Transcript No Slide Title

Page 1
S. 3135
The Clean Air Planning Act of 2002
Presentation for Jeff Holmstead
November 2002
Page 2
Overview of Presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Provisions of S.3135
Analytical Methods
Results of Analysis
Notes on Cost Considerations
Notes on Implementation and Administration of S.3135
Page 3
Introduction
•
On October 17, 2002, Senator Carper (D-DE) introduced multi-pollutant
control legislation for the U.S. power sector. The legislation was co-sponsored
by Senators Baucus, Breaux, and Chafee.
•
The proposal, which includes caps for sulfur dioxide (SO2),nitrogen oxides
(NOx), mercury (Hg), and carbon dioxide (CO2), joins previously introduced
legislation such as the Administration’s Clear Skies Act and Senator Jeffords’
Clean Power Act.
Page 4
Comparison of Caps and Timing:
S.3135, Clear Skies, and S.556
Senator Carper’s Proposal (S.3135)
SO2
Clear Skies (S. 2815)
Senator Jeffords’ Proposal (S. 556)
2008: 4.5 million tons.
2010: 4.5 million tons.
2008: 2.25 million tons.
2012: 3.5 million tons.
2018: 3.0 million tons.
(1.975 m tons in the East and 275,000
tons in WRAP + MT/WA).
2008: 2.1 million tons.
(Separate trading zones for the E/W).
2008: 1.51 million tons.
2015: 2.25 million tons.
NOx
2008: 1.87 million tons.
2012: 1.7 million tons.
2018: 1.7 million tons.
(Separate trading zones for the E/W).
Hg
2008: 24 tons, plus a 50% source-specific
reduction from Hg in coal.
2010: 26 tons.
2008: 5 tons.
2018: 15 tons.
(aggregate cap is based on a limit on the
emissions rate from each unit).
2008: 2005 levels (2.564 billion short
tons, or 635.7 MMTCE)
Does not include emission constraint.
2008: 2.26 billion short tons or 507
MMTCE.
2012: 2001 levels (2.398 billion short
tons, or 593.4 MMTCE).
2010: 2.60 billion short tons
2012: Between 5.25 - 15.75 tons (cap
determined by the Administrator), in
addition to a source-specific 70%
reduction from mercury in coal.
CO2
Projected emissions are:
(or 645.7 MMTCE)
GHG offsets are available.
2020: 2.80 billion short tons
(or 695.0 MMTCE)
Page 5
Other Provisions of S.3135
•
Applies to large fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units (greater than 25 MW) that
generate electricity for sale.
– For CO2, the bill also covers nuclear and renewable units.
– For mercury, the bill is limited to coal-fired units.
– For SO2, the bill covers only units affected by the Acid Rain Program (i.e., does not include
non-utility generators).
•
NOx, CO2, and Hg allowances allocated using updating, output-based system with set-aside
for new units. SO2 allowances allocated using an adjusted Acid Rain Program distribution
with set-aside for new units.
•
Domestic and international greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets are permitted for compliance with
the CO2 cap. Offsets may come from non-capped sources, and either sequestration or nonsequestration projects.
– Early reduction credits from project-based reductions made between 1990-2007 can be used
in 2008 or thereafter. However these early reductions are limited to no more than 10% of the
2008 cap level (~256 million short tons CO2).
•
Caps reviewed 15 years after enactment of legislation and sunset at 20 years.
•
Provides regulatory relief from NSR by changing the definition of “modification” in attainment
areas, capping LAER at twice BACT cost and adding cost considerations, and eliminating
offsets for new units in non-attainment areas.
–
Also exempts affected units from mercury MACT and BART (for 20 years).
Page 6
Analytical Methodology
•
The Integrated Planning Model (IPM) was used to model the impacts of S.3135 on both
costs and emissions. This model is used by the electric generating industry for strategic
planning purposes, and has been used to support numerous EPA rulemakings for control
of emissions from the power sector.
•
The provisions in the bill were modeled as closely as possible with some important
aspects of S.3135 simplified to accommodate time constraints.
– Annual, nationwide caps on emissions of NOx, SO2 and Hg, with unrestricted trading.
