EPA s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

2541 days ago, 845 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee August 4, 2011

Slide 2

"Transport Rule" → "Cross-State Air Pollution Rule" (Note: this is currently mistaken by the Federal Register form, yet this introduction, arranged in July, will utilize the name in the pre-production adaptation.) Overview Upwind, Downwind: Significant Contribution to Nonattainment/Maintenance How Does It Work? FIPs and SIPs Resources

Slide 3


Slide 4

Overview Signed July 6, 2011. Distributed August 8, 2011 Responds to the court administering remanding the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the 2006 CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs). Lessens emanations of SO 2 and NOx from electric producing units (EGUs) more than 25 MW in the eastern portion of the United States (with a few exceptions). Its motivation is to address interstate transport for the 1997 ozone and 1997/2006 fine particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Slide 5

Overview Separate projects for SO 2 , yearly NOx and Ozone Season NOx. Pennsylvania in all projects. Add up to secured states (with supplemental rulemaking) to be 28. Begins Jan. 1, 2012 when it replaces CAIR (May 1, 2012 for ozone season program). More stringent SO 2 prerequisites in 2014 for a few states (Group 1), including PA. No remainder of remittances from Acid Rain Program, NOx SIP Call/NBP, or CAIR to CSPAR. Covers 1081 offices in locale, 67 in Pennsylvania (172 units).

Slide 6

Overview of Impacts Cost/Benefit: "The $800 million spent every year on this govern in 2014, alongside the generally $1.6 billion every year in capital ventures officially under route therefore of CAIR, are enhancing air quality for more than 240 million Americans and will bring about $120 to $280 billion in yearly advantages." Electricity Prices: "The impact on costs for particular districts or states may differ, yet are well inside the scope of typical power value vacillations." Q uotes from EPA introduction or preface

Slide 7

Effect on Air Quality: Interstate Transport and Local Attainment/Maintenance Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires the disposal of upwind state discharges that essentially add to nonattainment or meddle with upkeep of a NAAQS in another state. Disposal of these upwind state discharges may not really, in itself, completely resolve nonattainment or support issues at downwind state receptors . " For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, one zone is anticipated to stay in nonattainment [after CSAPR](Liberty-Clairton) and three zones are anticipated to have remaining upkeep worries after inconvenience of the Transport Rule (Chicago, Detroit, and Lancaster County)." "While Houston is anticipated to at present face nonattainment and Baton Rouge is anticipated to even now confront support worries with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Transport Rule enhances air quality in these two regions and gives both medical advantages and help for these neighborhoods meeting the NAAQS prerequisites." Q uotes from EPA introduction or prelude

Slide 8

UPWIND, DOWNWIND Transport Effects Not Drawn to Scale

Slide 9

Upwind/Downwind Linkages

Slide 10

Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Maintenance In Other States State spending plans for SO2, yearly NOx, and ozone season NOx are specifically connected to the estimation of each state's critical commitment and obstruction with nonattainment and upkeep. Huge commitment limit is 1 percent of the NAAQS. 18 states contribute 0.15 µ g/m3 or more to downwind yearly PM2.5 nonattainment. 12 states contribute 0.15 µg/m3 or more to downwind yearly PM2.5 support issues. Dad's commitment to nonattainment and upkeep of the yearly PM2.5 standard is 0.54 µ g/m3 .  PA's commitment to downwind nonattainment and support is 2.85 and 2.29 µ g/m3, individually, for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 26 states contribute 0.8 ppb or more to ozone upkeep issues in downwind states. Dad's commitment to downwind support is 8.2 ppb. Refreshed inventories and displaying instruments prompted to refreshed conclusions in regards to which states add to or meddle with support.

Slide 11

The Result: States Covered by CSAPR

Slide 12

From Linkages to State Budgets EPA represents both cost and air quality change, and gives autonomous intending to "meddle with support." Unlike the NOX SIP Call and CAIR, where EPA's noteworthy commitment examination had a territorial concentration, the procedure utilized as a part of the Transport Rule concentrates on state-particular components. There are four stages to EPA's philosophy: distinguishing proof of each state's discharge diminishments accessible at climbing costs per ton as suitable; evaluation of those upwind emanation decreases' downwind air quality effects; recognizable proof of upwind "cost edges" conveying successful outflow diminishments and downwind air quality change; and reverence of the upwind emanation diminishments accessible at those cost edges in state spending plans. EPA returned to non-EGU lessening cost levels and confirmed that there are practically no diminishments accessible from non-EGUs at costs lower than the edges that EPA has picked ($500/ton for NOx and 2012 SO 2 , $2,300/ton for 2014 SO 2 ).

