ``unmanaged'' CRL). These mercury and arsenic
limitations also apply to a fourth wastestream called legacy
wastewater, which is typically discharged from surface impoundments
during the closure process, where those surface impoundments have not
commenced closure under the EPA's coal combustion residuals regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as of the effective
date of the 2024 rule. The 2024 rule eliminated the 2020 rule's
separate standards applicable to two subcategories of facilities or
units (high flow facilities and low utilization EGUs), while retaining
the 2020 rule's subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing combustion of
coal by 2028. The 2024 rule also established a new subcategory for EGUs
permanently ceasing combustion of coal by December 2034, as well as a
requirement for dischargers to post reporting and recordkeeping
documentation to a publicly available website. For indirect discharges,
the 2024 rule established PSES that are the same as the BAT
limitations. Pretreatment standards are directly enforceable and apply
no later than May 9, 2027.
For the 2024 rule, the EPA also conducted a variety of analyses on
costs, benefits, electricity market impacts, pollutant loadings, and
environmental impacts. The EPA is not proposing in this action to
change the underlying BAT bases in the 2024 rule, and thus the annual
pollutant loadings and environmental impacts of the fully implemented
rule are not expected to change if this proposed rule were to be
[[Page 47698]]
finalized, although they would occur later. Due to the postponement of
these loadings and impacts, the EPA has conducted an analysis showing
the changes in costs and benefits due to discounting, but has not
otherwise updated any of its analyses from 2024. The EPA solicits
comment on any other information, particularly new information, on
relevant aspects of these prior analyses, to the extent they bear on
factors that the EPA is authorized to consider under relevant
provisions of the CWA.
2. 2024 Rule Litigation
A number of parties challenged the 2024 rule in various petitions
that were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit as Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. EPA, No. 24-2123. On
August 27, 2025, the court granted the EPA's request for an abeyance
and ordered the Agency to file a motion to govern further proceedings
within 30 days after publication in the Federal Register of a final
deadline-extension rule.
3. Administrative Petitions for Reconsideration of the 2024 Rule
The EPA has received two petitions for reconsideration, one from
the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and one from UWAG.
EEI is a trade association that represents U.S. investor-owned
electric companies. On November 13, 2024, EEI sent a petition to the
EPA, which included recommendations primarily related to CRL
applicability (DCN: SE11943). This petition was updated with a
supplemental letter of EEI priorities on May 8, 2025, which reiterated
recommendations for CRL, and which also included discussion of
extending the deadlines in the 2020 and 2024 rules (DCN: SE11948). With
respect to the 2024 rule's 2034 cessation of coal combustion
subcategory, EEI recommended extending the NOPP deadline from December
31, 2025, to December 31, 2029, to provide more time to address load
growth challenges. EEI also recommended extending the zero-discharge
compliance dates of the 2024 rule. Finally, EEI recommended that the
EPA extend the generally applicable 2020 rule deadlines for BA
transport water and FGD wastewater to at least December 2027 to allow
units to transfer out of the 2028 cessation of coal combustion
subcategory and instead install technologies to meet the 2020 rule's
requirements, and thereby continue to operate and produce power past
2025.
UWAG is a voluntary non-profit group comprised of individual energy
companies and two national trade associations of energy companies: the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the
American Public Power Association (APPA). NRECA represents nearly 900
local electric cooperatives across the U.S., serving 42 million people
and covering 56 percent of the nation's land area. APPA is the national
service organization that represents not-for-profit local, State, or
other government-owned electric utilities. On February 21, 2025, UWAG
sent the Agency a petition for rulemaking to reconsider and repeal the
2024 rule, as well as administratively stay the 2024 rule while it is
in litigation (DCN: SE11944). The petition requests several reviews of
the determinations underlying the 2024 rule, including the 2024 rule's
determination that zero-discharge technology is available and
economically achievable to treat FGD wastewater and CRL. The UWAG
petition correspondingly advocates for postponement of all compliance
dates in the 2024 rule.
In addition to these two petitions, on April 25, 2025, the EPA
received a request from America's Power, a national trade association
representing the U.S. steam electric power plants and its supply chain.
The letter notes an estimated 29 coal-fired EGUs have committed to
retire by 2028 and, in light of emerging challenges to grid
reliability, urges the EPA to release these units from their retirement
commitments as quickly as possible (DCN: SE11903, SE11903A1). America's
Power also makes recommendations for revisions to the 2020 and 2024
rules.
While the EPA was aware of the general subjects raised in these
petitions when finalizing the 2024 rule, as discussed below, load
growth and power demands are much higher than predicted just one year
ago, and reliability and resource adequacy concerns have only
intensified. Forecasts not available at the time of the 2024 rule, and
certainly not available for the 2020 rule, warrant additional
consideration with respect to the various deadlines discussed in
section VII of this preamble. These factors and new information have
been evidenced and recognized through numerous reports from and actions
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), grid operators, grid
reliability experts, the power industry, utility groups, and regulatory
agencies, as described in greater detail in section V of this preamble.
4. NOPP Submission Extension Requests
Stakeholders, including grid operators, grid reliability experts,
trade associations, and utilities, have raised concerns that a
significant number of facilities need more time to understand how their
operations fit within a changing landscape of local and regional demand
that is untethered from rapidly approaching compliance timelines
crafted under different demand assumptions used in the 2024 rule. This
includes, among other decisions, whether to avail themselves of the
compliance pathway for EGUs seeking to retire or convert to alternative
fuel sources by December 31, 2034, by the current NOPP submission
deadline of December 31, 2025.
Under these circumstances, the existing December 2025 NOPP
submission deadline appears to conflict with the Administration's
priorities of ensuring reliable and sustainable domestic sources of
energy to meet demand, as outlined in the Executive Orders section
below.
F. Executive Order Summary
Upon taking office, President Trump issued key executive orders to
unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources,
including to support the ongoing adoption and development of cutting-
edge technologies. These executive orders took steps to encourage the
increase of coal generation to expand domestic energy and avoid
shutting down steam electric power plants, which could place the
electricity grid at risk, to the extent permitted by law. In accordance
with these orders, the EPA is reviewing the relevant issues and
information referenced previously relating to the burden of existing
compliance deadlines and other issues as part of this rulemaking.
Executive Order 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency,
invokes emergency authorities to accelerate domestic fossil fuel
production and infrastructure expansion, citing energy reliability,
affordability, and national security concerns. 90 FR 8433 (January 29,
2025).
Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, directs Federal
agencies to review and remove, as appropriate and to the extent
permitted by law, regulatory roadblocks to energy development within
the U.S., including by streamlining permitting processes and
reconsidering previous mandates related to climate and renewable
energy. 90 FR 8353 (January 29, 2025). It also directs agencies to
review and revise, as
[[Page 47699]]
appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, existing regulations to
identify those that impose undue burdens on development or use of
domestic energy resources. Id.
Executive Order 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean
Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, affirms that clean
coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity
demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the
construction of artificial intelligence (AI) data processing centers,
and encourages the utilization of coal to meet growing domestic energy
demands while ensuring Federal policy does not discriminate against
coal production or coal-fired electricity generation. 90 FR 15517
(April 8, 2025).
Executive Order 14179, Removing Barries to American Leadership in
Artificial Intelligence, seeks to ensure the rapid pace of U.S.
adoption and development necessary to maintain American dominance and
global leadership in AI. 90 FR 8741 (January 31, 2025).
V. New Information
A. National Energy Crisis
As described in section IV of this preamble, one factor the EPA
considers when setting limitations based on BAT is NWQEIs, which the
statute notes include ``energy requirements.'' 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B).
Most notable with this industry is the impact of environmental
regulations, including the steam electric ELGs, on the U.S. electricity
grid. Since the promulgation of the 2024 rule, Federal agencies,
States, grid operators, and grid reliability experts have identified an
impending energy crisis resulting from increased load and the premature
retirement of critical steam electric and other baseload power plants.
The NERC has consistently warned of resource adequacy and reliability
shortfalls that could occur if coal-fleet retirements occurred faster
than the system could respond to by constructing replacement baseload
power (DCN: SE11931). This is consistent with previous testimony that
the EPA was aware of as of the 2024 rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On May 4, 2023, bipartisan commissioners of FERC testified
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee about the
very real crisis facing the Nation's grid. Commissioners warned of a
``looming reliability crisis in our electricity markets,'' ``a very
catastrophic situation in terms of reliability,'' and
``unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation's
electric system'' (DCN: SE11932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 2024, the FERC held a Commissioner-led Reliability
Technical Conference to discuss policy issues related to the
reliability and security of the North American bulk power system (BPS).
Commissioners and witnesses expressed serious concerns about the
anticipated retirement of existing generating resources, the addition
of significant volumes of variable energy resources, and rapid
anticipated electric load growth (DCN: SE11933).
More recently, on June 4 and 5, 2025, the FERC held another
Commissioner-led Technical Conference titled ``Meeting the Challenge of
Resource Adequacy in Regional Transmission Organization and Independent
System Operator Regions.'' The technical conference addressed how
resource retirements, load growth, and the changing resource mix have
contributed to resource adequacy challenges across the nation. The NERC
testified that ``growth projections of electric demand have reached
heights unseen in decades, disrupting resource adequacy plans across
North America'' (DCN: SE11950).
Other Federal agencies have also taken action to address the energy
crisis. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) has issued an
emergency order to delay the closure of Consumers Energy's 1,560-
megawatt (MW) J.H. Campbell steam electric power plant in West Olive,
Michigan, citing urgent reliability concerns for the Midcontinent
Independent System Operator (MISO) grid, as the Midwest braces for peak
summer electricity demand (DCN: SE11953). The three-unit steam electric
1,560 MW J.H. Campbell plant, built between 1962 and 1980, was slated
to go ``cold and dark'' by June 2025 as part of Consumers Energy's
transition to renewables. Similarly, the DOE also recently issued an
emergency order under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act directing
PJM Interconnection (PJM),\2\ in coordination with Constellation
Energy, to operate specified generation units at the Eddystone,
Pennsylvania Generation Station past their planned retirement. The
order follows recent statements from PJM warning that its system faces
a ``growing resource adequacy concern'' due to load growth, the
retirement of dispatchable resources, and other factors. (DCN:
SE11922). In May 2025, the FERC also approved a reliability must-run
contract between PJM and Talen Energy to keep the Brandon Shores two-
unit, 1,280 MW coal-fired power plant in Anne Arundel County, Maryland,
online past its anticipated retirement date to ensure reliability.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PJM Interconnection is the regional transmission
organization that manages all or parts of Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
District of Columbia.
