Transcript State Legislative Initiatives

State Legislative
Initiatives
John A. Paul
RAPCA, Dayton, Ohio
STAPPA/ALAPCO
Overview of Presentation
 Accountability
and Certainty
 Environmental Problem
 Competing Priorities
 Transparent and Inclusive Process
 What went wrong with Clear Skies,
NSR Reform, and the Utility MACT?
 State/Local Solutions
Accountability and Certainty
Clean Air Act
Findings and Purposes
Section 101(a)
(3) that air pollution
prevention…and ..control at its
source is the primary responsibility
of States and local governments;
and
(4) that Federal financial
assistance and leadership is
essential……
Accountability
State and Local Agencies are
Accountable
To the Public for Clean Air
To the Regulated Community for fair
application of rules and law
To Funding Sources for expenditures
To Congress to insure the Clean Air Act
is implemented as written
Certainty
 The
public wants certainty that the
air they breathe, the water they
drink, and the food they eat is safe
 Industry wants certainty that control
requirements are lawful and will be
sufficient to obviate the need for
further controls down the road
The Environmental Problem
Areas Designated Nonattainment for Ozone and PM2.5 in 2004
126 ozone
nonattainment
areas with 474
counties
Nonattainment areas for
8-hour ozone pollution only
Nonattainment areas for
fine particle pollution only
Nonattainment areas for
both 8-hour ozone
and fine particle pollution
47 PM2.5
nonattainment
areas with 224
counties
Electric Power Generation: A Major
Source of Emissions
SO2 Emissions
10.9 Million Tons
NOx Emissions
Power Sector
69%
5.0 Million
Tons
4.5 Million
Tons
16.3 Million Tons
Other
31%
Total: 15.9 Million Tons
Source: SO2 and NOx data is from EPA’s 2003 National Emissions Inventory. “Other” sources of pollutants
include transportation and other mobile sources and industrial sources.
Total: 20.8 Million Tons
States with Mercury
Fish Consumption Advisories (2003)
NOTE: This map depicts the presence and type of fish advisories issued by the states for mercury as of December 2002.
Because only selected waterbodies are monitored, this map does not reflect the full extent of chemical contamination of fish
tissues in each state or province.
Anthropogenic Emissions of
Mercury
Deposition from Outside the U. S.
# of Boilers
Coal-Fired Boilers Larger than 25MW
(2004)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
319
220
258
209
127
22
<10
20
1
10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 >70
Age of Boilers (yrs)
Breakdown by Boiler Age
(as of 2004)
Age (yrs)
Number of Boilers
Cumulative
number
Cumulative %
1
1
----
60-69
20
21
1.8
50-59
209
230
19.6
40-49
319
549
46.7
30-39
258
807
68.6
20-29
220
1027
87.3
10-19
127
1154
98.1
<10
22
1176
100
Total
1176
>70
Competing Priorities
Competing Priorities
 Price
of Electricity
 Preservation of Coal Markets
 Price of Natural Gas
 Time for Installation of Controls
 Physical Restrictions
 What to do with Older Boilers
Transparent and Inclusive
Process
Transparent and Inclusive
Process
All Stakeholders at the Table
Each representing own Issues
Solution must fit current Legislation
or
Legislation may need Change
Process must be Open and
Transparent
What Went Wrong With
Clear Skies,
NSR Reform,
and the Utility MACT?
Clear Skies
No Stakeholder involvement, thus
Levels of control too little, too late
Exemptions too Extensive with no
analysis
NSR exemptions, 126 restrictions, PSD
increments, MACT exemptions, Industry
Opt-in, Attainment date extensions
Did not address CO2
NSR Reform
Again, no Stakeholder involvement
on final rule, thus
14 states now suing EPA over the rules
Many states awaiting court decision
before proceeding with state rule
changes
States returning delegated programs
Court stay on RMRR rule
Chaos for new sources
Utility MACT
 Great
stakeholder process (for 18
months) was pre-empted by EPA
before it was finished
 No explanation from EPA regarding
Section 111 proposal
 112 proposal is flawed and allows
more mercury emissions than even
industry proposed in the stakeholder
process
Utility MACT
 Does
not represent MACT
 Allows trading of a neurotoxin
 Allows increases at sources and
among states and regions
 Will accomplish only a 50%
reduction in Hg emissions by 2020
 Does not reflect current technology
State and Local Solutions
States Acting on Their Own
State
Program
Connecticut
90% control or 0.6 lbs Hg per trillion BTU (whichever is less
stringent) by 2008 (law)
Massachusetts
85% capture of Hg emissions by 2008 and 95% by 2012
(rule)
Wisconsin
40% reduction in Hg emissions by 2010 and 75% by 2015
(rule)
New Jersey
90% reduction in Hg emissions or 3 mg/MW-hr by
12/15/2007 (rule)
North Carolina
64% reduction in Hg emissions by 2013 expected;
recommendations for additional reductions due 2005 (NC
Clean Smokestacks Act)
New Hampshire
cap of 50 lbs/year 1 year after federal compliance dates;
cap of 24 lbs/year 4 years later (departmental
recommendations to legislature)
New England
Governors & E.
Can. Premiers
50% reduction in Hg by 2003; 75% reduction by 2010;
virtual elimination of anthropogenic discharges long term
(Mercury Action Plan)
New Jersey’s Program





Rule adopted in November 2004
10 units at 7 power plants affected
90% control or 3 mg/MW-hr by Dec. 15,
2007
Flexibility in compliance deadline (to Dec.
15, 2012) for plants making major
reductions (i.e., BACT) in emissions of SO2,
NOx, and fine PM
No trading between facilities
Massachusetts’ Program
 Rule
adopted in May 2004
 8 units at 4 power plants affected
 85% capture efficiency at each
facility by Jan. 1, 2008 (50%
reduction)
 95% capture efficiency by Oct. 1,
2012 (85% reduction)
 No trading between facilities
New Source Technology
Requirements
 Wisconsin
– issued a new source
permit for facility using
subbituminous coal – 83% reduction
 Iowa – issued a new source permit
for facility using subbituminous coal
– limit equivalent to 83% reduction
Additional State/Local Actions
Regional Planning Organizations
looking at attainment dates for ozone
and PM2.5 and possible utility controls
beyond CAIR
North Carolina Clean Smokestacks
Rule
NSR enforcement cases
State petitions under Section 126
North Carolina
Where Do We Go From Here?
Legislation may be necessary
 An open and transparent process involving
all Stakeholders is necessary
 STAPPA/ALAPCO is willing to participate in
such discussions among stakeholders
 Without adequate national/regional
address, states and locals will continue to
act on their own

Technology is the Key
 Development
of good control
technology will protect coal’s future
 Good control technology for mercury
can be exported and used to reduce
global emissions
 The U.S. should assume a leadership
position in control technology
development
Web Sites
 http://rapca.org/
 http://www.ladco.org/
 http://www.cleanairworld.org/
 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utilt
ox/utoxpg.html
 http://www.epa.gov/mercury/