# North American 

# Power Plant **Air Emissions COMMISSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION** OF NORTH AMERICA

## AUTHORS

Paul J. Miller , Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, Montreal, Quebec Canada Chris Van Atten, M.J. Bradley & Associates, Concord, Massachusetts United States



## PROJ ECT DI R ECTOR

Paul J. Miller , Program Coordinator for Air Quality, Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America.

Reproduction of this document in whole or in part and in any form for education or nonprofi t purposes may be made without special permission from the CEC Secretariat, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. The CEC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication or material that uses this document as a source. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America 393, rue Saint-Jacques Ouest, Bureau 200 Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9 Tel: (514) 350–4300 •Fax: (514) 350–4314 E-mail: info@cec.org http://www.cec.org © Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, 2004

Publication information: ISBN: 2-923358-11-2 (French edition: ISBN 2-923358-13-9 ; Spanish edition: 2-923358-12-0) Legal Deposit–Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, 2004 Legal Deposit–Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 2004 Disponible en français–Disponible en español 

## DI SCLAI M E R

This document was prepared for the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America. The views contained herein are not intended to reflect the views of the CEC, or the governments of Canada, Mexico or the United States. The data sources used in this report are constantly evolving, as facilities revise previously submitted data to correct reporting errors or make other changes. For purposes of this report, the CEC uses information submitted in Canada to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in its 12 March 2004 update. In some cases, we also use data publicly available through the Canadian Electricity Association, in company annual reports, or from other public sources as indicated throughout the report. In Mexico, we use emissions data from a research report that used standard emission factors coupled with 2002 fuel consumption and generation data provided by Mexico’s Secretaría de Energía(Sener). In the United States, we obtained emissions information reported by facilities to the United States EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division as of March 2004. For estimating mercury emissions, we relied on the EPA’s 1999 mercury estimates coupled with coal consumption data for 2002 reported by facilities to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA was also the source of 2002 generation data for United States facilities. The CEC is aware that changes may occur to the data used in this report after the time period we collected the information. Any future report by the CEC will reflect these changes in making year-to-year comparisons. The CEC also encourages interested readers to check the Web sites and other information resources referenced in this document for any changes to the 2002 information presented here.**DESIGN**BRIGITTE BINET

Printed in Canada on Mohawk Options paper containing 100% post-consumer waste fiber that is process chlorine free and manufactured with wind-generated energy

### NOTE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IV 

### PREFACE V 

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V 

# 1 INTRODUCTION 1 

# 2 CONTEXT 5 2.1 The Electric Power System 5 2.2 Pow er Plant Air Emissions 6 

# 3 EMISSIONS DATA 11 3.1 Intro duction 11 3.2 North American Information Sources 11 3.3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) Emissions 12 3.4 Nitrogen Oxides (NO x) Emissions 15 3.5 Mercury (Hg) Emissions 18 3.6 Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) Emissions 20 

# 4 APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY 83 

### ENDNOTES 87 

## CONTE NTSIII**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS

## NOTE FROM TH E EXECUTIVE DI R ECTOR

Electricity is an essential ingredient of the economies of our three countries in North America. Electric power is also a trade commodity of growing importance among the NAFTA partners. However, the electricity sector, both domestically and in a transboundary context, is seen as resource and environmentally intensive, with the air pollution and greenhouse gases it generates being key concerns. Sound environmental and energy policies in North America rely on good science and reliable information on releases of pollutants to the environment and their consequences. In June 2002, the CEC Secretariat report, Environmental Challenges and Opportunities of the Evolving North American Electricity Market , outlined some of the recent structural changes and trends in the marketplace. Our report also noted the need for a database of comparable information from the three countries as a basis for trinational decision-making—particularly important since the three countries are examining ways to strengthen energy linkages among themselves. While the 2002 CEC Secretariat report presented basic, non–source-specific information on some of the major air pollutants (SO 2 , NO x, mercury and CO 2), it was not possible to acquire more specifi c air pollution information from many individual power plants at that time. Having more detailed pollutant information would support a number of decision-making needs, including: · linking energy demand projections with air pollution trends; · developing scenarios for a mix of electricity generation fuels and resulting impact on air quality, e.g., clean coal, fuel switching, etc.; · ascertaining the air quality impacts associated with the use of alternate or renewable energy sources; · supporting the development of robust and viable trinational emissions trading programs; · aiding facilities to develop emissions reduction strategies based on best practices of their competitors; and · facilitating cross-border cooperation in reducing emissions. Recent changes in reporting rules have created the opportunity to compile more detailed information on emissions from most large fossil fuel power plants all across North America. This report is the culmination of the CEC’s effort to accomplish this North American milestone. This report is only a snapshot in time for one year

— 2002. Therefore, it cannot show what actions the facilities named herein are taking to reduce their ‘environmental footprint.’ A number of progressive companies have developed comprehensive emissions management strategies that include fuel source diversification (switching their fuel source from coal to natural gas; expanding their wind, solar or geothermal power business; etc.) as well as technological innovation that either reduces emissions or improves generating efficiency or both. Consortia of companies, like the Canadian Clean Power Coalition or the Clean Energy Group in the United States, are coming together to promote the production and use of alternate or renewable energy sources. Other companies are partnering with counterparts in developing countries to create Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) that will help to address the looming threat of global warming. In a similar vein, several states and provinces have set in place or are contemplating firm commitments to significantly reduce mercury emissions at coal power plants in the next several years (e.g., Alberta, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin). The CEC is seeking to increase its collaboration with the private sector through cooperative programs in order to facilitate greater environmental progress for North America. My hope is that the reader will use this information to aid decision making for sustainable development in our three countries and provide the Secretariat with advice on how this information could be applied and improved in the future.



### William V. Kennedy Executive Director , CECIV

## PR E FACE

**ACKNOWLE DG M E NTS**

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America would like to thank Samudra Vijay, Luisa T. Molina, and Mario J. Molina of the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution, Massachusetts Institute of Technology for compiling the Mexico-wide power plant air emissions inventory. The full breadth of this report would not have been possible without their efforts.V**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS This document represents a milestone in promoting cooperation in North America through the collection, exchange, and public dissemination of comparable environmental information by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The report presents, for the first time, specific air pollutant information for individual fossil fuel–fired power plants across North America. This information will assist air quality planners, energy analysts, and the public to garner a greater understanding of the environmental performance of the electricity generating sector on a continental scale. This includes a clearer picture of how the environmental performance of individual power plants in each country compares in terms of the pollutants released to the atmosphere, whether regional differences exist in emissions levels, and if there are clusters of high-emitting facilities that may contribute to downwind pollution transport, including across international borders. The pollutant emissions information also provides a common reference year in which to track future trends in pollution, both at the level of individual power plants as well as for their collective emissions within specific regions. This helps establish a baseline to measure future environmental performance as increasing competition within the electric sector leads to shifts in generation within large regions of North America. It also helps create confidence in air quality programs by allowing interested stakeholders to track the progress of pollution control measures over time. Fossil fuel power plants burning coal, oil and natural gas produce a large share of the North American electricity supply and are an important component of the region’s economy. These facilities also contribute a signifi cant share of the air pollution and greenhouse gases released in each country. Prior to 2002, however, publicly accessible air pollutant information on individual power plants was not available on a comparable basis across North America. While differences and information gaps still remain, recent changes to reporting rules now allow for a more complete picture of air pollution from virtually all large fossil fuel–fired power plants in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. With existing reporting in the United States coupled to changes in reporting requirements in Canada and increasing information availability in Mexico, the year 2002 is the first year in which it is possible to compile comparable power plant–specific pollutant information from all three countries. In this report, we bring together plant-by-plant air emissions of three key pollutants—sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen oxides (NO x), and mercury (Hg)—emitted in Canada, Mexico and the United States. We also report on the releases of carbon dioxide (CO 2), an important greenhouse gas. These substances are all linked to serious human health and environmental concerns. In addition to total emissions from each power plant, we also present their environmental performance in terms of the amount of pollution emitted per unit of electricity produced. This is an “output-based” measure of how efficiently individual power plants produce electricity in relation to the amount of air pollution they emit. This report is part of an ongoing effort by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America to increase the comparability and public availability of North American environmental information. In 2001, the CEC Council (comprised of the federal heads of the environment agencies in each country) adopted Council Resolution 01-05 (29 June 2001) to promote the comparability of air emissions inventories in North America. In the resolution, the Council called upon the CEC to produce periodic reports summarizing publicly available information from North American air emissions inventories, including greenhouse gases. This report on North American power plant emissions is a result of the CEC Council directive to promote greater exchange of environmental information regarding air emissions inventories among the three NAFTA partners. The electricity generating sector is an appropriate place to begin these efforts because it contributes a signifi cant share of air emissions in North America, it is widely distributed across the three countries, and it currently has the most comparable air pollutant information available among all the major industry sectors of North America. As more information becomes publicly available from other sectors (including motor vehicles and other non-industry sectors), the CEC hopes to provide future compilations for other major sources of air pollution in North America.