– The Hg cap in 2012 was modeled as 10 tons to approximate the S.3135 range of 5 to 16
tons. The 50 and 70 percent plant-specific reduction of mercury from coal content were
modeled in 2008 and 2012, respectively, as specified in the bill.
– A CO2 cap was not modeled in IPM because the broad availability of inexpensive GHG
offsets suggests that sources would purchase offsets rather than invest in emission
controls. Offset costs were modeled offline using preliminary estimates of transaction costs.
– The sources covered by S.3135 were modeled with several simplifying assumptions :
• SO2 was modeled for units greater than 25 MW, rather than the Acid Rain Program (ARP)
units specified by S.3135; and,
• CO2 modeling included all units (including nuclear and renewable units) that sell to the grid,
including units smaller than 25 MW not covered by S.3135
– EPA did not model the 271,000 ton WRAP cap in S.3135.
– The potential impacts of the allocation methodology were not included in the cost estimates.
– Only existing CAA programs were included in the modeling.
Page 7
Projected Emissions under S.3135
Page 8
Projected Annual Costs of S.3135
Projected Annual Program Costs (1999$)
•
Offline analysis showed that
the costs of compliance for
the CO2 constraint would be
low due to the wide
availability of inexpensive
GHG offsets. The net cost
of the CO2 cap is negligible.
•
The net present value (NPV)
of the difference in costs
between S.3135 and the
EPA Base Case is $89.9
billion ($1999) for the period
between 2005 and 2030.
(Clear Skies is $65.37 billion
($1999) for the same period.)
Note: Cost projections are based on modeling using IPM. These projections show the costs to power generators over and above the costs they will incur
to meet statutory and regulatory requirements that are already in effect. The projections do not take into account future regulatory actions to address fine
particulates, ozone, or mercury, nor do they include costs associated with the allocation methodology.
Page 9
Projected Allowance Prices for S.3135
•
Under S.3135, the projected
marginal costs of SO2 and NOx
reductions are well below
$2,000/ton. The projected
marginal cost of Hg reductions
range between $1,909/lb and
$3212/lb, or $119/oz to $201/oz.
•
Modeled projections of the
marginal cost of Hg reductions
are significantly lower than
would be expected because
IPM attributes much of the cost
of installing mercury control to
compliance with the facilityspecific constraint and not the
trading program (i.e., the
allowance price).
Note: The dollar value is the projected allowance price, representing
the marginal cost (i.e., the cost of reducing the last ton) of emissions
reductions. Marginal costs are based on modeling using IPM.
Page 10
Projected Coal Capacity with Emissions Controls
•
Graphics show cumulative capacity with existing controls, in addition to controls projected to be
retrofitted under the NOx SIP call and Title IV, as well as controls projected to be retrofitted under
S. 3135.
•
Due to plant-specific mercury requirement, a substantial amount of ACI -- approximately 34 GW -- is
projected to be retrofitted under S.3135. Without the plant specific constraint, some sources would
likely comply with the 2012 Hg cap (5 -16 tons) by purchasing Hg allowances from large plants that
have achieved larger than required Hg reductions as co-benefits of their NOx and SO2 controls.
Page 11
National Coal Production in 1990, 2000 and Projected
Production under S.3135 in 2020
Note:
1990 data: Coal Industry Annual 1994, Table 4 (DOE/EIA-0584 (2000)).
2000 data: Coal Industry Annual 2000, Table 4 and Table 63 (DOE/EIA-0584 (2000)), January, 2002.
2020 production for the power generation sector: Derived from the Integrated Planning Model.
2020 production for other sectors: Derived from the National Energy Modeling System.
In 1990, EIA did not report the coal produced for power generators. From 1998-2000, 85% of coal produced was for the power generation sector. For an
estimate of coal produced for the power generation sector in 1990, EPA assumed the same percentage (85%).
Page 12
Impacts on Fuel Prices
•
Under S.3135, natural gas
prices are projected to
increase by approximately
1.3% in 2020, compared to
the Base Case.
•
Under S.3135, coal prices
would decrease by
approximately 5.6% in 2020
compared to the Base Case.
Note: The coal price represents an average minemouth price across all twelve grades of coal in the model. The natural gas price is the Henry Hub
price. Average national fuel prices are EPA’s estimates.
Page 13
Projected Generation Mix in 2020 for S.3135
•
New electricity generation is projected to come primarily from gas-fired turbines.
