State Legislative Initiatives

1. State Legislative Initiatives John A. Paul RAPCA, Dayton, Ohio STAPPA/ALAPCO

2. 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

3. Accountability and Certainty

4. 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……

5. 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

6. 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

7. The Environmental Problem

8. 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 Areas Designated Nonattainment for Ozone and PM2.5 in 2004 126 ozone nonattainment areas with 474 counties 47 PM2.5 nonattainment areas with 224 counties

10. Electric Power Generation: A Major Source of Emissions SO2 Emissions NOx Emissions 10.9 Million Tons Power Sector 4.5 Million Tons 69% 5.0 Million Tons 16.3 Million Tons Other 31% Total: 20.8 Million Tons 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.

11. 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.

12. Anthropogenic Emissions of Mercury

13. Deposition from Outside the U. S.

14. Coal-Fired Boilers Larger than 25MW (2004) 319 350 300 258 220 250 209 # of Boilers 200 127 150 100 22 20 50 1 0 <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 >70 Age of Boilers (yrs)

15. Breakdown by Boiler Age (as of 2004)

16. Competing Priorities

17. 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

18. Transparent and Inclusive Process

19. 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

20. What Went Wrong With Clear Skies, NSR Reform, and the Utility MACT?

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. State and Local Solutions

26. States Acting on Their Own

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. Web Sites • http://rapca.org/ • http://www.ladco.org/ • http://www.cleanairworld.org/ • http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html • http://www.epa.gov/mercury/