# 1**GRAND LAKE**fuel usedcoal,capacity57 MW,locationNew Castle Creek, New Brunswick1**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS 

# Introduction

**OVE RVI EW**

a Contribution to total national emissions from all stationary, area, mobile, and other human-related sources. b Canada information sources: SO 2and NO x(1995): Environment Canada. 1995 Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions for Canada. Online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ape/ape_tables/canada95_

e.cfm (accessed 20 July 2004). Hg (2000): Environment Canada. Mercury and the Environment. Online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/sm-cr.cfm (accessed 22 July 2004). CO 2(2002): Environment Canada. Backgrounder— Canada’s 2002 Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_02_report/ghg_backgrounder_e.cfm (accessed 27 September 2004).

c Mexico information sources: SO 2and NO x(1998): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Environmental Data Compendium 2002 : Air. 17 June 2003. Online at

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/62/2958142.pdf. Hg (1999): Acosta y Asociados. “Preliminary Atmospheric Emissions Inventory of Mercury in Mexico.” Prepared for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 30 May 2001. Online at http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/MXHg-air-maps_en.pdf. CO 2(1999): World Resources Institute. EarthTrends Country Profiles

. Climate and Atmosphere—Mexico. 2003. Online at http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profi les/Cli_cou_484.pdf

. d United States information sources: SO 2 and NO x(2001): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Acid Rain Program: 2002 Progress Report . Online at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/ arp02/2002report.pdf(accessed 22 July 2004). Hg (1999): United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Mercury Reduction in Coal-Fired Power Plants: DOE’s R&D Program. ARIPPA Technical Symposium. 21 August 2002. Online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/environment/mercury/pubs/DOE_RD_Prgm_PennState_ARIPPA082102.pdf(accessed 22 July 2004). CO 2(2002): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2002. EPA 430-R-04-003. April 2004. Online at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions(accessed 27 September 2004). 

### Pollutant Canada b 

### Mexico c 

### United States d Sulfur dioxide (SO 2) 20% 55% 69% Nitrogen oxides (NO x) 11% 27% 22% Mercury (Hg) 25% 3% 40% Carbon dioxide (CO 2) 22% 30% 39% The increasing integration of the continental energy market under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has opened new opportunities for greater access to energy sources with the prospect of lower costs and greater energy security for North American consumers. With regard to the electricity trade, it also calls for greater information exchange on cross-border transfers of electricity to ensure system reliability and to facilitate the dispatch of the lowest cost electricity providers. Also important is knowledge of the environmental attributes of electricity generation on a comparable basis in each country. This report is the first-ever look on a North American scale at one aspect of this—specifically, air emissions from individual fossil fuel power plants in all three North American countries. The goal is to present an overview of air emissions information for several key pollutants from individual power plants in each country in order to provide a more complete environmental context of electricity generation from the burning of fossil fuels in Canada, Mexico and the United States. The electricity generating sector is an appropriate place to begin looking at the availability and comparability of air emissions information in North America as it contributes a significant share of the annual air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions released to the environment in each country (see Table 1.1 ). North America at the national, state, provincial and local level has adopted numerous regulations, objectives and goals aimed at limiting power plant pollution, and has made significant progress in reducing some of these pollutants, particularly sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Despite these efforts, governments continue to be concerned about the effects of power plant emissions on human health and the environment, as demonstrated by the ongoing efforts to establish new pollution reduction targets in each North American country.

Table 1.1 

### PERCENT CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ELECTRICITY GENERATING SECTOR TO TOTAL NATIONAL EMISSIONS a2 In this report, we bring together fossil fuel power plant information for the year 2002 from Canada, Mexico and the United States, detailing the plant-by-plant emissions of three key pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen oxides (NO x), and mercury (Hg). We also report on the releases of carbon dioxide (CO 2), an important greenhouse gas. We do not report on direct releases of particulate matter (PM), which also presents a risk to human health and the environment. Most of the PM contribution from power plants is through the formation of particles in the atmosphere after release of the gaseous precursors SO 2and NO xfrom the smokestack, rather than direct emissions of PM itself, although this does occur to some extent. Throughout this report, we present only data obtained or derived from publicly available sources. We present pollutant quantities in metric units of kilograms or metric tonnes, and electricity output in terms of watt-hours (both megawatt-hours and gigawatt-hours). Table 1.2 provides the conversion or scaling factors for converting among metric units and other units appearing in this report.

Table 1.2 

### CONVERSION FACTORS

We present emissions information for the year 2002 in this report because it is the first year in which it is possible to compile comparable information for individual power plants from all three countries. Prior to 2002, facility-specific information was not uniformly available from every part of North America. Increased information collection efforts or changes to reporting requirements in each country have taken place in recent years that now will bring annual emissions information to the interested public for virtually all the large fossil fuel power plants in all three countries. With respect to individual facilities, the year 2002 serves as a fi rst “snapshot in time” of the comparative emissions performance of major North American fossil fuel power plants. This, of course, will change over time due to new pollution controls, changes in fuel, construction of new plants and retirement of old ones, and other factors. Therefore, while the year 2002 provides a static picture for one year, it also can be a starting point for tracking future changes in individual power plant emissions within the North American context. In this report, we provide contextual information on the electric power sector, including a discussion of the key pollutants of concern (Chapter 2). We also discuss and tabulate the plant-by-plant emissions in each country (Chapter 3). The data reveal wide variations in the emissions performance of fossil fuel power plants in North America, suggesting that continued progress can be made in addressing the major pollutants of concern. There are facilities in the database that, with the use of modern pollution control equipment, are currently achieving greater than 90 percent reductions in NO x, SO 2, and mercury. This is a source of optimism for air quality officials responsible for protecting human health and the environment, the electricity generation industry, and individuals concerned about these issues. The emissions data show that the industry has a demonstrated ability to achieve substantial improvements in its environmental performance while continuing to meet the needs of a growing North American economy. Emissions of CO 2, however, present a unique challenge for policymakers and industry. All fossil fuels contain the element carbon, which produces CO 2when burned in the presence of oxygen. Reducing these emissions with current technologies will require more than installing retrofit technologies or back-end controls. Reducing CO 2emissions and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere requires a combination of strategies, including: increased reliance on non–C O 2 emitting power facilities; increased reliance on higher efficiency, lower CO 2emitting technologies (e.g., combined-heat and power facilities); and a wide range of strategies outside of the electric sector, such as energy conservation and carbon sequestration measures. The report concludes with a discussion of the information sources and methodology used in compiling the data (Appendix). Of special note is that the emissions information we present comes from a variety of public sources, and the methods for measuring or estimating the reported emissions may differ across the countries. It is important to have ancillary information to the emissions data that can help the interested public in evaluating the reasonableness of the reported information. This, unfortunately, is not always publicly available. The physical properties of the fuel, such as sulfur, mercury and carbon content, the types of boilers and pollution control equipment, and the amount of electricity generation are some additional pieces of information that can help provide a useful reference point for evaluating the reported emissions. 1 Table 1.3provides a summary of the data presented later in the report, including: 1) the summed totals of each pollutant from those facilities having emissions information; 2) the number of facilities having emissions information for the given pollutant; 3) the reported electricity production (when available); and 4) the collective emission rate of the included fossil fuel facilities expressed in terms of the quantity of pollution per unit of electricity output. Note that Table 1.3is a summary of information only from the power plants tabulated in this report, unless otherwise noted. Therefore, the totals are not necessarily the national totals from the entire electricity sector in each country. For example, in the United States we include only those plants reporting to the United States EPA Clean Air Markets Division (Acid Rain Program), and further omit facilities having generation capacities less than 100 MW. Therefore, while Table 1.3presents the CO 2emissions from United States power plants included in this report as 2,178 million metric tonnes, the national total for all fossil fuel power plants in the United States during 2002 is 2,240 million metric tonnes, 2 which is about 3 percent greater than the total in Table1.3 . Although this report does not include every fossil fuel power plant, it does include the largest sources that account for the majority of national emissions from the electricity sector. 