Slide 13


Slide 14

How the program works Group 1 SO2 Group 2 SO2 Separate projects for NOx Annual, NOx Ozone Season, Group 1 SO 2 and Group 2 SO 2 What's a state spending plan? The rest of the outflows from secured hotspots for the state in a normal year once noteworthy commitment to nonattainment and impedance with upkeep have been killed. An EGU source is required to hold one SO 2 or one NOX remittance, individually, for each ton of SO 2 or NOX discharged amid the control time frame. Keeping money of stipends for utilize or exchanging future years is permitted.

Slide 15

CSAPR Results Table III-2 – Projected SO2 and NOX Electric Generating Unit Emission Reductions in Covered States with the Transport Rule Compared to Base Case without Transport Rule or CAIR in million tons (Source: CSAPR Preamble, Executive Summary )

Slide 16

Pennsylvania Emission Budgets

Slide 17

Allocation of Allowances to Units Once spending plans were set for states, EPA utilized basic technique to assign recompenses inside state spending plans. New distribution strategy in light of noteworthy warmth input however guarantee that no unit's assignments surpass that unit's most extreme notable discharges. Change from outflow based approach proposed, which EPA recognizes "would not be fuel-unbiased or control-nonpartisan." This approach boosts straightforwardness and clearness of remittance assignments, as it "depends on unmodified noteworthy information announced specifically by far most of secured sources, whose assigned agents have officially verified the legitimacy and exactness of this information." Used in Acid Rain Program and NOx Budget Trading Program.

Slide 18

Reductions and Budgets EPA is putting aside a base 2 percent of each state's financial plans for stipend allotments for new (after 1/1/10) units in addition to an extra rate on a state-by-state premise, running from 0 to 6 percent, for units wanted to be constructed. There are none in PA, so PA's New Unit Set Aside is 2 percent. EPA sets up a technique for making allotments for new units.

Slide 19

"Air Quality Assured Trading" EPA addresses natural year-to-year fluctuation in power era, not identified with controls or fills. EPA set a 1-year changeability farthest point of 18 percent for the yearly SO2 projects and 21 percent ozone-season for the ozone-season NOX program. Stipends are allotted in view of state-particular spending plans without inconstancy. Interstate exchanging is permitted to represent changeability however just inside the states in a particular exchanging program (NOx yearly or occasional, SO2 Group 1 or 2). Notwithstanding secured sources being required to hold stipends adequate to cover their discharges, the aggregate entirety of EGU emanations in a specific state can't surpass the state spending plan with the state's 1-year fluctuation restrict in any 1 year. State spending plan + fluctuation restrict = a state's "affirmation level." If any state's EGU outflows in a control period surpass the state confirmation level, then EPA applies extra criteria to figure out which proprietors and administrators of units in the state will be liable to a recompense surrender prerequisite. On the off chance that state surpasses confirmation level, EPA requires surrender of extra stipends at a 2:1 proportion.

Slide 20

FIPs and SIPs

Slide 21

FIPs and SIPs Approved CAIR SIPs will have no impact once CAIR nightfalls. EPA proclaimed CSAPR Federal Implementation Plans to stay set up until/unless states have affirmed State Implementation Plans which could include: Abbreviated CSAPR SIP to address assignment procedure just Allowance allotment handle just for 2013 Full CSAPR SIP Totally supplant CSAPR with program to accomplish required decreases States may dispense remittances to CSAPR-secured units or "different elements." States may address all or any of the projects in a SIP and stay under the FIP for all or any of the projects. Aggregate sum of recompenses apportioned can't surpass the financial plan, and state must cling to EPA's calendar for recordation purposes.

Slide 22

FIPs and SIPs State can acquire little EGUs (generator with a nameplate limit equivalent to or more prominent than 15 MWe delivering power available to be purchased) however not non-EGUs. For vast non-EGUs, EPA will help states make sense of how to meet NOx SIP Call commitments. "States might need to address the CAIR NOX banks when building up the Transport Rule recompense distributions for control periods after 2012… " in SIP updates under the financial plan.

Slide 23

FIPs and SIPs FIP will be set up for 2012. For 2013 no one but, state can utilize smaller SIP correction, existing units just, if EP