•
No retirement of existing coal-fired capacity is projected. Approximately 1 GW of coal capacity is
projected to repower to combined cycle.
•
Nuclear generation is projected to increase by approximately 1% over the Base Case and renewable
generation is projected to remain the same.
2020 generation mix: Projections are from EPA’s modeling using IPM, The “Other” category includes generation from nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and fuel
cells. Control technology percentages are approximations.
Page 14
Impact on Electricity Prices of S.3135
Note: Retail prices through 2003 are from
AEO2000. Prices for the period after 2003 were
calculated using the Retail Electricity Price
Model.
•
Retail electricity prices are
expected to gradually
decline with or without
S.3135 because of efficiency
improvements and ongoing
restructuring in the electricity
generating sector.
•
Under S.3135, retail
electricity prices are
expected to be slightly
higher than the Base Case,
as well as slightly higher
than under Clear Skies
(~ 0.2 cents/KWh).
•
Retail electricity price
projections do not include
the potential impacts of
S.3135’s updating, outputbased allocation system
which would slightly lower
the price.
Page 15
CO2 Offsets Analysis: Required Offsets under S.3135
CO 2 Emissions (Million Short Tons)
U.S. Power Sector CO2 Emissions
•
The S.3135 CO2 Baseline is lower
than EPA’s Base Case due to the
“co-benefits” of controls on SO2,,
NOx, and Hg.
•
The S.3135 2008-2011 cap level
is the AEO 2002 projection for
emissions in 2005. The cap after
2011 is set at 2001 emissions
(interpolated).
•
The number of offsets required in
a given year is the difference
between the S.3135 CO2 Baseline
and the S.3135 cap level. This
analysis is conducted only for
2010 and 2020.
•
There is no binding offset
requirement in 2010, but offsets
equivalent to 373 million short
tons would be required by 2020.
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
2005
2007
2009
EPA's Base Case
2011
2013
S.3135 Baseline
2015
2017
2019
S.3135 CO2 Cap Level
Notes:
1) S.3135 allows “early reduction credits” of up to ten percent of 2008 emission
levels (256 million short tons). We assume that these allowances are used between
2012-2015 to smooth the transition to the lower cap level.
2) S.3135 expresses the CO2 constraint in terms of “short tons of CO2.” One million
short tons of CO2 is equivalent to .25 million metric tons of carbon.
Page 16
CO2 Offsets Analysis: Cases Analyzed
Offset Program Effectiveness
• CO2 offset prices are highly dependent on the design of the offset program.
Public awareness of the program, the complexity of the requirements, and the
effectiveness of the approval process all influence offset prices. This analysis
uses a methodology constructed in consultation with CEA for the SmithVoinovich-Brownback analysis regarding the modeling of a stringent offset
program.
• S.3135 leaves offsets program design decisions to the Administrator and an
Independent Review Board. Depending on the final program design, offset
prices and total costs could be different from the results of this analysis.
Transactions Costs
• Certain “deal making costs” are incurred in the purchase of offsets. These
include search costs, attorney fees, insurance costs, emissions monitoring,
approval costs, etc. Transactions costs would add to the costs of offsets.
• There is little experience with a functioning GHG offsets program and a lack of
data on transactions costs, preliminary estimates suggest a range of $.50 to
$1.00 per short ton of CO2 (~$2 to $4 per metric ton of carbon equivalent).
Page 17
CO2 Offsets Analysis: Results*
2010
2020
-10
373
155
208
$0.48
$0.73
Abatement Costs
(248)
(359)
Positive costs
Economic savings
10
258
27
385
$0.98 - $1.48
$1.23 - $1.73
Abatement Costs
(174) - (99)
(254) – (150)
Positive costs
Economic savings
84 – 168
258
131 – 235
385
Emissions over Cap
million short tons CO2
Offsets Purchased
Assuming Banking
million short tons CO2
Without Transactions Costs
Offset Prices
1999$ per short ton CO2
millions of 1999$
With Transactions Costs
Offset Prices
1999$ per short ton CO2
millions of 1999$
* Other analyses which do not model, for example, voluntary programs, non-CO2 or
forestry abatement options, will likely find higher prices and abatement costs.