### MASS AND WEIGHT 1 metric ton (tonne) 1 short ton 1 kilogram 1 pound 1 metric ton (tonne) 1.1023 short tons 0.9072 metric ton (tonne) 2.2046 pounds 0.4536 kilograms 1,000 kilograms



### ENERGY 1 kilowatt-hour 1 megawatt-hour 1 gigawatt-hour 1 British thermal unit 1 gigajoule 1 petajoule 1,000 watt-hours 1,000 kilowatt-hours or 1,000,000 watt-hours 1,000 megawatt-hours or 1,000,000,000 watt-hours 1,055 joules 1,000,000,000 joules 1,000,000 gigajoules or 10 15joules3**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS Table 1.3 

### SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT

In general, Table 1.3does not include generation from Canada’s fossil fuel power plants because 2002 generation from individual facilities was only partially available. This is also true for CO 2emissions from most individual Canadian facilities during 2002, although two companies publicly report their plant emissions. We can, however, estimate a national CO 2emissions average based on aggregated values available from the government of Canada. The federal agency Statistics Canada reports the national net generation from fossil fuel combustion (coal, oil and natural gas) in Canada for 2002 as 0.154 million GWh. 3 Environment Canada reports national CO 2emissions from the electricity sector in 2002 as 128 million metric tonnes. 4 If we assume Statistics Canada and Environment Canada are compiling their information from an identical set of power plants, the national CO 2emissions average during 2002 in Canada would be 831 kg/MWh. We can not do the same for emissions of SO 2 , NO x, and Hg in Canada because we do not have similar national emissions totals for these pollutants during 2002, although we believe the totals given in Table 1.3encompass the majority of emissions. Without individual facility generation data, however, we are unable to parse out what portion of the aggregated national generation is attributable to only those facilities for whic h we were able to obtain emissions information. 

### RÍO ESCONDIDO

fuel used coal capacity 1200 MW location Río Escondido, Coahuila

POLLUTANT Country Total annual emissions from included facilities Number of facilities included (with some quantity of emissions reported) a Total electricity production from included facilities (GWh) b Collective emission rate of included facilities 

# SO 2 Canada 0.62 million tonnes 38 N/A N/A Mexico 1.6 million tonnes 82 0.137 million 11.35 kg/MWh United States 9.2 million tonnes 836 2.4 million 3.79 kg/MWh 

# NO x Canada 0.26 million tonnes 70 N/A N/A Mexico 0.25 million tonnes 82 0.137 million 1.83 kg/MWh United States 4.0 million tonnes 897 2.4 million 1.66 kg/MWh 

# Hg Canada 1,986 kg 22 N/A N/A Mexico 1,025 kg 3 0.003 million 0.034 kg/GWh United States 44,231 kg 376 1.9 million 0.023 kg/GWh 

# CO 2 Canada 128 million tonnes c N/A 0.154 million c 831 kg/MWh c Mexico 94 million tonnes 82 0.137 million 688 kg/MWh United States 2,178 million tonnes 899 2.4 million 893 kg/MWh

aThe number of included facilities can vary across different pollutants for the same country according to the number of facilities in each country for which we obtained or estimated emissions.

For example, the mercury totals include only power plants burning coal. bThe total generation in each row of this table is the summed generation from only those facilities reporting emissions of the particular pollutant. The Mexico and United States 2002 generation data

are from government sources described in the methodology section of this report (Appendix). We could not include the summed 2002 generation for Canada because we did not have generation data for many of its power plants.

c We do not obtain these values from individual facility information presented in this report. They are from aggregated 2002 national totals available from federal agencies in Canada (see accompanying text).4 

# 2**SIBLEY**fuel usedcoal,capacity523 MW,locationMissouri5**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS 

# Context

2.1 **TH E E LECTR IC POWE R SYSTE M**

Figure 2.1 

### GENERATION FUEL MIX IN NORTH AMERICA

The United States produced an estimated 3,858 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2002. In recent years, natural gas–fired power generation has greatly increased its share of the United States power supply. However, as natural gas prices are now rising, and the existing fleet of coal plants is continuing to age, there is a renewed interest in developing new coal-fired power generation. Source: United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2002. COAL **50%**

OIL**2%** NATURAL GAS **18%** NUCLEAR **20%** HYDRO **7%** OTHER **2%**



### UNITED STATES **CANADA** In 2002, Canada produced an estimated 576 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. Sharp regional variations exist within the country. In Quebec, electricity is almost entirely hydro-powered. Alberta and Saskatchewan in the West rely heavily on coal and natural gas.

Source: Canadian Electricity Association, 2002 data. HYDRO**60%** COAL **19%** OIL **3%** NATURAL GAS**4%**

NUCLEAR **12%** OTHER**2%**



### MEXICO Mexico produced an estimated 221 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2002. Oil-fired power plants account for the largest share of Mexico’s fossil power generation. Mexico’s national energy plans call for a greater share from natural gas in the future, but this may depend on price and availability. Sources: Comisión Federal de Electricidad, Secretaría de Energía, and the United States Energy Information Administration’s Mexico country analysis. COAL**8%** OIL **40%**

NATURAL GAS**33%** NUCLEAR **5%** HYDRO **12%** OTHER **3%** The electric power system in North America is wide-ranging and highly complex, with important implications for national economic performance, energy security, and quality of life. A reliable, affordable, and clean supply of electricity is essential for the functioning of each country’s modern economy while maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for its citizens. A major challenge facing governments and industry today is to balance important economic and energy policy considerations with public health and the environmental harm that results from the different sources of power supply. Electricity generation in North America is based on a familiar model, one that is replicated throughout the world. Large central power stations, often in rural locations, spin generators to feed an expansive network of high-voltage transmission lines. These generators are carefully synchronized, each one spinning in unison, and generally powered by steam produced by coal, natural gas, oil, or nuclear fission, or driven by water from reservoirs. The electricity pulsing through the transmission grid in turn feeds a system of low-voltage distribution lines, which connect to homes and businesses. Turning on a reading lamp or computer connects the appliance to this network of wires, drawing electricity from the grid. Power plant operators are continually responding to changes in the system, increasing or decreasing supply to match customer demand in a carefully orchestrated exercise managed by a central authority or dispatcher. Intimately involved in the system are fuel suppliers, financial institutions, technology firms, and governments. The technologies used to supply the grid vary throughout North America depending on a host of factors, including the cost and availability of fuel supplies, the availability of renewable resources (e.g., wind and solar), government subsidies and taxes, as well as the rules and requirements governing power markets and the operations of individual power plants. Because these factors vary across regions and countries, the technologies and fuels used to generate electricity vary according to local circumstances. This can be seen on a national scale in Figure 2.1 , which displays the 2002 generation fuel mix in Canada, Mexico and the United States. The figure shows that the United States generates half its electricity from coal, whereas Mexico gets only about 8 percent from this fuel and instead generates a far greater share of its electricity from oil and natural gas. By contrast, Canada produces the largest share of its electricity from hydropower. Within each of these countries, however, there can be significant regional variations in the generation mix.6 

## 2.2 **POWE R PLANT AI R E M I SS ION S**

Figure 2.2 

### SO 2

### EMISSIONS ESTIMATES

- Total power plant emissions, emissions per capita, and emissions per unit of GDP

TOTAL POWER PLANT SO 2EMISSIONS (thousand metric tonnes) EMISSIONS PER CAPITA (kilograms/individual)

**Sources** : National GDP and population estimates from CIA World Factbook , online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook, accessed June 2004. Population estimates for 2002 were estimated based on the reported 2003 figures and country specifi c growth rates calculated from 2003 and 2004 population estimates. G DP (purchasing power parity) estimates were reported for 2002. **United States SO 2** **emissions (2002):**United States Environmental Protection Agency. Acid Rain Program: 2002 Progress Report . Online at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp02/2002report.pdf (accessed 22 July 2004). Note that this fi gure is slightly higher than that reported in Table 1.3because Table 1.3does not include sources below 100 MW in capacity. **Canada SO 2** **emissions (2002):**Environment Canada, National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database for 2002, accessible at www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm

. **Mexico SO 2**  **emissions (2002):**Vijay, Samudra, Molina, Luisa T. and Molina, Mario J. Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico, prepared by the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April 2004. Online at www.cec.org . EMISSIONS PER UNIT OF GDP (kilograms/$billion) **CANADA:** 19 **MEXICO:**15 **UNITED STATES:** 32

**CANADA:** 663,218 **MEXICO:** 1,684,963 **UNITED STATES:** 885,482

**Nitrogen oxides.** Emissions of NO xcontribute to smog formation (ground-level ozone), resulting in human respiratory problems and crop damage. Like SO 2 , NO xcontributes to fine particulate formation (particularly during cold weather) and acid rain. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition from NO xand other nitrogen-containing compounds contributes to eutrophication of waterways and coastal estuaries. Eutrophication results from an increase in nutrient deposition to a water body, producing algae blooms, which can reduce or eliminate the oxygen available to aquatic plants and animals. NO xemissions are formed as a byproduct of high temperature fuel combustion, and are produced during the combustion of all fossil fuels. Power plants in Canada, Mexico and the United States contribute 11, 27 and 22 percent of their respective national NO xemissions. Motor vehicles and other combustion sources are also important contributors of NO x, particularly in populated areas. 8, 9,10 **MEXICO**