\3\ For more information, see the certification statement
available online at: <a href="https://tln-environmental.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Brandon+Shores+ELG/Ft.+Smallwood+NPDES+ELG+Qualifying+Event+Certification+Statement+FEB-26-2025.pdf">https://tln-environmental.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Brandon+Shores+ELG/Ft.+Smallwood+NPDES+ELG+Qualifying+Event+Certification+Statement+FEB-26-2025.pdf</a>. (DCN: SE11961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar actions are occurring at the State level, causing utilities
to rapidly change planning activities. In its 2022 integrated resource
plan (IRP) final order, Southern Company subsidiary Georgia Power had
slated Plant Bowen for retirement by 2027. More recently, Georgia Power
announced plans to extend the life of several existing coal and natural
gas-fired power plants into the late 2030s, including proposals to
extend operations at the 3.2-gigawatt (GW) Plant Bowen--one of the
world's largest coal plants--beyond 2034, according to their 2023 IRP
update (DCN SE 11947).
According to NERC, regions across the North American BPS are
generally positioned to meet peak demand under normal summer
conditions, although elevated risks of electricity supply shortfalls
could persist under extreme heat events, surging demand, and resource
variability. However, the increased worldwide demand has already
amplified competition for materials and parts, contributing to the U.S.
backlog for microchips, resistors, transformers, and other key
components as discussed later in this section. The following recent
situation exemplifies how these several factors are converging to
create a national energy crisis.
In June 2025, a severe heat wave impacted the eastern U.S.,
significantly increasing energy demand beyond predictions. The National
Weather Service issued extreme heat warnings of triple digit
temperatures ranging from south of St. Louis to north of Boston. To put
the strain on the grid in context, PJM stated that demand reached about
161,000 MWs on June 23, the highest level recorded since 2011.
According to the FERC, PJM had only about 10 GW remaining to spare at
the period of peak load. The FERC chairman Mark Christie noted that
grid operators' ability to just narrowly sustain power supplies through
the extreme heat and humidity without blackouts reflects significant
and growing resource adequacy challenges, stating at a June 26
briefing, ``We're simply not building generation fast enough, and we're
not keeping generation that we need to keep.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Howland, E. 2025. FERC's Christie Calls for Dispatchable
Resources After Grid Operators Come ``Close to the Edge.'' June 27.
Available online at: <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-christie-dispatchable-resources-heat-wave-pjm-miso-iso-ne/751821/">https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-christie-dispatchable-resources-heat-wave-pjm-miso-iso-ne/751821/</a> (DCN:
SE11949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47700]]
More broadly, this heat wave also resulted in a June 24 power
outage that left more than 71,000 customers without electricity in
Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, according to
Poweroutage.us. The heat wave impacted other regions as well. On June
24, 2025, the DOE issued an emergency order to Duke Energy Carolina
under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to address potential grid
shortfall issues in the Southeast.\5\ We Energies in Wisconsin had
planned closures of its Oak Creek Units 5 and 6 in 2024 and Units 7 and
8 in 2025, but it recently announced postponement of retiring Units 7
and 8, citing tightened energy supply requirements in the Midwest power
market and the need to maintain reliable service during peak-demand
periods, such as those experienced during the June heatwave.\6\ In San
Antonio, ERCOT deployed 400 MW of mobile generation units to help
reduce the risk of energy shortages during heat waves.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. DOE (Department of Energy). 2025. Secretary Wright
Issues Emergency Order to Secure Southeast Power Grid Amid Heat
Wave. June 24. Available online at: <a href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-issues-emergency-order-secure-southeast-power-grid-amid-heat-wave">https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-issues-emergency-order-secure-southeast-power-grid-amid-heat-wave</a> (DCN: SE11962).
\6\ We Energies. 2025. We Energies Announces Updated Timeline
for Oak Creek Plant Retirements. June 25. Available online at:
<a href="https://news.we-energies.com/we-energies-announces-updated-timeline-for-oak-creek-plant-retirements/">https://news.we-energies.com/we-energies-announces-updated-timeline-for-oak-creek-plant-retirements/</a>(DCN: SE11963).
\7\ Guo, K. 2025. ERCOT Approves $54 Million Plan to Move
CenterPoint's Mobile Generators to San Antonio. February 25.
Available online at: <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/25/texas-power-grid-ercot-mobile-generators-centerpoint-energy-san-antoni/">https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/25/texas-power-grid-ercot-mobile-generators-centerpoint-energy-san-antoni/</a>
(DCN: SE11964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regional Energy Reliability and Resource Adequacy Concerns
The NERC mission is to ensure the reliability, resiliency, and
security of the North American BPS. The BPS is made up of six regional
entities \8\ that provide the NERC with data, narratives, and
assessments to independently evaluate long-term reliability, recognize
trends, and identify emerging issues and potential risks for the
upcoming 10-year period. The NERC develops a long-term reliability
assessment (LTRA) annually based on known system changes as of July of
the current year. The NERC is subject to oversight by the FERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The six regional entities (REs) overseen by NERC that
monitor and enforce reliability standards for the BPS are: Midwest
Reliability Organization (MRO), Northeast Power Coordinating Council
(NPCC), ReliabilityFirst (RF), SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC),
Texas Reliability Entity (Texas RE), and Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource adequacy refers to the ability of an electricity system to
meet the power demand of customers at all times, even during peak usage
and potential outages. In the December 2024 LTRA, the NERC identified
increasing resource adequacy challenges for the upcoming 10 years as
demand growth surges and power generators announce retirement plans
(DCN: SE11905). The NERC also identified a substantial number of the
replacement generation resources as weather dependent and, thus, more
variable and less reliable than the resources they would replace. This
includes ensuring sufficient generation capacity and reserves to
maintain a stable power supply. The MISO recently affirmed the
importance of these resources in its 2024 Reliability Imperative
report, in which it identified significant challenges associated with
new, weather-dependent resources that ``do not provide the same
critical reliability attributes as the conventional dispatchable coal
and natural gas resources that are being retired'' (DCN: SE11929).
Furthermore, the NERC categorized the MISO area as ``High-Risk''
and five other areas in the U.S. as ``Elevated-Risk.'' Areas
categorized as High Risk fall below established resource adequacy
criteria in the next five years, and they are identified by the NERC as
likely to experience a shortfall in electricity supplies at the peak of
an average summer or winter season. Extreme weather, producing wide-
area heat waves or deep-freeze events, poses an even greater threat to
reliability. Elevated-Risk areas meet resource adequacy criteria, but
extreme weather conditions are likely to cause a shortfall in area
reserves. The 2024 LTRA identified PJM as Elevated-Risk due to resource
additions not keeping up with expected generator retirements and
projected demand growth. Here, winter seasons replace summer as the
higher risk periods due to generator performance and fuel supply
issues. PJM's 2023 study (DCN: SE11847) and 2024 study (DCN: SE11901)
highlight several trends that increase reliability risks: the growth
rate of electricity demand, retirements are at risk of outpacing the
construction of new resources due to a combination of factors including
siting and supply chain, and PJM's interconnection queue is composed
primarily of intermittent and limited-duration resources, which need
multiple MWs to reliably replace 1 MW of thermal generation (e.g.,
coal, natural gas, nuclear). Compared to 2023, the 2024 PJM report
shows increased wholesale power costs of almost 5 percent and
significant rises in capacity prices, such as 20 percent in New Jersey.
The 2024 report also highlights PJM concern about load growth,
particularly from data centers and electrification, as a significant
driver of increased demand and capacity needs, as well as the slow pace
of new generation coming online to replace retiring resources.
IRPs are one way that stakeholders plan for the longer-term issues
discussed in the NERC LTRA because IRPs show how a utility intends to
meet future energy needs of its customers 10 to 20 years in the future.
Most States require utilities to have IRPs with a 20-year horizon and
commonly require a detailed plan for the first few years of the
forecasted energy demand. An update is typically required every two or
three years. As discussed in the 2024 rule, utilities plan and budget
for plant closures as part of the normal IRP process. The interaction
between these timelines and the ELG deadlines is addressed in section
VI of this preamble.
In deregulated electricity markets, capacity auctions are used to
send signals monetarily that would lead to similar planning as the IRP
process. PJM capacity auctions are generally held three years in
advance of the capacity delivery year and are designed to ensure
sufficient generating capacity to meet electricity demand and grid
reliability at lowest cost. PJM uses capacity market auctions to accept
offers to provide power at lowest cost first, but recent delays in
auctions due to regulatory issues and litigation have led to higher
prices. This can be seen with the results of PJM's recent capacity
auction for the 2026-2027 delivery year. On July 22, 2025, PJM
announced that it had completed its auction and that the clearing price
was the settlement cap of $329.17/MW-day, a 22 percent increase over
the previous year's clearing price, which was already an increase over
the $28.92/MW-day that cleared the auction two years ago. This
clearance price achieved adequate capacity, including reserve margins,
but cleared by only 139 MW, approximately the amount generated by a
single small- to mid-sized EGU. This reflects the tightening margins
between supply and demand in the PJM service area, demonstrating that
in the short-term, the loss of even a single coal-fired EGU (which can
often be several hundred MW capacity) could lead to resource adequacy
issues.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Further information about the recent PJM auction results are
available online at: <a href="https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/rpm.aspx">https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/rpm.aspx</a> and a summary of the auction is available online at:
<a href="https://insidelines.pjm.com/pjm-auction-procures-134311-mw-of-generation-resources-supply-responds-to-price-signal/">https://insidelines.pjm.com/pjm-auction-procures-134311-mw-of-generation-resources-supply-responds-to-price-signal/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47701]]
Additionally, the 2024 PJM report states, ``The demand in each
scenario reflects growth from end-use electrification, electric
vehicles and data centers. Recent history of this anticipated growth
has proven unprecedented and dynamic. Average growth estimates for
PJM's summer peak, for example, have increased by 375 percent between
the 2022 and 2024 load forecasts, from 0.4 percent per year to 1.6
percent per year. This trend adds to the complexity of ensuring
reliability through the energy transition.'' \10\ This report
identifies a drastic increase in energy demand, significantly higher
than was anticipated in formulating the 2024 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ PJM. 2024. Energy Transition in PJM: Flexibility for the
Future. June 24. Available online at: <a href="https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2024/20240624-energy-transition-in-pjm-flexibility-for-the-future.ashx">https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2024/20240624-energy-transition-in-pjm-flexibility-for-the-future.ashx</a>. (DCN: SE11901).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, another important aspect of the LTRA is the
interconnection queue. The LTRA reports the interconnection queue has a
backlog for the huge variety of replacement sources and storage
projects seeking to connect to the grid, such as the ERCOT example
above. In summary, the 2024 LTRA identified ``critical reliability
challenges facing the industry: satisfying escalating energy growth,
managing generator retirements, and accelerating resource and
transmission development.'' (DCN: SE11905).
C. Data Center Expansion
A data center is a building or group of buildings that holds
computer systems and equipment to power every day digital services.
