                Summary of State CAIR Allocation Methodologies
                                       

Are allocations adjusted for fuel type (including fuel adjustment factors)?
DC
Yes, FIP
DE
Yes, FIP
MD
Yes, model rule methodology
GA
Yes, model rule methodology
KY
Yes, model rule methodology
MS
Yes, model rule methodology
TN
Yes, model rule methodology
IN
Yes, model rule methodology
OH
Yes, model rule methodology
FL
Yes, model rule methodology (plus bonus for biomass  -  150%)
WV
Yes, model rule methodology (no gas units, so they did not include the gas factor)
LA
Yes, model rule methodology for utility units
IA
Yes, model rule-like (including the fuel adjustment factors), but permanent
TX
Yes (coal 0.9; nat. gas 0.5; non-coal non-nat.gas 0.3)
SC
Yes (coal 1.0; non-coal 0.6)
MI
Yes, for units with permit limits 0.10 #/MMBtu; others: No, heat input
IL
Yes, output
NY
No, heat input
VA
No, heat input
AL
No, heat input
MA
No, output
WI
No, output
AR
No, output
NJ
No, output, includes rewards for lower emitting units
CT
No, output,  weighted 120% to pre-1990 units in 2009-2011
PA
No, output, with extra for ARP-exempt units (waste coal)
MO
No, table in rule, no formula
NC
No, table in rule, no formula

The model rule methodology included fuel adjustment factors for determining allocations (1.0 for coal, 0.60 for oil, and 0.40 for gas or other fuels).  This methodology was also used for allocating under CAIR FIPs.
Seventeen states adjusted allocations based on fuel type (13 of those were either FIP allocations or SIP-based allocations that used the model allocation methodology or a close variation).
Eleven states based allocations on other factors and did not adjust for fuel-type.