1,558 **UNITED STATES** 9,253

**CANADA** 619 Every technology used in generating electricity has its associated environmental impacts. For example, coal-fired power plants require the mining, transport, and storage of massive quantities of coal. They release SO 2 , NO x, mercury and other pollutants to the atmosphere when coal is burned. Bottom ash, fly ash, and other solid wastes accumulate at the plant, requiring handling and disposal. Large hydroelectric facilities may require the damming and flooding of large tracts of land, displacing entire communities, destroying natural river courses, disrupting wildlife habitat, and liberating toxic metals like mercury from flooded soils. Wind turbines may generate some noise and, if not well located, can be dangerous to birds in flight and viewed as a visual blight on the landscape. These are just some of the environmental concerns that arise in producing electricity. In this report, we focus on the release of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—at large power plants. Along with nuclear and hydroelectric facilities, fossil fuel power plants generate the bulk of electricity in North America (see Figure 2.1 ) The key primary pollutants of concern produced by fossil fuel power plants include SO 2 , NO x, and mercury. We also report on the releases of CO 2 , an important greenhouse gas. As mentioned earlier, we do not include particulate matter (PM), another key air pollutant for which power plants contribute a major share of the emissions (NO xand SO 2) contributing to its presence in the atmosphere. All emissions data are for the year 2002, the first year in which comparable data on these emissions are available from each country. **Sulfur dioxide.** SO 2emissions from power plants react with other chemicals in the atmosphere to form sulfate particles, an important contributor to the fine particle mix that circulates with the air we breathe. Fine particles have been linked to a number of serious human health problems, particularly among children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular or lung diseases (e.g., asthma). These health effects include premature death, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung function, alterations in lung tissue and structure, and changes in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. SO 2emissions are also a major contributor to acid deposition, commonly known as “acid rain,” which can result in harm to fish and other aquatic life, forests, crops, buildings, and monuments. Fine particles formed from SO 2emissions also are signifi cant contributors to poor visibility at scenic panoramas across North America because the particles effi ciently scatter natural light, thus creating hazy views. Coal and oil both contain varying concentrations of sulfur, with the result that power plants create SO 2when burning these fuels. Natural gas is a relatively minor source of SO 2during combustion. The share of SO 2 emissions from power plants to national totals is not insignificant. Power plants in Canada, Mexico and the United States contribute 20, 55 and 69 percent of their respective national SO 2emissions. 5, 6, 77**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS Figure 2.3 

### NO x

### EMISSIONS ESTIMATES - Total power plant emissions, emissions per capita, and emissions per unit of GDP

TOTAL POWER PLANT NO xEMISSIONS (thousand metric tonnes) EMISSIONS PER CAPITA (kilograms/individual)

**Sources** : National GDP and population estimates from CIA World Factbook , online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook, accessed June 2004. Population estimates for 2002 were estimated based on the reported 2003 figures and country specifi c growth rates calculated from 2003 and 2004 population estimates. G DP (purchasing power parity) estimates were reported for 2002. **United States NO x** **emissions (2002):** United States Environmental Protection Agency. Acid Rain Program: 2002 Progress Report . Online at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp02/2002report.pdf (accessed 22 July 2004). Note that this fi gure is slightly higher than that reported in Table 1.3because Table 1.3does not include sources below 100 MW in capacity. **Canada NO x** **emissions (2002):**Environment Canada, National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database for 2002, accessible at www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm

. **Mexico NO x** **emissions (2002):** Vijay, Samudra, Molina, Luisa T. and Molina, Mario J. Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico, prepared by the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April 2004. **UNITED STATES** 4,082 **MEXICO** 251

**CANADA**

261 EMISSIONS PER UNIT OF GDP (kilograms/$billion) **CANADA:** 8 **MEXICO:** 2 **UNITED STATES:** 14

**CANADA:** 280,059 **MEXICO:** 271,268 **UNITED STATES:** 390,654

**Mercury.**Power plants, as well as other natural and industrial sources, emit significant amounts of mercury to the air. There are several chemical forms of mercury emitted by power plants. One form, elemental mercury, deposits relatively slowly once emitted to the air, so that its transported distance through the atmosphere can be global in extent. Another form of mercury emitted by power plants is oxidized or ionic mercury. One class of oxidized mercury readily dissolves in water, is less volatile than elemental mercury, and sticks relatively easily to surfaces, so may quickly deposit downwind from its source. As a result of a shorter transport distance, some forms of oxidized mercury may more promptly enter the food chain nearer to its emission source compared to elemental mercury emissions. Once mercury deposits either in its elemental or oxidized forms, biological processes can transform it into a highly toxic compound called methylmercury.

Figure 2.4 

### MERCURY EMISSIONS ESTIMATES - Total power plant emissions, emissions per capita, and emissions per unit of GDP

TOTAL POWER PLANT MERCURY EMISSIONS (metric tonnes) EMISSIONS PER CAPITA (kilograms/million individuals)

**Sources** : National GDP and population estimates from CIA World Factbook , online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook, accessed June 2004. Population estimates for 2002 were estimated based on the reported 2003 figures and country specific growth rates calculated from 2003 and 2004 population estimates. GDP (purchasing power parity) estimates were reported for 2002. **United States mercury emissions (2002):** Calculated based on Information Collection Request (1999) database developed by the United States EPA and 2002 coal use data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States Department of Energy. **Canada mercury emissions (2002):** Environment Canada, National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database for 2002, accessible at www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm

. **Mexico mercury emissions (2002):** Vijay, Samudra, Molina, Luisa T. and Molina, Mario J. Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico, prepared by the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April 2004. **UNITED STATES** 44.2 **MEXICO** 1.0

**CANADA** 2.0 EMISSIONS PER UNIT OF GDP (kilograms/$billion) **CANADA:** 63 **MEXICO:**10 **UNITED STATES:** 151

**CANADA:** 2 **MEXICO:** 1 **UNITED STATES:** 48 Figure 2.5 

### CO 2

### EMISSIONS ESTIMATES - Total power plant emissions, emissions per capita, and emissions per unit of GDP

TOTAL POWER PLANT CO 2EMISSIONS (million metric tonnes) EMISSIONS PER CAPITA (kilograms/individual)

**Sources** : National GDP and population estimates from CIA World Factbook , online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook, accessed June 2004. Population estimates for 2002 were estimated based on the reported 2003 fi gures and country specifi c growth rates calculated from 2003 and 2004 population estimates. GDP (purchasing power parity) estimates were reported for 2002. **United States CO 2** **emissions (2002):** United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1 990–2002, Chapter 3. Energy, page 42. EPA 430-R-04-003. April 2004. Accessed online at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions(29 September 2004). Note that this fi gure is higher than that reported in Table 1.3 because Table 1.3does not include sources below 100 MW in capacity. **Canada CO 2** **emissions (2002):** Environment Canada. Canada’s 2002 Greenhouse Gas Inventory . Accessed online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_02_report/ghg_backgrounder_e.cfm(29 September 2004). **Mexico CO 2** **emissions (2002):**Vijay, Samudra, Molina, Luisa T. and Molina, Mario J. Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico

. Prepared by the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April 2004. **UNITED STATES** 2,240 **MEXICO** 94

**CANADA**

128 EMISSIONS PER UNIT OF GDP (tonnes/$billion) **CANADA:** 4,012 **MEXICO:** 901 **UNITED STATES:** 7,787

**CANADA:** 137,030 **MEXICO:** 102,209 **UNITED STATES:** 214,364 Methylmercury in water bodies concentrates in the tissue of fi sh, with generally higher concentrations in the larger predator fi sh that feed on smaller fi sh and other organisms lower in the food chain. Birds that feed on fi sh, such as loons, also can accumulate high levels of mercury in their bodies. In addition, human exposure to methylmercury in North America also results primarily from the consumption of fi sh. Methylmercury can adversely affect several organ systems in people, with the severity of effects depending largely on the magnitude and timing of the exposure (i.e., during fetal development or as a child or adult). Mercury is a developmental neurotoxin that can damage the central nervous system of a young child or fetus. Some studies suggest that mercury has cardiovascular effects in adults and can impair the adult immune and reproductive systems. Power plants in Canada and the United States contribute 25 and 40 percent of their respective industrial mercury emissions. 11,12Coal-fi red power plants are the single largest industrial source of atmospheric mercury emissions in the United States due to the large share of electricity generation in the United States from coal combustion. Oil and natural gas contain relatively minor concentrations of mercury, depending on their source, and are not considered to be signifi cant sources of mercury at this time. Only three power plants burned coal in Mexico during 2002, and these contributed roughly three percent of the country’s atmospheric mercury emissions. 13 **Carbon Dioxide.** CO 2is the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted from human activities. There are also non-CO 2GHGs emitted directly by human activities, including methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2 O),