These facilities provide space, power, cooling, and security for
servers and network hardware. Data centers power almost everything
online, from websites to banking and video streaming. Consumers and
companies worldwide depend on services that run through data centers
every hour. Many industries, such as healthcare, retail, manufacturing,
and government, rely on data centers for secure storage and quick
access to information. The demand for cloud computing, e-commerce,
streaming, AI programming, and social media makes these sites more
important each year. Data centers use a large amount of electricity,
making reliable and affordable power one of the most important factors
to U.S. economic development and national security.
According to the DOE, from 2014 to 2016 the annual energy
consumption of data centers in the U.S. remained stable at
approximately 60 terawatt-hours (TWh) (DCN: SE11906). By 2018, this
figure had increased to around 76 TWh, accounting for 1.9 percent of
the country's total electricity consumption. Recent forecasts expect
total power demand for data centers to be between 74 and 132 GW in
2028, corresponding to 6.7 and 12 percent of total U.S. electricity
consumption. The adoption and growth of AI has been cited as a leading
driver of surging data center demand in the U.S., with the technology
requiring immense computing power. The National Renewable Energy
Center's ``Data Center Infrastructure for 2025'' shows transmission
network and new data center demand capacity coinciding geospatially
with large cities, highlighting the challenges demand growth is already
placing on the grid (DCN: SE11922). The EPA notes that consultants,
investors, and ratings firms such as S&P and Moody's identify the U.S.
technology sector as one that can initiate, develop, and complete
projects relatively quickly, with new data centers operational in as
little as two to three years. Meanwhile, the energy sector requires
longer lead times to schedule and build infrastructure as a result of
extensive planning requirements and significant capital investment.
Natural gas and coal are forecast to meet over 40 percent of the
electricity demand from data centers until at least 2030.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ IEA (International Energy Agency). 2025. Energy Supply for
AI. Available online at: <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-supply-for-ai">https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-supply-for-ai</a> (DCN: SE11967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as described in the President's July 2025 strategy titled
`Winning the Arms Race: America's AI Action Plan' (DCN: SE11954), AI
systems may pose novel national security risks in areas such as
cyberattacks and the development of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, or explosive weapons. Ensuring America is at the forefront of
AI development is vital for national defense and homeland security. The
President issued Executive Order 14179, Removing Barriers to American
Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, making it possible for America
to retain global leadership in AI. 90 FR 8741 (January 31, 2025).
Executive Order 14179 will ensure that AI adoption and development is
progressing at the rapid pace necessary to maintain American dominance,
which would further expand the need for upgrades to the U.S. electrical
grid to support data centers as identified in the AI Action Plan (DCN:
SE11954).
D. Supply Chain Risks
In addition to the documented increase in energy demand, another
issue facing the power sector is challenges in obtaining equipment to
maintain and upgrade steam electric power plants, including in some
instances, components of the control technologies (e.g. microchips)
that are beginning to experience increased global demand from other
industries and, therefore, could be a rate-limiting factor for the
installation of new wastewater treatment technologies necessary to
comply with wastewater limits. The power industry is currently
experiencing a significant turbine backlog, primarily for natural gas
turbines, leading to a further reliance on existing steam electric
power plants. A combination of factors, including increasing
electricity demand, particularly from data centers, ongoing natural gas
plant development using combustion turbines, and airline industry
manufacturing has led to a substantial increase in orders for gas
turbines. Three major original equipment manufacturers--GE Vernova,
Siemens Energy, and Mitsubishi Power--have reported backlogs stretching
into 2029 and beyond. The Electric Power Research Institute reports a
five-year-plus wait for new turbine installations (DCN SE11930).
Additionally, critical grid components, like transformers, are also
facing longer lead times, further impacting project timelines.\12\
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the average U.S.
electricity grid transformer is 38 years old, fast approaching the 40-
year life expectancy of a transformer. The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory notes utilities needing to add or replace transformers are
currently facing high prices and long wait times due to supply chain
shortages (DCN: SE11969). The National Infrastructure Advisory Council
reports Hitachi has a waitlist of 2 to 4 years for transformers, and
supply issues and uncertainty continue to affect development with lead
times for transformers averaging 120 weeks and large transformer lead
times averaging 80-210 weeks, and at least one other U.S. company has a
backlog of 5 years (DCN: SE11968). The list of U.S. infrastructure that
depends on transformers includes new housing developments, a growing
electric vehicle charging station market, and renewable energy
projects. For instance, in Texas, companies planned to build
[[Page 47702]]
108 new gas-fired power plants and 17 expansions in the next few years
to power AI and other heavy industries. In just one example, however,
the developer Engie withdrew from two projects in Texas in February
2025 citing ``equipment procurement constraints'' (DCN SE:11951). With
the high uncertainty surrounding resource adequacy over the next
decade, the need to maintain baseload capacity from existing steam
electric power plants will remain for the foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Other critical grid components such as conduit, smart
meters, switchgear, and high voltage circuit breakers are in short
supply (DCN: SE11968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand for all major fuels and energy related technologies jumped
in 2024 worldwide, and coal remains a crucial fuel source in addressing
potential demand spikes in several countries besides the U.S., notably
China, India, and Pakistan. A May 2025 International Energy Agency
report stated that peak demand is slated to grow even faster than
overall power demand, and potentially 80 percent faster in emerging
markets and developing economies by 2035 (DCN: SE11915). These findings
highlight that supply chain issues will likely continue to increase as
the demand and the competition for components escalates across the
world.
E. Other Pressures on Retirement
The EPA notes that there are additional legal pressures leading to
generator retirements that are not within the considerations above and
which are outside the EPA's CWA authority. These include State or
regional laws that may either provide incentives toward retiring steam
electric power generation or specifically provide timelines for
retirements. An example of the former is the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, which 10 States have joined to cap and reduce carbon
emissions. An example of the latter is that, in 2021, Illinois passed
the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act which, with certain exceptions,
required the phase out of coal-fired power plants by 2030 and natural
gas-fired power plants by 2045.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Illinois Drives Electric. 2025. CEJA and Climate Action.
Available online at: <a href="https://ev.illinois.gov/illinois-commitment/ceja-and-climate-action.html">https://ev.illinois.gov/illinois-commitment/ceja-and-climate-action.html</a> (DCN: SE11970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some steam electric power plants have also entered into settlements
with States, the Federal Government, and/or local community groups to
retire a plant or EGUs. For example, in 2015, American Electric Power
(AEP) announced a settlement with the Sierra Club and other parties to
cease coal-combustion at Cardinal Unit 1 by 2030.\14\ More recently, in
2024, the EPA and two environmental groups entered into a settlement
that results in the closure of the Merrimack Station.\15\ These are
just some examples of the settlements that continue to influence steam
electric power plants' operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ American Electric Power. 2015. AEP Ohio Files Settlement
Agreement on Expanded PPA Agreement Provides Price Stability,
Supports Economic Development, Adds Significant Environmental
Commitments. December 14. Available online at: <a href="https://www.aep.com/news/stories/view/1421/AEP-Ohio-Files-Settlement-Agreement-On-Expanded-PPA-smallAgreement-provides-price-stability-supports-economic-development-adds-significant-environmental-commitmentssmall/">https://www.aep.com/news/stories/view/1421/AEP-Ohio-Files-Settlement-Agreement-On-Expanded-PPA-smallAgreement-provides-price-stability-supports-economic-development-adds-significant-environmental-commitmentssmall/</a> (DCN: SE11971).
\15\ The text of the settlement is available online at: <a href="https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/45/79/e642a320432d841506cfed80ee9b/final-agreement-signed-by-allparties-reschiller-merrimack-3-27-24.pdf">https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/45/79/e642a320432d841506cfed80ee9b/final-agreement-signed-by-allparties-reschiller-merrimack-3-27-24.pdf</a>
(DCN: SE11972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Proposed Rule
The EPA is proposing to extend seven deadlines in the 2024 rule,
update the 2024 rule's transfer provisions to allow facilities to
switch between compliance alternatives, and create authority for
limited additional timing flexibility for both 2020 and 2024 rule
deadlines based on site-specific factors. First, the EPA is proposing
to extend the date for existing steam electric power plants to submit a
NOPP for the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034
subcategory. In addition to this deadline extension, the EPA is
proposing to expand the transfer flexibilities in 40 CFR 423.13(o) by
including a new transfer provision for facilities wishing to switch
between requirements for zero-discharge and requirements applicable to
the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034 subcategory. Second,
the EPA is proposing to extend the latest compliance dates for zero-
discharge limitations applicable to discharges of FGD wastewater, BA
transport water, and CRL. The third set of deadline extensions would
apply to standards for the same wastewaters from indirect dischargers.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing a set of tiered standards for
indirect dischargers that would allow for the flexibility to achieve
zero discharge on the same timelines as direct dischargers. Fourth, the
Agency is proposing to provide authority for additional site-specific
extensions of paperwork submission dates and deadlines in the 2020 or
2024 rules when necessary to address unexpected circumstances. Finally,
the EPA is soliciting comment on whether certain limited clarifying
changes to the text of 40 CFR 423.18(a) or 40 CFR 423.19(i) are
warranted.
A. NOPP Submission Date Extension
Stakeholders, including trade associations and utilities, have
raised concerns that certain facilities need more time to decide
whether to avail themselves of the compliance pathway for EGUs seeking
to retire or convert to alternative fuel sources by December 31, 2034.
Based on recent forecasts projecting a surge in energy demand and this
Administration's prioritization of ensuring a reliable and sustainable
domestic source of energy to meet those demands, the existing December
2025 deadline may unreasonably force facilities to decide to retire
when they may still be needed to meet local or regional resource
adequacy and grid reliability needs. Such premature retirements may
result in unforeseen impacts on the ability of the U.S. to ensure that
energy remains abundant, affordable, and reliable for Americans.
Furthermore, the EPA is committed to ensuring these coal plants have
the option to remain in operation to increase the Nation's energy
supply, meet surging demand (e.g., from data centers), support regional
grid reliability, and grow domestic manufacturing, jobs, and wages.
Since promulgation of the 2024 rule, the EPA has continued to
discuss electric reliability issues with the DOE, the NERC, and other
stakeholders under the framework established in the Joint Memorandum on
Interagency Communication and Consultation on Electric Reliability
(EPA-DOE MOU) (DCN: SE11904). At a recent EPA-DOE MOU meeting, the NERC
presented findings from its LTRA (DCN: SE11905). In the 2024 LTRA, the
NERC finds that electric reliability will face unanticipated challenges
in the coming decade due to ``surging demand growth'' at the same time
many generators are anticipating retiring, decisions being forced, in
part, by the adoption of a regulatory regime that was informed by
significantly lower demand forecasts. One key aspect identified in the
2024 LTRA is the surging demand growth needs of data centers. In its
2024 U.S. Data Center Energy Usage Report, the DOE found that ``U.S.
data center energy use has continued to grow at an increasing rate . .
