1 / 20

Clean Smokestacks Act: Mercury and CO2 Workshop

This workshop provides an overview of the Clean Smokestacks Act in North Carolina, including requirements for mercury and CO2, the origin of these requirements, and expectations for annual reports and recommendations to the legislature. It also explores the reasons behind the proposal and enactment of the CSA, such as public health concerns, visibility degradation, and economic well-being. Other topics covered include the results of the CSA and emissions reductions under the bill.

ednawarren
Download Presentation

Clean Smokestacks Act: Mercury and CO2 Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Clean Smokestacks Act” North Carolina Mercury and CO2 Workshop April 19 - 21, 2004 Brock Nicholson, P.E. Deputy Director N.C. Division of Air Quality

  2. Topics to be Covered Today • Overview of Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) • Requirements for Mercury and CO2 in CSA • Origin of Mercury and CO2 Requirements in CSA • Expectations for Annual Reports to Legislature • Expectations for Final Recommendations to Legislature

  3. Why Was CSA Proposed and Enacted? • Public Health Concerns • Significant Visibility Degradation, Especially in the Mountains • Economic Well Being, both Currently and for the Future • Dedication of Individuals • Opportunity Was Right • “Alignment of the Stars”

  4. Creation of Clean Smokestack Act • In 1st Year: • Environmental Group Efforts • NOx SIP Rule • Legislative Sponsors Ownership • Real Reductions in NC • Concern with Mercury and CO2 • Deal on Pollutant Caps • Cost Recovery • SAMI Finding • Support by Utility Companies • In 2nd Year: • Leadership by Governor • Creativeness by Utilities Commission and Companies • Handling of “Credits” • Support of Industry Customers • Alignment of Stars

  5. Clean Smokestacks Act Results from Broad Stakeholder Effort • Utility Companies • Legislative Sponsors • Environmental Community • Division of Air Quality / Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources • Governor’s Office • State Utilities Commission • Attorney Generals Office • Business and Industrial Community • Utility Rate Payers

  6. Daily SO4 Aerosol & its Change on July 15, 1995 for a 10% Reduction of 2010 Strategy A2 SO2 Emissions KY WV VA +0.15 +0.05 2010-A2 NC TN - 0.05 - 0.15 - 0.25 - 0.35 AL GA SC - 0.45 - 0.55 mg/m3 (Class 5 day)

  7. SAMIObservations: SO2 Sensitivity Maps State to State Comparison: • In general, the largest change in SO4 aerosol or SO4 deposition in a SAMI state is due to SO2 emissions changes in that state • Each SAMI state contributes to change in SO4 aerosol or SO4 deposition in neighboring SAMI states.

  8. North Carolina Clean Smoke Stacks Act, What does it Require? • NOx & SO2 Caps on Emissions • Tons / year • Caps per Company - They decide on Controls • Phased Compliance; 1 Jan ’07, ‘09, ‘13 • Actual Reductions in NC; About 75 % • Unique Cost Recovery Feature • Recommendations on Hg & CO2; Sep ‘05 • Reduction Credits Held by the State

  9. Utility Company Plans • Initial Plans Submitted • 20 + SO2 Scrubbers • 36 SCR / SNCR Units • Most with Combustion Controls • NOx Controls in Place Starting in 2001 • SO2 Scrubbers Scheduled to be in Starting in 2005

  10. Emissions Reductions Under Clean Smokestacks Bill 489,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 245,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 130,000 150,000 60,000 100,000 56,000 50,000 2007 2009 1998 1998 2013 2009 SO2 (tons/year) NOx (tons/year)

  11. Origin of Mercury and CO2 Provisions in CSA • Concern Over Public Health and Environment • Desire for Comprehensive Approach for Utilities • Concern Over State of Knowledge, Technical Issues and Costs • Expectations of Significant “Co-Benefits” of Mercury Reduction from Control of SO2 and NOx • In Light of Concerns, Agreed on SO2 and NOx Caps at Outset with Requirement to make Recommendations to Legislature on Issue of Further Controls for Mercury and CO2 Controls by a Future Date Certain • SO2 and NOx reductions are Actual in NC

  12. Requirements for Mercury in CSA • Section 12 of CSA • Significant Co-benefits Expected from SO2 and NOx Control • DAQ Shall Study Issue of Monitoring and Control Programs for Mercury from Coal-Fired power plants • DAQ Shall Evaluate Available Controls and Estimate the Costs and Benefits • Annual Reports to Legislature and Environmental Management Commission on on Interim Findings and Recommendations– September 1, 2003 and 2004. • Final Findings and Recommendation on Further Controls - September 1, 2005 • Costs of Additional Controls for Mercury Not Recoverable under the Provisions of the Current CSA

  13. Requirements for CO2 in CSA • Section 13 of CSA • DAQ Shall Study Issues Related to Standards and Plans to Control Emissions of CO2 from Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other stationary Sources • DAQ Shall Evaluate Available Control Technologies and Estimate the Benefits and Costs of CO2 Control • Annual Reports to Legislature and Environmental Management Commission on Interim Findings and Recommendations– September 1, 2003 and 2004. • Final Findings and Recommendations - September 1, 2005 • Costs of Additional Controls for CO2 Not Recoverable under the Provisions of the Current CSA

  14. So, What Does this Mean WRT Mercury • Question: Will Clean Smokestacks SOx/NOx Control Co-Benefit be Enough? • “White Paper” on State of Knowledge/Science on Expected Co-Benefit of Controls, - September 2003 • Workshop April 2004 - September 2004 Report • Understand What Control Options Exist; Benefits and costs • Update Knowledge/Make Recommendations to Legislature on Whether Additional Controls are Necessary – September 2005 • If so how much and by when?

  15. WRT Carbon Dioxide • Report on State of Knowledge – September 2003 • Comprehensive Review • Full Range of Options Possible for Reducing CO2 • Consider Costs • What is Being Done Elsewhere? • What is being proposed? • Workshop April 2004 - September 2004 Report • Update Knowledge, Present Range of Options for consideration, Make Recommendations to Legislature on Reducing CO2 – September 2005

  16. What Is Next? • April Status Reports on Compliance Progress • 2nd Report to Legislature on Implementation by Utilities • A Lot of Work by Utilities • 2nd Report to legislature on Hg and CO2 - September 1, 2004 • Section 126 Petition

  17. References • Text of Act: http://www.ncleg.net/html2001/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S1078vc.html • www.ncair.org • Brock.Nicholson@ncmail.net 919-715-0587

More Related