### COLESON COVE

fuel used oil capacity 990 MW location St. John, New Brunswick9**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS and a group of industrial gases including perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb infrared light that would otherwise pass through the air on its way to outer space. By storing the light’s energy in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases warm the planet significantly, making conditions more amenable to life. Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases beyond recent natural levels due to human activities increase the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb energy from light, which in turn can raise the average global temperature. This change may affect global weather patterns, which can lead to rising sea levels, destruction of animal and plant habitat, increased frequency and severity of storms, glacial melting, and drought. Fossil fuel power plants in Canada, Mexico and the United States contribute 23, 30 and 39 percent of their respective national CO 2 emissions, 14,15,16 thus are significant contributors to industrial greenhouse gas emissions in each country. **Emissions by Fuel Type.** Having emissions information from individual power plants permits the estimation of the relative contribution of different fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to each nation’s air pollution. This is shown in Table 2.1 by individual country as well as collectively for all of North America. As can be seen in this table, coal is by far the largest source of air emissions from the electricity sector in Canada and the United States. Oil is an important contributor in Mexico because it is the dominant fuel in use in Mexico, providing about 40 percent of national generation in 2002, while coal combustion provided about 8 percent (see Figure 2.1 ). We do not include mercury in Table 2.1 because most information in North America is only available for coal power plants, which dominate mercury air emissions from the electricity sector. There will be a small contribution from oil and natural gas power plants that makes the coal contribution marginally less than 100 percent. The contribution from oil and natural gas, however, is not considered significant at this time so that the mercury emissions from the power sector in each country, including Mexico with only three coal plants, 17 will be mainly from coal combustion.

Table 2.1 

### PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF EACH COMBUSTION FUEL TO ELECTRICITY SECTOR AIR EMISSIONS IN EACH COUNTRY AND IN NORTH AMERICAa

For North America as a whole, coal-fired electricity generation is the single largest source of air emissions of SO 2 , NO x, mercury, and CO 2from the electricity generation sector. Coal combustion accounted for about 44 percent of all electricity generation across the three countries, while oil and gas accounted for about 4 and 17 percent, respectively. When looking at only generation from fossil fuels, coal produced 68 percent of electricity from fossil fuel power plants, while natural gas provided 26 percent and oil 6 percent. 18 Therefore, the higher pollution contribution from coal combustion to trinational air emissions is not surprising based on its higher share of generation. Coal’s share of air emissions among fossil fuel sources, however, still tends to be higher than its share of fossil fuel electricity generation because coal typically emits more of these types of pollutants per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced than the other fossil fuel sources. For example, while coal accounts for about 68 percent of the fossil fuel electricity generation in North America, Table 2.1 shows that it is responsible for 86 percent of SO 2and 90 percent of NO xemissions from the power plants included in this report. 19 Natural gas, on the other hand, accounts for about 26 percent of the fossil fuel electricity generation in North America, but contributes proportionally fewer emissions—less than 1 percent of SO 2and about 6 percent of NO xemissions. aTotals may differ from 100 percent due to rounding. We

currently believed, however, that coal dominates national mercury emissions from the electricity sector, while oil and natural gas are relatively minor contributors. b“Other” includes petroleum coke, diesel, landfi ll gas, and wood. 

### FUEL TYPE 

## SO **2** 

## NO **x** 

## CO **2**



### CANADA **Coal** 86% 82% N/A

**Oil** 12% 11% N/A **Natural gas** 0% 6% N/A

**Other b**  2% 2% N/A



### MEXICO **Coal** 21% 47% 22%

**Oil** 79% 35% 60% **Natural gas** 0% 17% 17%

**Other b**  0% 2% 1%



### UNITED STATES **Coal** 97% 93% 87%

**Oil** 3% 2% 2% **Natural gas** 1% 5% 11%

**Other b**  0% 0% 0%



### NORTH AMERICA **Coal** 86% 90% N/A

**Oil** 14% 4% N/A **Natural gas** 0% 6% N/A

**Other b**  0% 0% N/A10 

# 3**TUXPAN**fuel usedoil,capacity2100 MW,locationTuxpan, Veracruz11**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS 

# Emissions Data

3.1 **I NTRODUCTION**

We obtained or derived the emissions data presented in this report from publicly available databases and reports. All data presented in this report are for the year 2002 unless noted otherwise. In the accompanying tables to each pollutant section, we present the facility-specific total emissions from North American fossil fuel power plants grouped by country. We also include the facilities’ output-based emissions rates—that is, the amount of pollution emitted per output of electricity. This helps in comparing the relative environmental performance of facilities since a large facility with high total emissions may emit much less pollution on an electricity output basis than a smaller facility with lower total emissions. For example, a large facility emitting twice the pollution of a smaller facility would still be two times cleaner on an electricity output basis if it produces four times the electricity of the smaller facility. Total emissions from a facility are important, however, because ultimately for the environment and public health, it is the total amount of pollution emitted that determines the extent of impact. Most of the Canadian power plant emissions data come from the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database for 2002, the first year in which Canada required reporting of SO 2 and NO xair emissions (power plants began reporting mercury releases in 2000). Emissions of CO 2were only available from two companies (ATCO Power and Ontario Power Generation) in annual reports for 2002. More information on greenhouse gas emissions from individual facilities in Canada should be forthcoming in future years under a new reporting program being developed by the federal agency Statistics Canada. Electricity generation information for specific power plants in Canada is typically not publicly available, but the Canadian Electricity Association provides 2001 and 2002 generation figures for a limited number of coal power plants as part of a special mercury program. We obtained additional generation information for some facilities from company annual reports (ATCO Power and Ontario Power Generation). The emissions data for Mexico are from a database compiled in a report entitled Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico 20 that was commissioned by the CEC. The report estimates emissions and output emission rates for power plants in Mexico based on fuel consumption and generation data provided by Mexico’s Energy Secretariat (Sener). Emission factors for specific types of power generating facilities came from United States EPA tabulations of standard emission factors (AP-42). The United States emissions data for SO 2 , NO x, and CO 2are from the United States EPA Clean Air Markets database accessed through the Emissions Query Wizard. Continuous emissions monitoring of many of the large United States power plants provides the basis of these data. Fossil fuel consumption and electricity generation data are from the United States Energy Information Administration. For mercury, we estimated emissions by calculating the ratio of coal consumption (in tons) for the years 2002 and 1999, and multiplying this ratio by the 1999 mercury emissions reported in EPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). This simplified approach may provide a general trend in emissions but does not account for important factors beyond fuel use that may also affect mercury emissions. These could include addition of controls (e.g., wet scrubbers) that may remove additional mercury, or coal switching (e.g., from bituminous to subbituminous or vice versa) that may increase or decrease the amount of emitted mercury. The following sections provide an overview of the data presented later in this chapter. We begin our analysis with a discussion of the SO 2 emissions data. 