.'' (DCN: SE11906). The EPA has also received additional reports
indicating that surging demand will introduce resource adequacy issues
to a greater extent than the EPA anticipated during the 2024 rule
proceedings (see Section V).
As previously explained, in the 2024 rule, the EPA established a
subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing coal combustion by December
31, 2034. For these EGUs, less stringent limitations and standards
apply to discharges of pollutants. These less stringent limitations and
standards are the same as the limitations and standards previously
applicable under the 2020
[[Page 47703]]
rule. As there were no nationally applicable limitations and standards
for CRL prior to 2024, the subcategory left in place the requirement
for permitting authorities to develop case-by-case TBELs using their
BPJ, and it established mercury and arsenic limitations based on
chemical precipitation after the retirement of the plant. In order to
participate in this subcategory, facilities must submit a NOPP to their
permitting authority or control authority by December 31, 2025, and
subsequently submit annual progress reports on the steps taken to
achieve permanent cessation of coal combustion. The NOPP notifies the
permitting authority or control authority of the plant's intent to opt
into the 2024 rule's subcategory for sources that anticipate closure or
repowering.
At the time of the 2024 rule, the EPA estimated there were ``around
50'' EGUs whose retirement dates had been announced between 2030 and
2034. While the flexibilities in the new permanent cessation of coal
combustion subcategory were also applicable to retirements prior to
2030 (especially with regard to CRL), these post-2030 retirements would
have been subject to the full suite of zero-discharge limitations but
for the subcategory. Utilities and trade associations have extensively
communicated to the Agency that facilities need additional time to
decide about ceasing coal combustion in light of surging electricity
demand, especially in areas where data centers may be constructed in
the near future.
To address these concerns, the EPA is proposing to extend the NOPP
date in 40 CFR 423.19(h) from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2031.
The rationale for the subcategory for the permanent cessation of coal
combustion by 2034 was set forth in the 2024 rule and is based on the
statutory factors in CWA sections 301 and 304. The NOPP provides the
mechanism for facilities to make use of that subcategory, and thus the
date for the NOPP submission is authorized under CWA section 501(a),
which allows the Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions, including establishment of ELGs,
pursuant to sections 301 and 304 of the CWA. The proposed December 31,
2031 NOPP submission date is three years prior to the required
permanent cessation of coal combustion and thus would allow for the
most accurate three-year capacity auctions in deregulated regions
(e.g., PJM) or the typical two- to three-year IRP cycle to conclude
prior to a plant opting into the subcategory with a NOPP. The EPA
solicits comment on alternative deadlines for submitting the NOPP. For
example, December 31, 2029, would be one full permit cycle before the
2034 permanent cessation of coal combustion date and would also align
with some longer IRP timeframes (e.g., Michigan requires IRPs every
five years) (DCN: SE11945). Although the EPA does not expect this to be
the case, the Agency also solicits comment on whether there are any
significant reliance interests related to the existing deadline and, if
so, how the Agency should take this into account when considering
whether to take final action on the proposal.
Should commenters wish these provisions to go into effect via the
companion direct final rule, commenters may refrain from responding to
this solicitation or explicitly state that comments filed are to be
applied solely with respect to this proposal and not the NOPP companion
direct final rule.
B. NOPP Companion Direct Final Rule
Contemporaneously with this notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA
is publishing a direct final rule to extend the NOPP submission date
because the Agency views this specific change as a noncontroversial
action in which notice-and-comment proceedings are unnecessary. The EPA
anticipates no adverse comment because the rule merely extends the date
(from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2031) for existing steam
electric power plants to submit a NOPP in the 2024 rule's subcategory
for EGUs permanently ceasing coal combustion by December 31, 2034. The
direct final rule does not otherwise amend the 2024 rule codified at 40
CFR part 423 in any way or change the substantive requirements
applicable to regulated entities. If adverse comments are received,
however, the EPA will consider them as part of the proposal to extent
the NOPP date in this rulemaking. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on the NOPP extension issue. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For further information about
commenting on this proposed rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this
document.
If the EPA receives no adverse comment on the direct final rule, it
will not take further action on this proposed rule to the extent it
addresses the NOPP submission date. If the EPA receives adverse comment
on the companion direct final rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct final rule
will not take effect. The EPA would then address any public comments
received in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
C. New Transfer Provision
The EPA is proposing to establish a set of new transfer provisions
in 40 CFR 423.13(o) to enhance flexibility to choose among compliance
alternatives. As described in the 2020 rule, even where facilities have
provided a NOPP and publicly announced retirement or repowering plans,
actually ceasing coal combustion may ``require local or state
regulatory approval prior to reducing its utilization or planning to
retire. . . .'' 85 FR at 64709. Such procedural steps continue to
exist, and in light of energy demand concerns and commitments, may not
be ultimately fulfilled. Thus, a plant fully intending to retire steam
electric power generation under a previous announcement could be
subject to unanticipated demand growth or other circumstances that lead
a regulatory authority to reject the retirement decision. In such
cases, it is reasonable and consistent with the statutory and
regulatory framework to permit a plant to transfer back into a
compliance pathway that applies the generally applicable zero-discharge
limitations. Similarly, it is possible that a plant intending to remain
in operation may not clear a capacity auction or may be required by a
State regulatory body to retire. In such cases, it would contradict the
intent of the subcategory to treat these facilities differently from
those that were carrying out planned retirements. Thus, the EPA is
proposing to create a new transfer provision in 40 CFR 423.13(o)(1)(3)
to allow transfers in either direction up until the 2034 deadline for
the permanent cessation of coal combustion, to ensure that facilities
facing unexpected changes in operations are not unfairly penalized as
compared to the rest of the industrial sector. While 40 CFR 423.19(l)
already requires notice to the permitting authority to initiate a
transfer, the EPA solicits comment on whether such transfers warrant
any unique informational supplements beyond what is already required.
The EPA also solicits comment on whether transfers in either direction
should have alternative cutoff dates to ensure a plant can remain in
compliance. Finally, although the EPA does not expect this to be the
case, the Agency solicits comment on whether there are any significant
reliance interests related to the existing deadline and, if so, how the
Agency should take them into account when deciding whether to take
final action on the proposal.
[[Page 47704]]
D. Extended BAT Applicability Timing for Zero-Discharge Limitations
The 2024 rule's zero-discharge limitations must be met as soon as
possible, but ``no later than'' December 31, 2029. 89 FR at 40256. As
part of its rationale for establishing this latest date, the EPA stated
that this date created ``a level playing field'' for facilities
regardless of where they were in their five-year permit cycle. Id. For
the reasons discussed below, the EPA is proposing to extend the ``no
later than'' dates for zero-discharge limitations to December 31, 2034
(i.e., one additional permit cycle).
The EPA finds that postponing the ``no later than'' dates is
warranted for three primary reasons, supported by the statutory factors
of availability, cost, NWQEIs (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. In particular,
first, the December 31, 2029, date for meeting the limitations may not
be achievable for all facilities under the current circumstances due to
availability of the control technologies or their component parts.
Second, delaying the ``no later than'' date allows facilities that
recently invested in technologies to meet the 2020 rule a longer period
to amortize the costs of those technologies, which could improve their
ability to undertake additional investments towards compliance with the
2024 rule with less impact on customer rates. Finally, postponing the
``no later than'' date until December 31, 2034, better effectuates the
ability of facilities to transfer out of the permanent cessation of
coal combustion by 2034 pathway and continue to generate electricity
using coal resources as necessitated by local or regional resource
adequacy and reliability needs and to mitigate an impending national
energy emergency, as discussed previously.
With respect to the first basis for the postponement, the 2024 rule
became effective on July 8, 2024, at which time some utilities began
engineering, pilot testing, requests for proposal, and other concrete
steps towards complying with the 2024 rule. However, continued steps
towards implementation have been delayed for a variety of reasons.
Ongoing uncertainty in global supply chains has resulted in disruptions
in the flow of goods and products, increasing the cost and difficulty
of procurement of technologies needed to meet BAT requirements.
Geopolitical competition for AI and other technologies of the future
has also influenced rising demand-driven delays for fulfillment of
specific components, like semiconductor chips and other electrical
components, which create challenges for facilities to timely meet the
2024 rule where these components are also used in the wastewater
treatment system. These global market changes would be ``other
factors'' the Administrator proposes are appropriate to consider for
their effect on plants being able, as a practical matter, to procure
relevant technologies on a nationwide basis on the timelines required
under the 2024 rule. After considering these changes, it is likely
that, for at least some facilities, the BAT technologies are no longer
``available'' on the timeframes provided in the 2024 rule, and
therefore expecting compliance by 2029 may no longer be reasonable. See
Am. Frozen Food Inst., 539 F.2d at 132 (endorsing the view that,
although the best available standard does not mean that the technology
must be in actual routine use somewhere, it does mean that the
technology ``must be available at a cost and at a time which the
Administrator determines to be reasonable'') (citation omitted); see
also CPC Int'l, Inc. v. Train, 515 F.2d 1032, 1048 (8th Cir. 1975)
(same). The EPA solicits comment on information about specific
instances where supply chain uncertainty has resulted in such delays.
With respect to the second basis for the postponement, the 2020 and
2024 rules discussed how facilities incur greater capital costs when
amortized over fewer and fewer years. Specifically, the Agency found a
greater cost on a MW basis for facilities in the low utilization EGU
subcategory in the 2020 rule, compared to facilities that did not have
low-utilization EGUs. That record demonstrated that annualized capital
costs approximately double when amortization shrinks from the typical
20-year period to eight years. 84 FR 64640. In some cases, under the
2024 rule, facilities completing installation of a biological treatment
system by the end of 2025 would be required to turn around and install
zero-discharge systems by 2029. While the CWA does contemplate
technological advancement, the Act also requires the EPA to consider
the ``cost'' of achieving effluent reduction, as well as ``other
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.'' 33 U.S.C.
1314(b)(2)(B). In the 2024 rule, the EPA's analysis showed that these
cumulative costs were economically achievable within the previously
projected electricity market supply and demand; however, these supply
and demand assumptions have proven inaccurate, as discussed previously.
Back-to-back amortization of costs incurred by some of the larger
plants to meet the 2020 and 2024 rules could mean steep rises in costs
to utilities. This cost is often passed on, leading to similarly steep
rises in residential electricity prices, a relevant ``other factor,''
at a time where there are significant concerns related to the grid
demand and reliability. These prices have already seen unprecedented
growth due to rising demand, particularly where data centers are
located. For example, in New Jersey, prices rose by about 20 percent in
2025 (DCN: SE11952).\16\ Costs to industry that were previously found
to be economically achievable may no longer be, and providing
facilities more time to amortize the costs of the previous 2020 rule
helps reduce short-term price pressures on American families and
domestic manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ <a href="https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/pjm-capacity-price-hits-cap-as-clean-energy-projects-remain-stalled/">https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/pjm-capacity-price-hits-cap-as-clean-energy-projects-remain-stalled/</a>.