CO2 Offsets Analysis Note: No Need for International
Offsets
With reasonable assumptions regarding the international market for offsets and
the Kyoto Protocol, analysis shows the international market price for offsets
would be higher than the domestic price of offsets under S.3135, and affected
sources would not have an incentive to seek international offsets.
•
Assuming that other countries implement the Kyoto Protocol, there would
be an international GHG offset market in which the U.S. affected sources
would compete.
•
As the U.S. is not a party to Kyoto, this analysis assumes that other
countries will not be able to purchase offsets in the U.S.
•
Kyoto is currently silent on commitments after 2012 - this analysis assumes
that the emissions targets remain unchanged through 2020.
•
Russia has significant excess emissions, (the so-called “hot air”) and likely
has some control over the offset market. This analysis assumes that
Russia withholds 800 million short tons worth of offsets to maximize the
price it receives.
Page 18
Page 19
Potential Impacts of the Allocation Approach
•
The impacts that could result from the updating, output-based allocation methodology
were studied using an offline spreadsheet model known as the Technology Retrofit and
Updating Model.
•
Relative to a permanent allocation, the updating, output-based allocation system
proposed by S.3135 would likely:
–
–
–
–
•
increase generation, in the range of 0.6%;
lower wholesale electricity prices by about 4.0%;
depress annual net revenues up to $4 billion per year by inadvertently lowering electricity
prices; and,
have negligible impacts on the costs of emission reductions, adding less than $10 million
annually (or less 0.25% of the total costs) -- well within the margin of modeling error.
The value of allowances received by coal units under S.3135’s updating system is less
than under a permanent allocation, since a proportion of the allowances in S.3135 are
shifted to new units, which are expected to be predominantly gas-fired plants or new
non-fossil generation.
Page 20
Additional considerations on costs…
•
The costs presented in this analysis are the result of a single modeling effort with
numerous assumptions. There are many variables that could significantly affect the
costs and others outcomes of the modeling. Most important among these are:
•
The Phase II Hg cap that was modeled in this analysis; at the lower end of the 5-16 ton range,
costs would be significantly higher.
–
•
•
Preliminary estimates using the Technology Retrofit and Updating Model suggest that annual costs
could rise by approximately $0.9 billion, or 10%, under a 5-ton cap in 2020.
The price for offsets, which could be higher depending on availability and transactions costs.
–
Analysis suggests that if there are fewer offsets available than modeled, costs would rise.
–
The price of offsets are not incorporated into the model’s solution for generation dispatch and could
slightly affect the program costs, if incorporated.
The costs associated with the updating allocation system, which were discussed earlier.
Page 21
Annual Human Health Benefits of Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) Reductions1
Preliminary Estimate
Carper Proposal (S.3135) 3
Clear Skies (S. 2815) 2
2010
2020
2010
2020
Premature Mortality, Chronic
9,600
17,800
6,400
11,900
Chronic Bronchitis
5,800
10,900
3,900
7,400
ER/Hospital Admissions
8,400
15,500
5,600
10,400
Minor Illnesses/Symptoms
11,000,000
20,000,000
7,200,000
13,500,000
Total Health Benefits Value
(millions of 1999$)
$65,000
$140,000
$43,000
$93,000
Preliminary estimates indicate that, in 2020, Americans would experience approximately 17,800 fewer cases of
premature mortality and $140 billion in health benefits each year under S.3135 (approximately $50 billion more
than under Clear Skies in 2020).
For both S.3135 and Clear Skies, these benefit estimates include only health benefits due to reductions in
PM2.5. These benefits do not include:
Improvements in visibility in National Parks due to reductions in PM2.5 (these benefits would be approximately $3 billion per
year under Clear Skies in 2020).
Health and welfare improvements due to reductions in ozone.
Many additional benefits that EPA is not currently able to monetize but that are expected to be substantial, including
reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, mercury exposure, and acid deposition.
1. All human health and environmental benefit projections were calculated in comparison to existing Clean Air Act programs.
2. The key assumptions, uncertainties, and valuation methodologies underlying the approaches used to produce the benefits of Clear Skies are detailed in Technical Addendum:
Methodologies for Benefit Analysis of the Clear Skies Act, 2002.