## 3.2 **NORTH AMERICAN INFORMATION SOURCES** An air emissions inventory serves a number of important functions in understanding and managing sources of air pollution, ranging from motor vehicles to large industrial facilities. Policymakers who are responsible for protecting human health and the environment rely on air emissions inventories to identify opportunities for reducing pollution and to evaluate alternative policy scenarios. Companies rely on emissions data to assess their performance relative to others in their sector and to evaluate their progress in reducing emissions. Public health researchers use emissions inventories when trying to link observed health effects to air pollution sources. The public relies on emissions inventories to understand the sources of air pollution in its communities. Electricity suppliers, in some cases, rely on emissions inventory data to assess and report to their customers on the emissions attributable to the electricity they sell. The investment community can use the data to assess the environmental liabilities faced by a company. While emissions inventories provide important information for a number of audiences and policy goals, the inventories in North America historically have been varied in level of detail, reporting year, estimation methods, and public accessibility. Each of the three countries requires power plants to report some types of pollutants and associated operational data, but no common policy exists across North America. For example, the United States requires large fossil fuel power plants to measure and report emissions of some air pollutants using continuous emissions monitoring in the smokestacks. Canada and Mexico do not require continuous monitoring, so emissions information may be estimated by either monitoring or empirical techniques (e.g., calculating SO 2emissions based on a plant’s fuel consumption and the fuel’s sulfur content). Recognizing that air pollution travels across international borders, the North American countries have been placing greater emphasis on the generation and sharing of air emissions inventory information in several bilateral venues as well as on a trinational level through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. While data gaps remain and estimation methods may differ, the year 2002 marks the first year that publicly accessible air emissions data exist for individual power plants in each North American country. This is an important result of the increasing cooperative efforts among the three countries to foster the greater exchange and public availability of air pollutant information.12 In the United States, where 50 percent of electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants, there are a large number of facilities that produce significant quantities of SO 2emissions. A total of about 242 facilities (out of 899 in the database) produced 90 percent of power plant SO 2emissions in the United States, with annual individual facility emissions ranging from 145,763 tonnes to 10,997 tonnes. In Canada, seventeen facilities out of 38 produced 90 percent of SO 2emissions, with annual emissions ranging from 86,710 tonnes to 12,992 tonnes. In Mexico, sixteen facilities out of 82 produced 90 percent of SO 2emissions, with annual emissions ranging from 253,430 tonnes to 29,196 tonnes. The SO 2 emissions column of Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5reports the annual 2002 SO 2 emissions for each of the facilities in the inventory. In North America, a fairly small percentage of facilities produced the majority of SO 2emissions in 2002. For example, the seven highest emitting facilities in the United States (or 2 percent of the power plants listed in Table 3.3) produced 10 percent of the total annual emissions. Seventeen facilities (or 4 percent of the power plants listed in Table 3.3) produced 20 percent of the total annual emissions. In Canada, the highest emitting facility produced 1 4percent of the total SO 2emissions from the electricity sector during 2002. In Mexico, the highest emitting facility in 2002 produced 16 percent of the total annual SO 2emissions from the electricity sector. Figure 3.1 presents in bar chart form the SO 2emissions generated by power plants in Canada, the United States and Mexico distributed across the facilities in each of the countries. Each bar in Figure 3.1 represents 10 percent of the fossil-fired power plants within each country, with facilities sorted according to their 2002 SO 2emissions. In Canada, the total number of fossil-fired facilities is 70, with each bar representing 7 facilities, which is 10 percent of the number of plants. In the United States, the total number of facilities is 899, with each bar representing 90 facilities or 10 percent of the inventory. In Mexico, the total number of facilities is 82 with each bar representing 8 facilities or 10 percent of the inventory. As an example of how to interpret these charts, facilities in Canada report a total of 619,000 tonnes of SO 2emissions in 2002. The seven highest emitting facilities, representing 10 percent of the total facility count, produced 59 percent of these emissions. The next seven highest emitting facilities produced 26 percent of power plant emissions. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50 percent of the total facility count, produced less than 1 percent of SO 2 emissions. In each country, the charts show that the 10 percent highest emitting plants collectively contributed more than 55 percent of their national emissions from the electricity generating sector in 2002. For Canada and the United States, the top 10 percent of the emitters are primarily large coal plants, with one oil plant in Canada. In Mexico, these are oil plants along with the only three coal plants in that country. 

## 3.3 **S U LFU R DIOXI DE (SO 2**  

## ) E M I SS ION S **CHALK POINT**

fuel used coal, oil, natural gas capacity 2600 MW location Aquasco, Maryland13**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS Figure 3.1 

### FACILITY DISTRIBUTION OF SO 2

### EMISSIONS a

The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 59% of SO2 emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced less than 1% of SO2emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 SO 2emissions) Last 10% of facilities



## UNITED STATES The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 59% of SO2 emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced less than 1% (0.02%) of SO2emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 SO 2emissions) Last 10% of facilities**SO 2** **Emissions (million tonnes) SO** **2 Emissions (million tonnes)**  

## MEXICO The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 65% of SO2 emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced less than 1% (0.04%) of SO2emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 SO 2emissions) Last 10% of facilities**SO 2** **Emissions (million tonnes)**

a Not all fossil fuel facilities in each country reported SO 2emissions in 2002, so the total number of facilities covered in Figure 3.1 may be greater than those reporting emissions. Because the power plants not reporting emissions are small emitters, their inclusion in the bar c harts does not change the relative contribution of each grouping. 5% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0 22% 12% 59% 65%

25%

9% 2% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 

## CANADA

59%

26% 12% 3% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

014 The SO 2emission rate column of Tables 3.3, 3.4and 3.5shows the SO 2emission rates for each of the facilities. These output-based emission rates provide a measure of the quantity of SO 2emissions released to the air per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Emission rates allow a comparison of the relative emissions performance of different size facilities and facilities with different utilization rates. There are several reasons for the wide variation in SO 2emission rates. One is the fuel used and its level of pollution control. A coal-fi red power plant can dramatically reduce its SO 2emissions with the application of post-combustion pollution control equipment. The leading technology for SO 2control is flue gas desulfurization (FGD or scrubber) controls, which can achieve greater than 90 percent control efficiency. According to the United States EPA, 31 percent of coal-fired capacity in the United States (or 94 gigawatts) is equipped with scrubber technology, with the remainder having different control technologies, or no controls. 21 Apart from the Conesville (# 5 in Table 3.3 ), Gibson (# 7), and Homer City (# 13) facilities, which are each reported to have at least one scrubber installed at their plants, none of the top seventeen highest emitting facilities in the United States is reported to have a scrubber installed. 22 Many of the plants in Mexico burn oil containing relatively high levels of sulfur and have no emission controls installed. Among those having some level of control, none is believed to have scrubbers. 23 Canada, like the United States, has a mix of controlled and uncontrolled sources. Of the 20 coal power plants that have power plant information reports collected by the Canadian Electricity Association, fi ve indicated some type of SO 2control on at least one unit, with two plants reporting the use of scrubbers. 24 SO 2emission rates will also vary as a result of differences in the sulfur content of the coal or oil combusted. In the United States, subbituminous coal mined in the western part of the country generally contains lower concentrations of sulfur than coal mined in the eastern United States, although there are some sources of “low sulfur” eastern bituminous coals. Subbituminous coal mined in Wyoming contains only about 0.3 percent sulfur, while high-sulfur coal from the Appalachian basin can contain more than 3.0 percent sulfur. 25The SO 2estimates for Mexican power plants burning coal are based on a sulfur content of 1.3 percent for plants using domestic coal supplies and 0.7 percent for imported coal. 26 For the oil-burning plants, which are a much larger share of generation in Mexico, sulfur content is typically in the range of 3.4 to 3.9 percent. Figure 3.2 presents the geographic distribution of power plant SO 2 emissions in North America. The largest concentration of SO 2emissions in North America runs through the United States Midwest and Southeast, where the greatest number of coal power plants are located. Coal plants in the western United States are relatively less pronounced, refl ecting in part the lower sulfur content of coal primarily used there. In Canada, the large emitters are mainly coal plants located in central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, southern Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick and Newfoundland also have one oil-fired plant each with large SO 2emissions. In contrast to the United States, there is a less strong geographical distinction in the size of SO 2emissions between western and eastern power plants in Canada. The two largest emitters of sulfur dioxide in Mexico are oil-fired facilities in the states of Veracruz and Hidalgo. Mexico has two large coal plants—Río Escondido (1,200 megawatts), also known as Carbón I or José López Portillo, and Carbón II (1,400 megawatts)—that are located in the United States– Mexico border region in the state of Coahuila adjacent to the state of Texas. The map shows the combined SO 2emissions of these two coal plants as one circle to avoid obscuring their collective emissions in overlapping co-located circles. 27 Mexico also added a third coal plant to its national generation mix in 2001 when it converted 1,050 megawatts of the 2,100 megawatt Petacalco power plant from oil to coal (with plans for converting another 700 megawatts by 2003). This plant is located in the southern state of Guerrero on Mexico’s Pacific coast, and imports coal from Asia and Australia. 

### NAUGHTON

fuel used coal capacity 700 MW location Kemmerer, Wyoming15**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS Figure 3.2 

### GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POWER PLANT SO 2

### EMISSIONS

The burning of fossil fuels at high temperatures in the presence of nitrogen and oxygen in the air produces nitric oxide (NO), which rapidly converts to nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) in the atmosphere. Collectively, these two pollutants are referred to as NO x. Because of the large amounts of fuel they burn, fossil fuel power plants are significant sources of NO xin North America. Some of the factors that influence the amount of NO xproduced by power plants include the amount of nitrogen in the fuel, the amount of excess air (which is 78 percent nitrogen), the combustion air temperature, and the level of post-combustion NO xcontrol. For the United States, there are a total of 565 facilities, with annual individual facility NO xemissions ranging from 45,308 tonnes to 190 tonnes. In 2002, 70 facilities reported NO xemissions in Canada, with annual emissions ranging from 38,204 tonnes to 23 tonnes. There are 81 facilities in Mexico estimated to produce NO x, ranging from 45,932 tonnes to 13 tonnes. The NO xemissions column of Tables 3.6, 3.7 , and 3.8shows the annual NO xemissions during 2002 for each of the facilities in North America. Figure 3.3presents in bar chart form the contribution of NO xemissions by power plant groupings in each country to that country’s total NO x emissions from the electricity sector. The bars in each chart represent 10 percent increments of the total number of power plants with their emissions contribution to the electricity sector’s national total. T he number of facilities in each country included in the bar charts is the same total as previously given for Figure 3.1. In each country, the charts show that the 10 percent highest emitting plants in terms of total annual emissions collectively contributed more than 50 percent of the emissions of the national contribution from the electricity generation sector in 2002. T he top 10 percent of the emitters in Canada and the United States are coal plants. In Mexico, the top three facilities among the 10 percent highest emitters are its coal plants followed by large oil facilities. 