(DCN: SE11973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with respect to the third basis for the postponement, as
discussed in the prior subsection, the EPA is proposing to establish a
transfer provision for facilities to opt out of the permanent cessation
of coal combustion subcategory and instead be subject to the generally
applicable limitations. By extending the ``no later than'' dates to
2034, this proposed rule would allow facilities the maximum flexibility
to respond to changing local and regional energy demand--thereby
ensuring the energy requirements of the nation are met--without risking
noncompliance.
While in some cases generator retirements have already been
announced, planned for, and (in a subset of such cases) already
approved by State and regional utility commissions or grid operators,
these conditions are quickly changing, with utilities revising
retirement dates to meet recent increases in demand detailed previously
in this preamble. Even in instances where a new power source is
available to fill this increase in demand, these sources must be
connected to the grid. These new connections require transformers,
inverters, AC/DC couplers, voltage regulators, frequency monitoring,
cabling, resistors for fault protection, and other components just to
get the power to a substation. In some cases, the components required
to tie in the new energy source are backordered and simply are not
available. Therefore, it is essential to keep existing steam-electric
plants that are connected to the grid in operation until such time as
new energy sources can be tied in. The Agency proposes to find that,
given these
[[Page 47705]]
uncertainties and the corresponding public interest in affordable,
reliable energy, allowing the longest possible timeframe for coal-fired
EGUs to transfer between compliance alternatives and still install
technologies to meet requirements by their deadline is the best
solution to ensure grid reliability and resource adequacy.\17\ These
are non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) or other factors the Administrator proposes are
appropriate to consider in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B), and
they provide additional support for extending the latest zero-discharge
limitations deadlines, and specifically for extending those deadlines
to 2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The EPA also notes that during this transition, facilities
would continue to meet the 2020 limitations which achieve
significantly more pollutant removals than the TSS standards in the
1980s regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the ``no later than'' dates, the EPA is not
proposing to postpone the earliest compliance dates associated with the
2024 rule. Instead, by postponing the latest compliance dates, the
Agency intends to allow State permitting authorities more flexibility
in determining the ``as soon as possible'' date under 40 CFR 423.11(t).
The Agency is requesting comment in this proposal to help determine the
scope of any subsequent reconsideration to give utilities, industry,
and State permitting authorities additional certainty.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed ``no later than'' dates of
December 31, 2034. The EPA solicits comment on alternative dates and
their justifications (e.g., in previous rules the EPA has used one
five-year permit cycle). The EPA also solicits comment on whether all
three compliance dates warrant the same extension. In the 2024 rule
record, the EPA explained how facilities will often co-treat different
wastestreams or may send BA transport water to the FGD absorber as
make-up water. The EPA solicits comment on whether such considerations
support extending all compliance dates equally or whether more or less
time might be warranted for particular wastestreams. Finally, while the
Agency is not aware of circumstances in which any entity has
detrimentally relied on the parts of the 2024 rule that the Agency is
considering revising, the Agency solicits comment on any legitimate
reliance interests that may be implicated by this proposed action,
which the Agency should consider in the rulemaking process.
E. Tiered PSES
While the majority of steam electric power plants directly
discharge the three wastestreams for which the EPA established zero-
discharge limitations in the 2024 rule, there are still one or more
indirect dischargers of each of these wastewaters. The EPA finds that
many of the considerations discussed in this preamble that warrant
longer applicability timing for zero-discharge requirements on direct
dischargers also may hold true for indirect dischargers. Thus, the EPA
is proposing a new tiered standard for indirect dischargers that would
conform with the Act and allow an indirect discharging plant to choose
to be subject to direct discharge limits with the same timeframes
available to existing direct dischargers.
Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA requires that pretreatment standards
``shall specify a time for compliance not to exceed three years from
the date of promulgation.'' 33 U.S.C. 1317(b)(1). This three-year
period is similar to the three years stated in section 301(b)(2)(C),
(D), and (F), which apply to BAT limitations. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(C),
(D), and (F). Section 301(b)(2)(C) states that ``there shall be
achieved . . . compliance with [BAT] effluent limitations . . . as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years
after the date such limitations are promulgated . . . and in no case
later than March 31, 1989.\18\ 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(C). The EPA reads
those provisions as requiring that the EPA's original BAT limitations
be met no later than three years after the date that effluent
limitations guidelines are promulgated, with a back-end deadline of
March 31, 1989. Furthermore, the Act is silent as to any required
timeframe for compliance with revised effluent limitations after March
31, 1989. See Clean Water Action v. EPA, 936 F.3d 308, 316-17 (5th Cir.
2019) (``EPA's reading of the text accords the language its natural
meaning: the initial BAT effluent limitations were to be complied with
as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than three years
after promulgation, with a final compliance date of March 31, 1989--
whichever came first. This reading is supported by section 1311(d),
which requires the EPA periodically to review BAT limitations,
including after 1989, but contains no such compliance deadline.'')
(citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ CWA section 301(b)(2)(D) and section 301(F) contain similar
language. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(D) and (F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that BAT limitations and PSES are intended to be analogous,
as previously described, it would make sense that the three-year
requirement in CWA section 307 also applies only to the EPA's initial
pretreatment standards for an industry. This is supported both by CWA
section 307(b)(1)'s language stating that the three-year time for
compliance applies to pretreatment standards ``under this subsection,''
as well as by section 307(b)(2), which includes language stating that
the Administrator shall ``from time to time'' revise its pretreatment
standards and does not include language directing compliance with
revised standards under that subsection by any particular date.
Nonetheless, even assuming that the three-year requirement applies to
revisions of those standards, the EPA's proposed pretreatment standards
would meet that requirement because they represent a phased-in standard
beginning three years from promulgation that reflects when more
stringent technologies are available, achievable, and have acceptable
NWQEIs, as required by the Act.
In the first tier of the standard, indirect dischargers would be
required, by October 2, 2028, to meet pre-2024 standards for FGD
wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. These standards (which are
based, respectively, on biological treatment plus chemical
precipitation, high recycle rate systems, and the permitting
authority's BPJ) are available and achievable, as supported by the
record in the EPA's prior rules. In the second tier of the standard,
facilities opting to file a permit application with their permitting
authority to directly discharge these wastewaters, and upon certifying
that they would complete the conversion to direct discharge, would then
be allowed to continue indirectly discharging until the compliance date
determined by the permitting authority, but no later than December 31,
2034. In the second tier of the standard for facilities that do not opt
to become direct dischargers, the tiered standard would change to zero-
discharge by October 2, 2028.
In either case, this pretreatment standard is one standard that
tightens over time, and so it conforms to the requirement of the Act
that pretreatment standards specify a time for compliance not to exceed
3 years from the date of promulgation. The EPA expects that this
approach will provide equity across a range of permitted facilities
regardless of their discharge circumstance--i.e., direct or indirect.
The EPA solicits comment on the proposed tiered standards and
underlying rationale. The EPA solicits comment on alternative
approaches for extending standards (e.g., merely setting the second
tier to the latest dates in 2034) or achieving parity between direct
[[Page 47706]]
and indirect dischargers and their justifications. The EPA also
solicits comment on whether all three compliance dates warrant the same
extension. In the 2024 rule record, the EPA explained how facilities
will often co-treat different wastestreams or may send BA transport
water to the FGD absorber as make-up water. The EPA solicits comment on
whether such considerations support extending all compliance dates
equally or whether more or less time might be warranted for particular
wastestreams. Finally, while the Agency is not aware of circumstances
in which any entity has detrimentally relied on the parts of the 2024
rule that the Agency is considering revising, the Agency solicits
comment on any legitimate reliance interests that may be implicated by
this proposed action, which the Agency should consider in the
rulemaking process.
F. Alternative Applicability Timing and Notice of Planned Participation
Submission Timing Flexibility
The EPA is proposing a site-specific timeline flexibility to be
incorporated in the permit conditions set forth in 40 CFR 423.18(d).
Several of the challenges described in the prior sections that support
aspects of this proposed rule may result in a plant, or even a single
EGU at a plant, pivoting too quickly or too late into an alternative
compliance pathway to ensure compliance with the applicable
requirements. The EPA is proposing that such a flexibility is warranted
based on the statutory factors of ``availability'' (timing of when a
technology is available at a specific plant) and ``NWQEIs'' (including
energy requirements) (i.e., sudden changes in resource adequacy needs
for a particular service area). See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A),
1314(b)(2)(B).
While the EPA is aware that several utilities have already pushed
back plans to retire coal units by 2028 in order to support regional
resource adequacy, trade associations and regional transmission
organizations have discussed further scenarios with the EPA that could
lead to impractical timeframes for the installation of technologies
needed to meet applicable limits. In one case, a utility may have
announced that one or more EGUs at a plant would retire by 2028 (making
it eligible for the 2020 rule's subcategory for the permanent cessation
of coal combustion by 2028), while the remainder would continue
generation. If the IRP process or capacity auctions indicate that
future needs may not be met, these EGUs may need to back out of
previous retirement decisions. However, the plant may have combined
wastewaters, such as combined FGD wastewaters from a joint FGD unit
that treats flue gas from the entire plant. In the case that the plant
was properly developing a treatment system that could treat wastewater
from the EGUs it had intended to continue operating, the continued
operation of one or more additional EGU(s) could lead to more
wastewater than the system can treat. In such circumstances, the plant
would be forced to choose between noncompliance or retiring an EGU
needed for local resource adequacy. The EPA agrees that a plant in such
a situation should be given the time to build out treatment systems and
comply with the 2020 rule.
In another scenario, a plant that had submitted a NOPP for
permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2028 may learn through the
IRP process or capacity auctions that its continued operation is
necessary to support local resource adequacy. Such facilities can still
use the transfer flexibilities in 40 CFR 423.13(o) to transfer to the
VIP limitations for FGD wastewater and the generally applicable
limitations for BA transport water by December 31, 2025. However, if a
plant had not taken significant steps to design, bid, and procure these
technologies prior to the transfer deadline, it would not be
practicable for the plant to in do so by the deadlines in the 2020
rule, particularly where the generally applicable BA transport water
limitations have the same deadline as the transfer itself. In such
circumstances, a plant could be forced into deciding whether to risk
noncompliance or retire a plant needed for local resource adequacy.