3. Air quality and benefits modeling was not done for S.3135. These preliminary projections were estimated by comparing projected national S.3135 SO2 emissions reductions
to previously modeled control cases, as described in the Benefits Methods slide that follows.
Page 22
Attainment with the PM2.5 and 8-hour Ozone Standards 1
Base
Case
Preliminary Estimate for
Senator Carper’s Proposal
(S.3135)3
Clear Skies
(S. 2815) 2
Number of counties projected
to be out of attainment with
the PM2.5 standard
2010
101
53
67
2020
100
36
46
Number of counties projected
to be out of attainment with
the 8-hour ozone standard
2010
74
64
64
2020
41
33
33
In 2010, compared to the Base Case, S.3135 is expected to bring:
48 additional counties into attainment with the PM2.5 standard; and
10 additional counties into attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard
In 2020, compared to the Base Case, S.3135 is expected to bring:
10 additional counties into attainment with the PM2.5 standard; and
8 additional counties into attainment with the ozone standard.
Reductions in PM2.5 and ozone under S.3135 would bring the remaining nonattainment counties closer
to attainment and provide additional improvements in areas that are expected to already meet the
standards.
1. This analysis shows the counties that would come into attainment due to Clear Skies or S.3135 alone in 2010 or 2020. Additional federal and state programs are designed to bring all counties into attainment by 2017 at the
latest. All human health and environmental benefit projections were calculated in comparison to the Base Case, which includes all finalized EPA regulations that are expected to be in effect in 2010 and 2020 (e.g., the NOx SIP
Call, the Tier 2 rule). The Base Case does not include additional planned regulations that the states or EPA will pursue in order to lower emissions across the country.
2. To permit comparisons among various analyses, the air quality data used in the Clear Skies Act analysis were the most complete and recently available as of mid-2001 (1997-1999 ozone monitoring data and 1999-2000 PM2.5
data). More complete and recent air quality data for ozone and fine particles (1999-2001 data) is now available. This updated data indicate differences in the likely attainment status of some counties compared to what is shown
here.
3. Air quality modeling was not done for S.3135. These preliminary projections were estimated by comparing projected national S.3135 SO2 or NOx emissions reductions to previously modeled control cases, as described in the
Benefits Methods slide that follows.
Page 23
Health Benefits and Attainment Methodology
•
Air quality and benefits modeling was not done for S.3135. These preliminary projections were
estimated by comparing S.3135 to previously modeled control scenarios with similar reductions
in national emissions:
– Reductions in SO2 emissions were used to estimate health benefits and PM2.5 attainment.
– Reductions in NOx emissions were used to estimate ozone attainment.
•
Because extensive emissions, air quality, and benefits modeling was not done for S.3135, the
S.3135 analysis has additional uncertainty compared to the Clear Skies analysis. Several
potential sources of uncertainty should be noted:
–
NOx emissions reductions are not taken into consideration to estimate the PM-related health
benefits or the PM2.5 attainment. The S.3135 analysis, therefore, does not account for the
potential contribution of NOx to these endpoints.
–
National emissions only were used in the interpolations. If there are differences in the spatial
distribution of emissions between S.3135 and the modeled scenarios (e.g., if one scenario has a
higher percentage of its emissions downwind from population centers), this analysis may
underestimate or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits
• A preliminary analysis of state-level emissions and benefits showed that, compared to certain modeled
scenarios, S.3135 is expected to have a large percentage of reductions in states that contribute to fine
particle concentrations in heavily populated areas of the East Coast in 2020. It is likely, therefore, that the
S.3135 health benefits estimate underestimates the true benefits of the proposal in 2020.
Page 24
Implementation: Engineering and Economic Analysis
•
•
Estimates for the resources required for the construction and operation of
scrubbers, SCR and ACI under S.3135 were compared to their supply in
today’s market.
Boilermaker labor is likely to be limiting and significant activated carbon
production capacity will need to be added before the 2008.
Resources Required for Construction and Operation of Control Technologies
•
Compared to the U.S. consumption of resources, S.3135 would require:
– significant increase of activated carbon production capacity (to accommodate the
projected ACI installations) by 2008;
– less than 2% of the U.S. consumption (out to 2010) of limestone for scrubbers;
– approximately 3% of the U.S. consumption (out to 2010) of ammonia for SCRs ;
– 45% of the current cumulative SCR catalyst production capacity in 2005 (increasing
to 47 % in 2010);
– less than 0.1% of U.S. consumption of steel; and,
– additional system hardware which is expected to be readily available.