## 3.4 **N ITROG E N OXI DE S (NO X**  

## ) E M I SS ION S

**KINGSTON**

fuel used coal capacity 1700 MW location Harriman, Tennessee **NORTH AMERICAN POWER PLANTS**  The size of each circle represents the quantity of emissions in 2002 200,000 tonnes 100,000 tonnes 25,000 tonnes **PRIMARY FUEL TYPE** Coal = Black Oil or Diesel = Blue Natural Gas = Red16 Figure 3.3 

### FACILITY DISTRIBUTION OF NOX

### EMISSIONS a

The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 51% of NO x emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced 2.7% of NO x emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 NOx emissions) Last 10% of facilities**N0 X** **Emissions (million tonnes)**



## UNITED STATES The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 52% of NO x emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced 1.7% of NO x emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 NOx emissions) Last 10% of facilities 

## MEXICO The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 65% of NO x emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced 4% of NO x emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 NOx emissions) Last 10% of facilities**N0 X** **Emissions (million tonnes)**

aNot all fossil fuel facilities in each country reported NO xemissions in 2002, so the total number of facilities covered in Figure 3.3may be greater t harts does not change the relative contribution of each grouping. 

## CANADA

51%

26% 12% 7% 2% 1% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0

52%

23% 13% 7% 3% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%**N0 X** **Emissions (million tonnes)** 4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0 12% 9% 6% 4% 2% 1% 1% < 1% < 1% 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

0 65%17**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS The NO xemission rate column in Tables 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8reports the NO xemission rates for each of the facilities. These output-based emission rates provide a measure of the quantity of NO xemissions released to the air per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity production. Emission rates allow a comparison of the relative emissions performance of different size facilities and facilities with different utilization rates. NO xemission rates vary for some of the same reasons that SO 2 emissions rates vary: 1) different levels of pollution control; 2) differences in the characteristics of the fuels combusted; and 3) differences in power plant efficiency. Figure 3.4presents the geographic distribution of power plant NO x emissions in North America. Again, the largest concentration of emissions runs through the United States Midwest and Southeast, coinciding with the greatest number of coal power plants. The coal plants in the western United States are now more pronounced as NO xemitters than they were as SO 2sources (see Figure 3.2 ), which is a reflection of NO xbeing relatively less dependent on coal type as compared to the differences in sulfur content between western and eastern coals. The five largest power plant sources of NO xin Canada are coal plants in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan. As previously mentioned, Mexico’s three coal plants (two in Coahuila and one in Guerrero) are also the three top emitters of NO xpollution from the electricity sector. The two coal plants in Coahuila are collectively shown in the map as one circle along the northern border of Mexico with Texas because the power plants are virtually co-located on the map scale.

Figure 3.4 

### GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POWER PLANT NO X

### EMISSIONS

**CARBÓN II**

fuel used coal capacity 1400 MW location Nava, Coahuila **NORTH AMERICAN POWER PLANTS**  The size of each circle represents the quantity of emissions in 2002 85,000 tonnes 40,000 tonnes 10,000 tonnes **PRIMARY FUEL TYPE** Coal = Black Oil or Diesel = Blue Natural Gas = Red18 Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in North America are generally unregulated, although efforts are underway in Canada and the United States to develop control programs. For example, Alberta adopted a reduction target of 50 percent from 2003 power plant mercury emissions by the end of 2009. The United States has proposed national regulations limiting mercury air emissions from the electricity sector, while several states have already adopted their own requirements . Massachusetts and Wisconsin seek to reduce mercury emissions by 80 percent or greater from the 2001–2002 and 2002–2004 measured levels, respectively. Connecticut and New Jersey require a 90 percent reduction based on measured mercury concentrations before and after the power plant’s pollution controls. A total of about 210 facilities produced 90 percent of the power plant mercury emissions in the United States during 2002, with annual individual facility emissions ranging from 849 kilograms to 56 kilograms. Fourteen facilities produced 90 percent of the power plant mercury emissions in Canada, with annual emissions ranging from 275 kilograms to 1.0 kilogram. Mexico has three coal power plants, each estimated to emit over 300 kg mercury apiece. The mercury emissions column of Tables 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11 shows the 2002 annual mercury emissions for each of the facilities included in this report. The 60 highest mercury-emitting power plants in the United States (or 18 percent of the those listed in Table 3.9) produced 50 percent of the total annual emissions from such facilities. In Canada, the highest emitting facility produced 14 percent of the total annual emissions from the Canadian electricity sector. In Mexico, the highest emitting facility among its three coal plants is the Carbón II coal plant located in the State of Coahuila near the United States border along southwestern Texas. For mapping purposes, the circle at this location combines the mercury emissions from Carbón II and the nearby Río Escondido coal plant that otherwise would be obscured in overlapping circles. Figure 3.5shows in bar chart form the contribution of mercury air emissions by power plant groupings in Canada and the United States to each country’s total mercury air emissions from the electricity sector. The bars in each chart represent 10 percent increments of the total number of power plants with their emissions contribution to the electricity sector’s national total. The number of facilities in each country included in the bar charts is the same total as previously given for Figure 3.1

. We do not include a bar chart for Mexico because its three coal-burning power plants would all fall into only one bar at the top 10 percent. The top 10 percent of the power plants accounts for over 60 percent of mercury emissions from the electricity generation sector in each country. Although the bar charts include all fossil fuel power plants, all the mercury emissions are from coal plants only. While oil and gas power plants may have some level of mercury air emissions, these are not generally considered high 

## 3.5 **M E RCU RY (Hg) E M I SS ION S**

The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 61% of mercury emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced less than 1% of mercury emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 Hg emissions) Last 10% of facilities**Hg Emissions (tonnes)**



## UNITED STATES The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 63% of mercury emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced less than 1% of mercury emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 Hg emissions) Last 10% of facilities**Hg Emissions (tonnes)** Figure 3.5 

### FACILITY DISTRIBUTION OF MERCURY EMISSIONS a

a In general, coal power plants are the primary emitters of mercury from fossil fuel combustion, while the total number of facilities covered in the figure

includes many non-coal plants not reporting mercury emissions. Because the non-coal power plants are relatively small emitters of mercury, the omission of non-coal mercury emissions in the bar charts does not change the relative preponderance of coal plants as the major mercury emitters. 

## CANADA

1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 2.20

2.00

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0 61%

30%

8%

4% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0 63%

23% 11%19**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS and there are little or no mercury emissions data for these plants in the Canada and United States databases used in this report. Even for the United States plants listed in Table 3.9that have a primary fuel other than coal, their mercury emissions are from coal that these plants burn as a secondary fuel source. The mercury emission rate column in Tables 3.9, 3.10 , and 3.11 reports the emission rates for each of the facilities. These output-based emission rates provide a measure of the quantity of mercury released to the air for each gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity production. Power plant mercury emission rates vary in part because of the varying concentrations of mercury in coal. Mercury is present as a natural impurity in coal, and the concentrations can vary substantially between coal types and even within the same coal type. Table 3.1 presents the mercury concentrations measured during a nationwide survey coordinated by the United States EPA in 1999. 28 The Canadian Electricity Association is currently undertaking a mercury program in Canada to better characterize variations in coal mercury content and emissions in that country

. 29

Table 3.1 

### MERCURY CONTENT OF COAL TYPES

**COAL TYPE Average**  **Mercury Content Range of Measured Mercury Concentrations** 

**BITUMINOUS** 3.69 kg/petajoule (8.59 lb/trillion Btu) 0.02–44.63 kg/petajoule (0.04–103.81 lb/trillion Btu)

**SUBBITUMINOUS** 2.47 kg/petajoule (5.74 lb/trillion Btu) 0.17–30.56 kg/petajoule (0.39–71.08 lb/trillion Btu)

**LIGNITE** 4.53 kg/petajoule (10.54 lb/trillion Btu) 0.40–32.27 kg/petajoule (0.93–75.06 lb/trillion Btu)

Emission rates also vary as a result of the incidental capture of mercury at coal-fired power plants. Extensive field tests in the United States have demonstrated that existing pollution control equipment, such as SO 2 scrubbers and post-combustion NO xcontrols, can achieve significant levels of mercury control. According to the United States EPA, the average levels of mercury control range from 0 percent to 98 percent, depending on the exact characteristics of the power plant and the coal used. 30 In anticipation of mercury control requirements in Canada and the United States, efforts are underway to optimize these control systems to reliably capture a greater share of the mercury in coal, and companies are also developing and testing mercury-specific control technologies. Figure 3.6presents the geographic distribution of power plant mercury emissions in North America. As with SO 2emissions, the largest concentration of mercury emissions in North America occurs in the United States Midwest and Southeast, a region that relies heavily on coal-fired power plants. Eastern Texas, which relies primarily on lignite coal, is also a high mercury emitting area. Mercury emissions in Canada are widely distributed based on the location of coal plants. Mercury emissions from two of Mexico’s three coal-burning power plants are collectively shown in the map as one large circle along the country’s northern border with Texas because the two plants are nearly co-located.