Furthermore, requirements to first notify or gain approval of a state
public utility commission might make formally submitting a transfer
notice by December 31, 2025, impracticable.\19\ As with the previous
example, the EPA agrees that, in such circumstances, the plant should
be given time to both get approvals needed to submit a transfer notice
and build out treatment systems to comply with the 2020 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Some utilities may also be required to conduct
environmental reviews of such decisions under state or Federal law,
further delaying the date by which a notice to transfer could be
filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, stakeholders have expressed concerns with supply chains.
Furthermore, the rapid growth of data centers, in some cases, takes
materials and components that might otherwise have been used in an ELG
compliance technology. Thus, it is possible that facilities may have to
wait on parts that are available on the market, but not on the
timelines originally believed or agreed to in a contract. In such
cases, it is reasonable and consistent with the statutory and
regulatory scheme that a plant should have sufficient time to construct
its compliance technologies and should not be penalized for factors
outside of its control.
After considering the above scenarios, the EPA is proposing a
requirement for permitting authorities to extend the NOPP submission
dates or applicability timing for any compliance date in the 2020 or
2024 rules (including the VIP limitations for FGD wastewater) due to
these or any other unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances.\20\
Such a flexibility would be included as a new permit condition via 40
CFR 423.18(d). As proposed, this would allow an alternative
applicability date and, where appropriate, associated schedule of
milestones, to be included in a permit, notwithstanding the existing
applicability timing in the regulatory text. The EPA solicits comment
on this proposed permit condition, including on whether there should be
a minimum or maximum duration for the alternative applicability date
permitting authorities can use, as well as what that minimum or maximum
should be (e.g., an additional year, an additional permit cycle of five
years, etc.). The EPA also solicits comment on the circumstances that
qualify for an alternative applicability date under this timing
flexibility, including any alternative circumstances that should be
explicitly listed in the regulation. Further, the EPA solicits comment
on whether and how this provision should be modified or integrated with
other potential alternatives to the extensions and transfer provisions
being proposed, or on which the Agency has solicited comment in this
notice of proposed rulemaking. Finally, while the Agency is not aware
of circumstances in which any entity has a significant reliance
interest in the parts of the 2024 rule that the Agency is considering
revising, the Agency solicits comment on whether there are any
significant reliance interests that may be implicated by this proposed
timing flexibility and, if so, how the Agency should take this into
account when considering whether to take final action on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For the purposes of the above, these issues are unexpected
to the extent that documentation shows the previously established
projections for demand growth, market prices, or equipment/component
procurement timing are no longer reflective of actual circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is also proposing that a plant wishing to make use of this
proposed provision must submit an initial request letter and regular
progress reports to
[[Page 47707]]
their permitting authority. The initial request letter must include the
circumstance under which it is requesting alternative applicability
timing. The letter must also include detailed engineering dependency
charts that would allow the permitting authority to establish an
alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, associated
schedule of milestones in the permit, as well as determine the
frequency of regular progress reports. For instance, if a plant needed
only an extra six months to install relevant technologies, then monthly
progress reports might be warranted; however, if the same plant needed
an extra six years to install relevant technologies, then annual or bi-
annual progress reports might be sufficient.\21\ Furthermore, the
engineering dependency charts should identify contingencies, especially
for uncertain or critical path steps, so that any associated schedule
can be sufficiently flexible to avoid the potential for permit
modifications upon a predictable delay. Finally, the letter must be
accompanied by any missing NOPPs or progress reports. While the EPA is
intending this flexibility to be used only when necessary, the Agency
is proposing it in a way that allows the maximum flexibility in terms
of time and need. Facilities and permitting authorities should continue
to plan for compliance through normal pathways to the extent possible.
The EPA solicits comment on the appropriate level of paperwork required
or any additional information that should be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Note that nothing in this requirement prevents a permitting
authority from requesting additional information or information at
additional times, consistent with applicable law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Clarifications to Sections 423.18(a) or 423.19(i)
In the 2020 rule, the EPA discussed how changed circumstances in a
plant's operations could affect compliance with the ELG. This
discussion distinguished voluntary versus involuntary changes in
operations. As examples of involuntary changes, the EPA noted that
electric utilities are regulated by a variety of agencies that can
legally require continued generation at a plant (e.g., section 202(c)
of the Federal Power Act). For these types of reliability-related
issues, the EPA established permit conditions that would ensure non-
interference with resource adequacy and reliability when such orders
were issued.\22\ After this provision was established, stakeholders
raised questions as to the applicability of the section to energy
emergency alerts (EEAs). In response to these stakeholder concerns,
when finalizing the 2024 rule, the EPA reinforced its commitment to not
interfering with the provision of reliable power by amending 40 CFR
423.18(a) to expressly include EEAs as a valid trigger for the
protections therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In contrast, the EPA noted that a plant voluntarily
changing operations needed to ``carefully plan its implementation.''
85 FR 64650, 64709 (October 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2024 rule, stakeholders have questioned whether 40 CFR
423.18(a) can be read to include other types of actions not explicitly
listed. Specifically, four scenarios were raised for which stakeholders
wish further clarification from the EPA. These include the following:
<bullet> Whether 40 CFR 423.18(a)(2) is interpreted to include the
FERC's acceptance of a reliability must-run agreement as being a
reliability must-run agreement issued by a Public Utility Commission as
contemplated within this subsection;
<bullet> Whether 40 CFR 423.18(a)(3) is interpreted to include the
following as a qualifying event: where an EGU(s) has certified it would
cease combustion of coal, and an appropriate Balancing Authority
projects, pursuant to its authority, that doing so would cause a
resource adequacy shortfall for an upcoming delivery year;
<bullet> Whether 40 CFR 423.19(i)(1)(ii) is interpreted to include
the 30-day submission applicability to any findings made pursuant to 40
CFR 423.18(a)(3); and
<bullet> Whether 40 CFR 423.19(i)(3) is interpreted such that the
termination of need statement submission is also triggered 30 days from
when the source is no longer subject to extended production (which is
increased production) resulting from the qualifying event.
With respect to the first issue, the EPA intended for any
reliability must-run agreement or similar order to be covered. The EPA
believes that, between 40 CFR 423.18(a)(2) and 423.18(a)(3), there is
sufficient flexibility that either or both provisions could apply to
such orders depending on the entity making or receiving the filing.
Nevertheless, the EPA solicits comment on whether the removal of the
term ``public utility commission'' is warranted, or whether the term
should be replaced by a list of potential agencies that could file or
accept such an order.
With respect to the second issue, the EPA received a similar
question from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) at the time of the
2023 proposal. There, the EPA pointed out that the TVA was certified by
the NERC as the reliability coordinator for itself and several other
utilities. Therefore, the record supported that the TVA had the
authority to issue operating instructions and emergency operating
instructions with which any utilities (including itself) must comply,
making the TVA a competent electricity regulator. Since 40 CFR 423.18
refers broadly to ``a competent electricity regulator (e.g., an
independent system operator),'' the EPA concluded that this broad
definition allowed for load balancing authorities to be included and
thus made no textual changes. However, since the issue is in front of
the EPA, the Agency again solicits comment on whether removing the
examples or adding a more comprehensive list of regulators is
warranted.
With respect to the third issue, the EPA notes that 40 CFR
423.19(i)(2)(ii) refers back to (i)(2)(i), which in turn refers back to
any qualifying event in 40 CFR 423.18(a). Since the reference does not
limit qualifying events to any subparagraph in 40 CFR 423.18(a), the
EPA agrees that any event under (a)(3) would trigger the reporting and
recordkeeping requirement. The EPA solicits comment on whether
additional clarity in the regulatory text is necessary. The EPA
recommends that, where a plant subject to this requirement has missed
the deadline, it make any appropriate submission as soon as possible.
With respect to the final issue, the EPA again agrees that extended
production is increased production. The EPA solicits comment on whether
the text of this section should explicitly list extended production or
any other scenario that may not be as obvious an ``increase'' and, if
so, examples of settings where there might be confusion.
For these, and any other clarification to 40 CFR 423.18(a), the EPA
solicits comment on whether explicit changes to the regulatory text of
40 CFR 423.18(a) are warranted in light of the text, purpose, and
history of these provisions. Specifically, the EPA solicits comment on
whether the existing regulatory text is already sufficiently broad to
cover the scenarios of concern raised by stakeholders. Finally,
although the EPA does not expect this to be the case, the Agency also
solicits comment on whether there are any significant reliance
interests related to the existing text of 40 CFR 423.18 and, if so, how
the Agency should take this into account when considering whether to
take final action on the proposal.
H. Economic Achievability
In the 2024 rule, the EPA estimated that the cost to industry of
zero
[[Page 47708]]
discharge of FGD wastewater would be $179 million per year, the cost to
industry of zero discharge of BA transport water would be $19 million
per year, and the cost to industry of zero discharge of CRL would be
$225 million per year in annualized costs at a three percent discount
rate. Combined, this led to a total cost estimate of $423 million per
year at a three percent discount rate. The EPA determined that these
costs were economically achievable. Under the timing flexibilities and
transfer provisions proposed above, individual facilities could see the
timing of costs delayed by anywhere from zero to six years (five plus
an additional year that the permitting authority may deem them in
compliance), based on site-specific circumstances and the permitting
authority's discretion. Thus, assuming facilities, on average, would
have their compliance extended in that range, and discounting by zero
to six years (i.e., an average of three years) at a 3 percent discount
rate, the EPA estimates that this rule would save utilities
approximately $30 million per year. At a 7 percent discount rate, the
EPA estimates savings of $79 million. The EPA proposes that, with these
cost savings, the rule would continue to be economically achievable for
this proposed action. To the extent that the EPA heard from utilities
asserting costs are higher than those estimated in the 2024 rule, the
Agency is soliciting comment on costs in the following data request
section.
I. Severability
The purpose of this section is to clarify the Agency's intent with
respect to the severability of provisions of any final rule based on
this proposed rule. In the event of a stay or invalidation of part of
any final rule based on this proposed rule, the Agency's intent is to
preserve the remaining portions of the rule to the fullest extent
possible. The EPA notes the following existing regulatory text at 40
CFR 423.10(b) that would not be altered by this proposed rule: ``The
provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If
any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, the remaining
provisions shall continue in effect.'' Moreover, to dispel any doubt
regarding the EPA's intent and to inform how any final regulation would
operate if severed, the Agency proposes to find that it would adopt
each portion of this proposed rule independent of the other portions.
As explained below, the Agency carefully crafted this proposed rule so
that each provision or element of the rule can operate independently.
Moreover, the Agency has organized the proposed rule so that if any
provision or element of a final rule based on this proposal is
determined by judicial review or operation of law to be invalid, that
partial invalidation would not render the remainder of the rule
invalid.
This proposed rule would extend certain compliance dates associated
with zero-discharge limitations and standards for discharges of
pollutants found in three steam electric wastestreams. The proposed
rule would provide extended dates for limitations and standards
associated with each wastestream in separate sections that do not rely
on one another. Although the proposed decision to extend deadlines
applicable to each wastestream rests on overlapping facts, the proposal
to extend the compliance dates for limitations for each wastestream was
made independently of the proposed decisions to extend the other
compliance dates.
