190 likes | 285 Views
An Emissions Cap Alternative to New Source Review. September 27, 1999. Overview. EPA is embracing cap and trade programs for many pollutants. NSR is duplicative and counterproductive on top of a cap.
E N D
An Emissions Cap Alternative to New Source Review September 27, 1999
Overview • EPA is embracing cap and trade programs for many pollutants. • NSR is duplicative and counterproductive on top of a cap. • Replacing NSR with a cap provides the same environmental protection with lower cost and greater environmental benefit.
Cap and Trade Use is Growing • EPA is supporting expanded use of cap and trade programs. • The cap provides more secure protection of the environment. • Variation in production, growth, other variability all must come under the cap. • Accurate measurement verifies the results. • All units affected - no grandfathering.
Cap and Trade Flexibility is Attractive to Sources • Allows choice of compliance options - new technology, alternate fuels, improved efficiency and pollution prevention, or reduced utilization. • Accommodates fluctuation in production, changes in operation. • Allows for better planning and cost containment.
Cap and Trade Reduces Cost of Administration and of Control • Regulators do not have to determine where cuts should be made. • Tradable allowance market finds the lowest cost reductions - typically at older high emitting plants. • Automatically addresses “grandfathering” by creating an economic incentive to clean up old high-emitting plants.
Cap and Trade Supports Broad EPA Policy Goals • Explicitly recognizes efficiency improvements and other similar actions taken by sources as pollution prevention - any type of reduction is valuable under the approach. • Output-based approach forces sources to balance the costs of pollution (emissions) vs. the value of the useful product (output).
Cap and Trade Provides Technology-Forcing Driver • There is an economic incentive to create cost-effective reductions at every plant. • With growth, there is even stronger pressure to find more effective control technology. SCAQMD shows this clearly. • Private sector support for technology innovation is clearly a benefit of cap and trade.
The Cap Paradox • Emissions cannot exceed the cap. • Emissions won’t be below the cap either - allowances not used at one source will be emitted somewhere else. • If you still apply NSR to sources under the cap, other sources will produce the pollution avoided by the source subject to NSR. This will all occur at a higher cost.
NSR is the Opposite of Cap and Trade • No flexibility - technology and emissions are specifically determined on a case-by-case basis. • No cost minimization - sources required to apply the newest (most expensive and often unreliable) technology. • No environmental certainty - actual emissions depend on production rate - no absolute cap. • No support for pollution prevention or efficiency - rates are typically input-based, focus on add-on control.
NSR Negates Many Benefits of Cap and Trade • NSR forces higher cost reductions from new sources rather than low cost reductions from old sources. • Marginal reductions squeezed out of new sources are simply emitted by other sources. • NSR slows capital turnover and efficiency improvement. • Offsets already handled by cap.
If NSR Were Removed for a Capped Sector: • Program emissions would not change. • Compliance, administration and consumer costs would go down. • Capital turnover would accelerate. • Non-capped emissions would decrease. • Costs would go down, environment would be cleaner.
Specific Proposal • NSR offset and technology (BACT/LAER) requirements are replaced by an emission cap and trade program covering a particular source category and geographic area. • Local attainment issues still must be addressed separately. • WEPCO-type protection still required for non-capped criteria pollutants.
Outcome • Relief from NSR allows the cap and trade program to work effectively and provides incentives for clean growth and capital turnover. • The cap ensures that emissions do not increase regardless of new construction or modifications.
Outcome (2) • Technology forcing effects maintained. • Local attainment issues still addressed • Costs are lower and the environment is cleaner.
Policy Benefits • Allows efficient, proper operation of the cap and trade program. • Provides incentives instead of mandates: • to states and sources to adopt cap and trade programs • to sources to update or turn over capital stock • Guarantees environmental safeguards, since emission levels will be capped at levels that appropriately mitigate demonstrated health and environmental risks.
Implementation • Source type - Would apply to an entire source category within the affected geographic area. Alternative would be company-wide limit. • Geographic - At least at the state level but much more effective if implemented at regional and national levels.
Implementation • Size - Start at existing levels (15-25 MW and 250 MMBtu). Might need to go smaller to minimize leakage for new smaller generation technologies. Allow Opt-in for smaller sources as well. • Timing/seasonality - Based on appropriate mitigation requirements. • Cap Size - Based on needed mitigation for appropriate health and environmental goals.
Legal Basis • Offsets - Base on EPA communications related to RECLAIM and OTR cap. • BACT/LAER applicability • Build on PAL concepts. • Work from definition of “emissions increase” for a capped source, company or sector.
Conclusions • Cap and trade programs are proliferating. • Within a cap, NSR is duplicative and counterproductive. • With proper design, cap can provide the same environmental benefits as NSR at lower administrative and financial cost. • Industry would like to work with EPA to find the proper implementation mechanism.