Transcript Slide 1

Climate:
ANPR, SIPs and Section 821
WESTAR
October 2, 2008
CO2 Sequestration Rule
(EPA Office of Drinking Water)

Federal Requirements Under the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells


Proposed July 25, 2008
Comments due November 24, 2008
ANPR Basics

An ANPR is used to obtain more information and solicit public input on
possible regulatory approaches before deciding whether/what to propose

The GHG ANPR
-
-

Represents EPA’s next step in responding to Mass v. EPA
Reviews and summarizes available science on climate change and its effects
Reviews work to date on potential motor vehicle GHG standards under CAA
Examines interconnections among CAA provisions -- regulation of GHGs under one
provision could or would lead to regulation under other provisions
Examines implications of applying particular CAA authorities to GHGs and provides
a comprehensive, in-depth exploration of the opportunities and challenges
application of CAA authorities would present
Asks detailed questions on a wide range of policy, legal and technical issues and
approaches
Solicits technical information and data
Signed by Administrator July 11, 2008


Published on July 30 (Permitting Section is at 73 FR 44497-44514)
Public comment period open until November 28
PSD Implications



PSD program applies to pollutants regulated
under any CAA authority with the exception
section 112 or section 211(o)
PSD requires preconstruction review and
permitting for new major emitting facilities and
modifications (i.e., significant increases) at
existing major emitting facilities
Major source thresholds for PSD program-


100 tpy for categories listed in the CAA
250 tpy for other categories
Significance levels up to 100 tpy for current
pollutants.
PSD ANPR Discussion



Applying these thresholds to GHGs would increase the number
of PSD permits by at least an order of magnitude -- from 200-300
per year to thousands of PSD permits each year
For GHG, would potentially cover many small sources (e.g., large
residential/commercial bldgs.) and many small modifications at
traditional major sources.
Substantial expansion of PSD raises serious concerns (BACT,
delay, etc.) and questions (e.g., whether any benefits could be
achieved more efficiently through approaches other than caseby-case review)
PSD – ANPR Options


ANPR takes comment on options to restrict the program to larger
sources and/or to streamline compliance for GHG sources added to
the program, such as:
 Set higher major source thresholds for GHGs
 Set higher significance levels for GHGs
 Phase in the program slowly, starting with large sources
 Reduce the number of additional small sources that need PSD
permits through limitations on, or interpretations of, sources’
“potential to emit”
 Streamline the permitting of such sources though a range of
approaches (presumptive BACT, general permits)
Legal theories presented for comment
 Administrative Necessity & Absurd Results
Title V Permit Program Discussion

Title V operating permits also affected by GHG




Title V consolidates air pollution control requirements into one
permit; requires monitoring, reporting, certification, etc.
Required for new and existing sources above 100 tpy (and other
sources as well)
If the 100-ton major source threshold were applied to GHGs, this
would substantially increase the number of sources required to
obtain Title V permits
Could be more than 500,000 permits required


many smaller sources would be required to obtain a permit for the first
time
Initial workload would likely be overwhelming
Title V ANPR Options


As with PSD, ANPR takes comment on a range of ways to avoid
a large increase in the number of sources required to obtain Title
V permits
 Major source size
 PTE limits
 Similar legal theories to those for PSD
Also takes comment on ways to streamline compliance for
sources that are covered.
 General permits, phase in, etc.
 Would the Title V permit fees structure need to be modified if
GHGs were regulated?
Questions for Discussion
(sampling from ANPR)





Is our estimate of the magnitude of the impacts reasonably accurate
and complete? Do our estimates make sense?
Which tailoring options are most promising?
 Advice on structuring any of the options?
Are any tailoring options not worth pursuing? Are there others we
should be considering?
Should we raise the CO2 major source size & significance level?
 Can we conclude there will be administrative necessity or absurd
results? Do States have data/estimates to support this?
 Would either legal doctrine justify such an action?
 If so, what level should we select and what basis?
Could presumptive BACT work? How?
SIPs and CO2



Delaware has adopted a rule for distributive
generation which set CO2 emission limits.
Region 3 approved the rule into their SIP
Impacts?
Deseret and Section 821


Sec. 821 of 1990 amendments legislation:
 SEC. 821. INFORMATION GATHERING ON GREENHOUSE
GASES CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. (a)
Monitoring.-The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency shall promulgate regulations within 18 months after the
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to require
that all affected sources subject to title V of the Clean Air Act shall
also monitor carbon dioxide emissions according to the same
timetable as in section 511 (b) and (c). The regulations shall
require that such data be reported to the Administrator. The
provisions of section 511(e) of title V of the Clean Air Act shall
apply for purposes of this section in the same manner and to the
same extent as such provision applies to the monitoring and data
referred to in section 511.
Will be addressed in upcoming decision by EPA’s EAB