This proposed rule would also provide flexibility for steam
electric facilities to opt into different compliance pathways that
exist in the rule, for example, due to changed circumstances. This
proposed flexibility to transfer to a different compliance pathway is
unrelated to other provisions in the proposed rule, and EPA's proposed
decision to allow for such transfers is unrelated to other aspects of
the proposal.
Finally, this proposed rule would create authority for alternative
applicability dates for limitations promulgated in the 2020 or 2024
rules, based on site-specific factors. This proposed authority is
independent from other changes being proposed, and the EPA's proposed
decision to provide for such authority is unrelated to other aspects of
the proposal. For example, in the event of a stay or invalidation of
any extended compliances dates for the zero-discharge limitations or
standards, the EPA anticipates that there is continued authority for
alternative applicability dates, as discussed in this paragraph, and
such authority could continue to be implemented.
These examples are illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and the
EPA intends for each portion of the proposed rule to be independent and
severable. Furthermore, if application of any portion of a final rule
based on this proposal to a particular circumstance is determined to be
invalid, the Agency intends that the rule remain applicable to all
other circumstances. The Agency solicits comment on these proposed
severability findings.
VII. Data Request
Subsequent to this rulemaking effort, the EPA intends to undertake
a further reconsideration of certain aspects of the existing
regulations. EPA has heard from some segments of the mining industry
that existing subcategories providing compliance pathways for EGUs
seeking to retire or convert to alternative fuel sources establish an
inadequately supported ``offramp'' to the continued utilization of
domestic coal resources for energy production in the U.S. EPA solicits
comment on repealing those subcategories that would require the
permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2028 and 2034, respectively.
Additionally, the EPA is seeking to define the scope of this
subsequent rulemaking to potentially revise the underlying technology
bases for certain limitations and standards in the 2024 rule. In its
March 12, 2025, press release, the EPA stated that it would be
reconsidering the 2024 rule's TBELs, including those for CRL (DCN:
SE11918). Environmental groups, electric utilities, and States
challenged the unmanaged CRL provisions in litigation over the 2024
rule. In further discussions between the EPA and electric utilities,
industry has also consistently reiterated its position that the final
limitations for unmanaged CRL are inappropriate. Thus, the EPA intends
to reconsider the mercury and arsenic limitations for this wastestream
and will evaluate all potential technology options, including zero
discharge, as part of that reconsideration. The EPA solicits comment on
any pilot or full-scale treatment data for unmanaged CRL. The EPA also
solicits comment on any engineering cost estimates, bids, vendor
quotes, or other cost information regarding treatment of unmanaged CRL.
The Agency has also continued to hear from segments of the electric
utility industry that the zero-discharge technologies used to establish
BAT limitations for FGD wastewater and CRL (other than unmanaged CRL)
in the 2024 rule are not available to all facilities, are not
economically achievable, and are a primary cause of many announced
steam electric power plant retirements. Utilities and trade
associations have also pointed out that the availability of zero-
discharge technologies can be dependent on plant-specific
characteristics that are unrelated to the technology itself (e.g., the
plant is located in a geographic area with a hot, arid climate that
allows for increased evaporation to meet zero-discharge limits, or the
plant uses a particular type
[[Page 47709]]
of fuel). For example, a June 18, 2025 letter to the Agency from UWAG
describes that, based on its analysis, most of the plants the Agency
previously identified as meeting zero-discharge for FGD wastewater have
unique characteristics not actually related to the technologies that
allow them to achieve zero discharge. UWAG's letter further identifies
specific challenges its members have encountered when attempting to
install and operate zero-discharge technologies. The EPA solicits
comment on all relevant data and information relating to these
statements. Specifically, the EPA is soliciting information on
availability, economic achievability, and resource adequacy and
reliability impacts as further described below.
Pilot Study and Bench Test Information (Technological
Availability). The EPA has learned that facilities have continued to
successfully pilot test zero-discharge technologies on FGD wastewater
and CRL since the 2024 rule. While the EPA cannot know for certain how
many of these pilot tests have been conducted, based on conversations
with utilities and vendors, the EPA estimates that there may be a dozen
or more successful pilots with thermal and/or crystallization
technologies and perhaps twice as many successful new pilot studies on
membrane filtration technologies. The EPA solicits comment on new pilot
study or bench test data, particularly where these technologies failed
to perform in the manner described in the 2024 rule record. Where
contractors, consultants, or vendors have provided reports, the EPA is
soliciting comment that provide these reports in full (rather than
select excerpts) to allow the Agency the ability to understand the
underlying volumes, influent and effluent characteristics, run times,
maintenance, and challenges experienced with the relevant systems in
proper context. The EPA is also explicitly requesting any such data on
potential VIP technologies for FGD wastewater where the elimination of
expensive pretreatment steps would yield similar pollutant removals but
nevertheless be unable to meet the VIP limitations established in the
2020 rule.
Cost Projection Information (Economic Achievability). The EPA has
learned that many facilities have asked for, and received, formal
engineering cost estimates or quotes for zero-discharge systems from
engineering, procurement, and construction firms, consultants, and/or
vendors. In some cases, facilities have also received firm bids in
response to requests for proposal or, alternatively, have received
cost-escalation figures for previous quotes or bids. The EPA solicits
this information in full and unredacted. Full access to this
information is important to assess the design specifications, the
precise line-items that are included in the cost projections, the
expected manner of operation, etc. As the EPA has described in previous
iterations of this rule, estimates of costs without reasonably detailed
underlying assumptions cannot be assessed by the EPA with the level of
rigor necessary to support an ELG. The EPA must have a reasonable
understanding of the underlying assumptions for the costs to be able to
properly evaluate them. Furthermore, the EPA is aware that some
facilities have done analyses of internal processes or operational
changes at their plants that would be made as part of achieving zero
discharge. The EPA solicits comment providing this information.
Newly Installed Systems (Technological Availability and Economic
Achievability). The EPA is aware that facilities have continued to
contract for, fabricate, and install zero-discharge systems in
furtherance of State requirements and/or the Steam Electric ELGs. The
EPA solicits comment on final cost information for these systems, as
well as the specifications that the systems were designed for. The EPA
also solicits comment on any performance data associated with systems
that may be in operation.
Resource Adequacy and Reliability Information. As previously raised
in this preamble, the EPA is aware that data centers, population
growth, manufacturing, and other changes have increased, and are
expected to continue increasing, demand for electricity. The EPA
solicits comment on specific examples of where demand has spiked
disproportionately in local or regional electricity markets. The EPA
also solicits comment on facilities which would not be retiring but for
the Steam Electric ELGs, including financials for the impacted
facilities that project costs and revenues both with and without the
rule. The EPA solicits comment on any other short- and medium-term
resource adequacy or reliability-related impacts that would result
under the ELGs and any recommendations for how to avoid adverse impacts
to resource adequacy and reliability.
The EPA is aware some plants planning on cessation of coal
combustion may choose to delay cessation of coal combustion or may be
pushed to delay planned closures or repowering. At this time, the EPA
is unable to quantify the costs of the proposed measures. However, as
discussed above, amortization of investments in upgrades and wastewater
treatment equipment spread out over additional years or pushed out
further results in lower annual costs and thus may improve long-term
affordability. It is the EPA's expectation that the proposed changes in
this Notice would reduce industry compliance costs. The EPA may, if new
and relevant data are received, quantify the costs of any final rule
using the same models and methodologies used in the 2020 and 2024
rules.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is a significant regulatory action that was
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. From
a 2024 rule baseline, the EPA estimated that the proposed action would
result in annualized cost savings of $30 million to $87 million and
forgone benefits of $46 million to $110 million at a three percent
discount rate. At a 7 percent discount rate, the estimated annualized
cost savings are $79 million to $215 million and forgone benefits are
$99 million to $240 million.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory
action. If finalized, this proposed rule would reduce regulatory
burdens by providing additional time for the regulated community
associated with their decision making.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 7814.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing several new reporting and recordkeeping
requirements or changes as part of the proposed rule. First, to
implement the final rule's expanded transfer flexibilities, under CWA
sections 304(i) and 308, this proposed rule includes expanded reporting
and recordkeeping
[[Page 47710]]
requirements in 40 CFR 423.19(l). Second, to implement the proposed
rule's new tiered PSES for facilities that wish to receive
applicability dates as a direct discharger from a permitting authority
the rule includes a new reporting and recordkeeping requirement in 40
CFR 423.19(p). Finally, to implement the proposed rule's new
flexibility for alternative applicability dates, the rule includes two
new reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 423.19(q).
Specifically, the proposed rule includes requirements for an initial
request letter and regular progress reports. The EPA also notes that
with these additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements, the
proposed rule also expands the filings required to be posted to each
plant's public-facing website.
Respondents/affected entities: steam electric facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 423.19).
Estimated number of respondents: 60.
Frequency of response: Annually.
Total estimated burden: 2,880 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $308,400 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operations & maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than November 3, 2025.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern
for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small
entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities
subject to the rule. This action consists of a compliance date
extension for the steam electric industry, including small entities,
which will allow for greater flexibility for compliance. We have
therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for
all directly regulated small entities. Additionally, the EPA previously
certified that the 2024 rule, which had a higher cost burden than is
anticipated for this action, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (89 FR
40198).
As small entities were estimated to incur an estimated 19 percent
of the annualized compliance costs for meeting bottom ash, FGD, and
managed CRL limits in the 2024 rule analysis, the EPA expect that they
may see a corresponding share of the estimated cost savings from the
compliance date extension (i.e., total savings of $6 million to $16
million at a three percent discount and $15 million to $40 million at a
seven percent discount rate).
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This proposed action does not contain an unfunded mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The proposed action imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action would not have tribal implications as
specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct
effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes as
specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA's analyses show that no
plant subject to the final ELGs is owned by Tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this proposed action
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this proposed action
does not concern human health, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health
also does not apply.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed action is not a ``significant energy action'' because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The proposed compliance date extensions
would allow EGUs to continue operations with additional time for
decision-making and will not adversely impact supply, distribution, or
use.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423
Environmental protection, Electric power generation, Power
facilities, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 423 as follows:
PART 423--STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
0
1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), (g),
and (i)(A) and (B); 1316; 1317; 1318 and 1361.
0
2. Amend Sec. 423.13 by:
[[Page 47711]]
0
a. Revising paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(A), (k)(4)(i), and (l)(1)(i)(A); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (o)(1)(iii).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Dischargers must meet the effluent limitations for FGD
wastewater in this paragraph (g)(4)(i) by a date determined by the
permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8,
2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. These effluent limitations
apply to the discharge of FGD wastewater generated on and after the
date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the effluent
limitations, as specified in this paragraph (g)(4)(i).