Page 25
Implementation: Engineering and Economic Analysis
Labor Resources Required for Construction of Control Technologies
• Boilermaker labor, used primarily by the electric utility industry, is expected to
be limiting out to 2005.
Boilermaker Labor
(1000 man-hrs)
–
10 GW of the projected 47 GW of scrubbers may be completed by 2005 due to the
simultaneous installation of SCRs for the NOx SIP call.
37 GW of the projected 47 GW of scrubbers will likely be pushed back beyond 2005.
Boilermaker Supply vs. S.3135
Boilermaker Supply vs. S.3135 Sensitivity
(47 GW of scrubbers by 2005)
(10 GW of Scrubbers by 2005)
35,000
35,000
30,000
30,000
Boilermaker Labor
(1000 man-hrs)
–
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
•
25,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Other Utility Demand
Other Utility Demand
S.3135 Demand
Utility Boilermaker Supply
S.3135 Demand
Utility Boilermaker Supply
General construction labor requirements for control technology installations
are expected to be less than 0.3% of the current national labor pool of
workers.
Page 26
Notes on Implementation and Administration of S.3135
GHG Offset Provisions
•
Independent review board (composed mostly of outside stakeholders) is given an
inherently governmental function in conducting the administrative task of case-by-case
review of projects, rather than the advisory function on the overall guidelines.
•
No specific criteria for developing guidelines for non-sequestration projects, similar to
those specified for sequestration projects, are included. For example, lacks key
provisions to address issues such as “leakage.”
•
Permits GHG reductions from “internationally recognized” reduction programs to be
used for CO2 offsets without requiring that EPA certify the adequacy of the programs.
Page 27
Notes on Implementation and Administration of S.3135
Caps and Emission Limits:
•
Non-utility electricity generating units are excluded from SO2 cap and trading program
but included in NOx, Hg, and CO2 caps and trading programs.
•
SO2, NOx, and Hg caps sunset 20 years after enactment with no default annual
emissions limits if EPA was not able to promulgate new caps.
•
CO2 cap in 2008 is based upon projections of 2005 emissions that will be made in the
future and are not required to be subject to public review and comment.
•
The promulgation deadline of January 1, 2004, for the 2012 Hg cap, as well as for the
NOx, Hg, and CO2 trading program and emissions monitoring rules, provides insufficient
time to propose and finalize regulations.
•
EPA is directed to set an output-based emission rate as the facility-specific mercury limit
starting in 2012, but no criteria are specified.
Page 28
Notes on Implementation and Administration of S.3135
Allowance Allocations
•
NOx, Hg, and CO2 allocations for individual units must be recalculated each year based
upon updated information.
•
EPA is required to establish set-asides for allocations to individual new units based on
projected electricity output. Provision barring judicial review of individual allocations
does not bar review of set-asides and underlying projections.
•
EPA is required to allocate “equitably” to cogeneration facilities (with respect to NOx and
Hg) but does not direct EPA to include thermal output in determining NOx, Hg, and CO2
allocations.
Other Provisions
•
NOx, Hg, and CO2 emissions may be monitored using less accurate methods than SO2
emissions, i.e., methods other than CEMS or an alternate method determined by EPA to
have comparable precision, reliability, accuracy, and timing.
•
Change in NSR modification definition only applies in attainment areas.
Page 29
Next Steps
Further Actions to Consider:
•
Technical Memorandum detailing the results of analysis of the bill.
•
Memorandum summarizing EPA review of implementation and administration of S.3135.
•
Further analysis of existing IPM runs considering regional and state-specific emissions
changes from the base case and other types of impacts.
Next Phase of this Analysis
•
Economic and Emissions Analysis
–
–
–
•
Air Quality Analysis
–
•
Sensitivity modeling of key elements such as the 2012 Hg of 5 - 16 tons.
Additional modeling that incorporates CO2 offset costs into dispatch decision-making.
More detailed engineering analysis.
More detailed benefits and air quality modeling.
Detailed Analysis of Allocation Approaches
–
Incorporate into the comprehensive Allocation Options Analysis.