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Except for those discharges to which paragraphs (k)(4)(ii)
through (iv) of this section applies, or when the bottom ash transport
water is used in the FGD scrubber, there shall be no discharge of
pollutants in bottom ash transport water. Dischargers must meet the
discharge limitation in this paragraph (k)(4)(i) by a date determined
by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July
8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. The limitation in this
paragraph (k)(4)(i) applies to the discharge of bottom ash transport
water generated on and after the date determined by the permitting
authority for meeting the discharge limitation, as specified in this
paragraph (k)(4)(i).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Dischargers must meet the effluent limitations for combustion
residual leachate in this paragraph (l)(1)(i) by a date determined by
the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8,
2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. The effluent limitations in
this paragraph (l)(1)(i) apply to the discharge of combustion residual
leachate generated on and after the date determined by the permitting
authority for meeting the effluent limitations, as specified in this
paragraph (l)(1)(i).
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) On or before December 31, 2034, a facility may convert:
(A) From the generally applicable zero discharge limitations under
paragraphs (g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i) of this section to
limitations for electric generating units permanently ceasing coal
combustion under paragraphs (g)(4)(iii), (k)(4)(iii), or (l)(2)(i) of
this section; or
(B) From limitations for electric generating units permanently
ceasing coal combustion under paragraphs (g)(4)(iii), (k)(4)(iii), or
(l)(2)(i) of this section to the generally applicable zero discharge
limitations under paragraphs (g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i) of this
section.
0
3. Amend Sec. 423.16 by revising paragraphs (e)(3), (g)(3), and (j)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 423.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) 2024 PSES. Except as provided for in paragraph (e)(4) of this
section, for any electric generating unit with a total nameplate
generating capacity of more than 50 megawatts and that is not an oil-
fired unit:
(i) Dischargers must meet the standards in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER]. The standards in paragraph (e)(1) of this section
apply to the discharge of FGD wastewater generated on and after [DATE 3
YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(ii) By the dates in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section
there shall be no discharge of pollutants in FGD wastewater:
(A) [DATE 3 YEARS PLUS ONE DAY AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]; or
(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to
Sec. 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) 2024 PSES. Except as provided for in paragraph (g)(4) of this
section, for any electric generating unit with a total nameplate
generating capacity of more than 50 megawatts and that is not an oil-
fired unit:
(i) Dischargers must meet the standards in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER]. The standards in paragraph (g)(1) of this section
apply to the discharge of bottom ash transport water generated on and
after [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(ii) By the dates in paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this
section, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash
transport water:
(A) [DATE 3 YEARS PLUS ONE DAY AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]; or
(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to
Sec. 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) 2024 PSES. Until and including the dates specified in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and(ii), or paragraph (j)(2) of this section, the
EPA is declining to establish PSES for combustion residual leachate and
is reserving such standards to be established by the control authority
on a case-by-case.
(i) Except for those discharges to which paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of
this section applies, by the dates in paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of
this section, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in combustion
residual leachate:
(A) [DATE 3 YEARS PLUS ONE DAY AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]; or
(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to
section 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.
(ii) After the retirement of all units at a facility, the quantity
of pollutants in CRL shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of CRL permeate times the concentrations listed in
the table 7 to Sec. 423.13(g)(3)(i) or the flow of CRL distillate
times the concentrations listed in the table in Sec. 423.15(b)(13).
0
4. Amend Sec. 423.18 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 423.18 Permit conditions.
* * * * *
(d)(1) Notwithstanding the dates associated with any limitations in
Sec. 423.13(g), (k), or (l), a permitting authority shall establish,
in a facility's permit, an alternative applicability date and, where
appropriate, an associated schedule of milestones, for achieving the
required limitations when the facility meets one of the circumstances
in paragraph (3), provided that the facility submits an initial request
letter pursuant to section 423.19(q) and the permitting authority finds
that request factually supported in the letter and attachments
provided.
(2) Notwithstanding the dates associated with any notice of planned
participation required to be submitted under sections 423.19(g), (j),
or (l), a
[[Page 47712]]
permitting authority may accept a late notice of planned participation
provided that the facility meets one of the circumstances in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section, submits an initial request letter pursuant to
Sec. 423.19(q), and the permitting authority finds that request
factually supported in the letter and attachments provided. Transfers
pursuant to Sec. 423.13(o)(1)(ii) but receiving alternative Sec.
423.19(l) submission dates in this paragraph (d)(2) shall be deemed
timely. In no case may a late notice of planned participation be
accepted pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2) after December 31, 2028.
(3) Circumstances which a permitting authority shall find warrant
an alternative applicability date or later notice of planned
participation submission date based on factual support under paragraphs
(d)(1) or (2) of this section include:
(i) Where a facility needs an alternative applicability date upon
making a permissible transfer between limitations prior to the
deadlines in Sec. 423.13(o) due to:
(A) An unexpected change in regional capacity market prices; or
(B) An unexpected change in local demand which materially exceeds
projections made in the most recent iterations of integrated resource
plans or other planning documents;
(ii) Where a facility has one or more electric generating units
using a wastewater treatment system treating combined wastewater (e.g.,
wastewater from a single flue gas desulfurization system servicing
different units) and needs an alternative applicability date after
making a decision to back out of a commitment to permanently cease coal
combustion at one or more different electric generating units at the
same plant due to:
(A) An unexpected change in regional capacity market prices; or
(B) An unexpected change in local demand which materially exceeds
projections made in the most recent iterations of integrated resource
plans or other planning documents;
(iii) Where a facility needs an alternative applicability date
because it faces an unexpected supply chain issue that delays a
necessary component (not merely a preferred component where there are
reasonable substitutes) at a key stage of fabrication or installation
such that the timeline for reaching steady-state treatment is delayed;
or
(iv) Where a facility faces any other circumstance that requires
additional time and is wholly outside both the facility's control and
the facility's ability to plan for.
(4) A facility availing itself of this paragraph may consider the
alternative applicability dates or alternative notice of planned
participation submission dates when evaluating compliance for purposes
of Sec. 423.13(o)(2).
0
5. Amend Sec. 423.19 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (h)(1), (l) introductory paragraph, and
(l)(1); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (p) and (q).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 423.19 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, each
facility subject to one or more of the reporting requirements in
paragraphs (d) through (q) of this section must maintain a publicly
accessible internet site (ELG website) containing the information
specified in paragraphs (d) through (q) of this section, if applicable.
This website shall be titled ``ELG Rule Compliance Data and
Information.'' The facility must ensure that all information required
to be posted is immediately available to anyone visiting the site,
without requiring any prerequisite, such as registration or a
requirement to submit a document request. All required information must
be clearly identifiable and must be able to be immediately downloaded
by anyone accessing the site in a format that enables additional
analysis (e.g., comma-separated values text file format). When the
facility initially creates, or later changes, the web address (i.e.,
Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) at any point, they must notify the EPA
via the ``contact us'' form on EPA's Effluent Guidelines website and
the permitting authority or control authority within 14 days of
creating the website or making the change. The facility's ELG website
must also have a ``contact us'' form or a specific email address posted
on the website for the public to use to submit questions and issues
relating to the availability of information on the website.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Notice of Planned Participation. For sources seeking to qualify
as an electric generating unit that will achieve permanent cessation of
coal combustion by December 31, 2034, under this part, a Notice of
Planned Participation shall be made to the permitting authority, or to
the control authority in the case of an indirect discharger, no later
than December 31, 2031.
* * * * *
(l) Requirements for facilities seeking protections under this
part--
(1) Notice of Planned Participation. For sources which intend to
make changes that would qualify them for a different set of
requirements under Sec. 423.13(o), a Notice of Planned Participation
shall be made to the permitting authority, or to the control authority
in the case of an indirect discharger, no later than the dates stated
in Sec. 423.13(o)(1).
* * * * *
(p) Requirements for facilities subject to zero discharge
pretreatment standards for existing sources by 2034. For sources
seeking to be subject to the second tier of the tiered standards in
Sec. 423.16(e)(3)(ii)(B), (g)(3)(ii)(B), or (j)(2)(i)(B), a
certification statement shall be submitted to the control authority by
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] stating that the facility has submitted a permit application,
permit renewal application, or permit modification request to its
permitting authority seeking an as soon as possible date for achieving
the corresponding generally applicable zero discharge limitations in
Sec. 423.13(g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i), subject to the
considerations in Sec. 423.11(t). Furthermore, the certification
statement will include an affirmative statement that the facility will
also cease its indirect discharge by the as soon as possible date
determined in this permitting action.
(q) Requirements for facilities seeking an alternative
applicability date under this part.
(1) Initial request letter. A facility may submit a letter to its
permitting authority requesting that it receive an alternative
applicability date pursuant to Sec. 423.18(d).
(2) Contents and Timing. The initial request letter must detail the
significant unexpected circumstance in Sec. 423.18(d)(2) and a
compelling narrative that explains why these unexpected circumstances
warrant an alternative applicability date by the permitting authority
in light of the facility's plans and execution of those plans. The
letter must also contain a proposed schedule of compliance to be
incorporated into the permit, supported by detailed engineering
dependency chart that clearly shows the milestones leading to
compliance as soon as possible given the unexpected circumstances
described in the letter, including contingencies for critical path
steps. In the case of a missed notice of planned participation, annual
progress report, or other reporting or recordkeeping requirement that
should have been submitted prior to [DATE 60
[[Page 47713]]
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the
letter must also attach such reporting requirements. Such submissions
shall be deemed timely by the permitting authority. The facility shall
submit an initial request letter within 60 days of the significant
unexpected circumstance detailed in the letter or by [DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever
is later.
(3) Progress Reports. A facility that submits an initial request
letter pursuant to paragraph (q)(1) of this section must submit regular
progress reports with its permitting authority at a frequency
determined in paragraph (q)(4) of this section.
(4) Contents and Timing. Progress reports must include a
description of tasks and sub-tasks completed towards each of the
milestones listed in the initial request letter, any changes to the
expected dates of milestones, and any contingencies from the initial
request letter which have been effectuated. The permitting authority
shall establish the timing of regular progress reports based on the
following considerations:
(i) The estimated duration of the alternative applicability timing;
(ii) The timeframes of various milestones, tasks, and sub-tasks;
(iii) The number and magnitude of contingencies; and
(iv) Any other appropriate and relevant factor.
(5) Request letter. A facility may submit a single initial request
letter under this paragraph (q)(5) to provide factual support for
circumstances specified in Sec. 423.18(d)(3) that would support of one
or more requests for alternative dates in Sec. 423.18(d)(1) or (2).
[FR Doc. 2025-19268 Filed 10-1-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 2, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.