Figure 3.6 

### GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POWER PLANT MERCURY EMISSIONS

**NORTH AMERICAN POWER PLANTS**  The size of each circle represents the quantity of emissions in 2002 1,000 kilograms 400 kilograms 100 kilograms **PRIMARY FUEL TYPE** Coal = Black* *Only coal-fired power plants are presented on the map.20 The CO 2emissions from a number of power plants appear more prominently in various locations across the countries (e.g., California) as compared to the other pollutants detailed in this report. This results from several factors. First, all fossil fuels produce CO 2emissions when burned because all fossil fuels contain the element carbon. For example, natural gas is primarily methane, a relatively simple chemical compound made up of one carbon and four hydrogen atoms (CH 4). Second, there are no pollution control systems in routine use that capture CO 2molecules as they exit the stack of a power plant. The CO 2emissions from a fossil fuel power plant are a function of 1) the amount of carbon contained in the fuel, and 2) the efficiency of the facility at converting this fuel into electricity. Table 3.2shows the average input-based CO 2emission rates for coal, oil and natural gas. The rate for coal is almost two times higher than the rate for natural gas because the carbon content of coal is higher. How this translates into emissions based on generation output depends on the amount of fuel consumed and the efficiency of the power plant in converting fuel into useful electricity output. In a typical power plant, about one-third of the energy contained in the fuel is converted into electricity, while the remainder is released as waste heat. Some facilities make use of this waste heat to produce additional electricity or to supply other energy needs. This increases the overall efficiency of the plant. 

## 3.6 **CAR BON DIOXI DE (CO 2**  

## ) E M I SS ION S

aUnited States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sink—2002. EPA 430-R-04-003. April 2004.

Online at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions(derived from Table 2-19 in Annex 2). 

### FUEL TYPE **Average CO 2** **Emission Rates**

**COAL** 89.46 kg/gigajoule (208 lb/million Btu) **OIL (DISTILLATE)** 69.29 kg/gigajoule (161 lb/million Btu)

**NATURAL GAS** 50.26 kg/gigajoule (117 lb/million Btu) Table 3.2 

### AVERAGE INPUT-BASED CO 2

### EMISSION RATES a 

### NANTICOKE

fuel used coal capacity 4000 MW location Nanticoke, Ontario21**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS 

## MEXICO The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 54% of CO2 emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced 2.9% of CO2 emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 CO 2emissions) Last 10% of facilities Figure 3.7 

### FACILITY DISTRIBUTION OF CO 2

### EMISSIONS



## UNITED STATES The highest emitting facilities, representing 10% of the total facility count, produced 47% of CO2 emissions in 2002. The lowest emitting facilities, representing 50% of the total facility count, produced 5.1% of CO2 emissions.

First 10% of facilities Each bar represents 10% of facilities (ranked according to their 2002 CO 2emissions) Last 10% of facilities**CO 2** **Emissions (million tonnes)**

The CO 2emission rate column of Tables 3.12, 3.13 , and 3.14reports the emission rates for each of the facilities. These output-based emission rates provide a measure of the quantity of CO 2released to the air for each megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Figure 3.8presents the geographic distribution of power plant CO 2emissions in Canada, Mexico and the United States. The Canada portion of the map is incomplete as CO 2emissions from most power plants in Canada are not yet available, but this will change in the future as the federal agency Statistics Canada establishes a reporting system for greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources in Canada. Notable exceptions to the lack of 2002 greenhouse gas information are ATCO Power in Alberta and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which report CO 2emissions from their facilities as part of public annual company reports. Figure 3.8therefore includes ATCO Power facilities in Alberta and OPG power plants in Ontario. Tables 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 report the 2002 annual CO 2emissions for each of the facilities in each country. As would be expected, the largest CO 2emitters tend to be large coal power plants because of coal’s higher carbon content than that of the other fossil fuels. The bar charts of Figure 3.7 also reflect a larger proportion of coal plants among the top 10 percent emitters in each country. Figure 3.7 does not include a chart for Canada because of the lack of comprehensive publicly available CO 2emissions information for individual power plants during 2002.

8% 4% 2% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1%**CO 2** **Emissions (million tonnes)** 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 54%

20% 11%

5% 3% 1% 1% < 1% < 1% 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000

800

600

400

200

0 47%

23% 13% 7%22 Figure 3.8 

### GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POWER PLANT CO 2

### EMISSIONS*

**NORTH AMERICAN POWER PLANTS**  The size of each circle represents the quantity of emissions in 2002 22 million tonnes 14 million tonnes 3.5 million tonnes

* In general, CO 2emissions data were not available for individual Canadian power plants. Data were available for the major facilities in the P rovince of Ontario from Ontario Power Generation’s Towards Sustainable Development: 2002 Progress Report . In Alberta, the map refl ects only a subset of the major power plants in the province. CO 2emissions data were only available for facilities included in ATCO Power’s Environment, Health and Safety Review 2002. All other facilities without public CO 2emissions data for 2002 are not shown on the map. **PRIMARY FUEL TYPE** Coal = Black Oil or Diesel = Blue Natural Gas = Red



### SUNDANCE

fuel used coal capacity 2020 MW location Duffield, Alberta**PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Bowen, Georgia 21,674,542 145,763 6.73 Coal 2 Hatfield’s Ferry, Pennsylvania 9,753,564 143,984 14.76 Coal 3 Keystone, Pennsylvania 11,790,991 136,642 11.59 Coal 4 WH Sammis, Ohio 15,521,117 131,647 8.48 Coal 5 Conesville, Ohio 10,158,928 122,949 12.10 Coal 6 EC Gaston, Alabama 12,639,541 115,878 9.17 Coal 7 Gibson, Indiana 20,522,153 115,538 5.63 Coal 8 JM Stuart, Ohio 15,351,286 106,641 6.95 Coal 9 Muskingum River, Ohio 8,359,764 104,805 12.54 Coal 10 Montour, Pennsylvania 9,263,444 101,103 10.91 Coal 11 Johnsonville, Tennessee 8,275,776 98,697 11.93 Coal 12 John E Amos, West Virginia 17,995,089 97,632 5.43 Coal 13 Homer City, Pennsylvania 10,938,699 95,968 8.77 Coal 14 Belews Creek, North Carolina 16,912,850 93,519 5.53 Coal 15 Warrick, Indiana 5,066,020 89,611 17.69 Coal 16 Crystal River, Florida 14,465,667 88,641 6.13 Coal 17 Roxboro, North Carolina 14,281,069 86,737 6.07 Coal 18 Monroe, Michigan 16,720,823 83,375 4.99 Coal 19 Fort Martin, West Virginia 7,855,193 82,663 10.52 Coal 20 Scherer, Georgia 20,817,252 78,336 3.76 Coal 21 Monticello, Texas 13,127,881 78,309 5.97 Coal 22 Miami Fort, Ohio 7,587,241 77,746 10.25 Coal 23 Paradise, Kentucky 14,130,150 76,270 5.40 Coal 24 Marshall, North Carolina 14,498,223 74,626 5.15 Coal 25 Big Brown, Texas 7,920,848 70,635 8.92 Coal 26 Kingston, Tennessee 9,866,292 70,372 7.13 Coal 27 Cardinal, Ohio 8,555,500 67,814 7.93 Coal 28 Kyger Creek, Ohio 6,852,119 67,542 9.86 Coal 29 Harllee Branch, Georgia 9,018,458 67,082 7.44 Coal 30 Chesterfield, Virginia 9,502,996 66,988 7.05 Coal 31 Wansley, Georgia 11,197,521 66,770 5.96 Coal 32 Morgantown, Maryland 7,550,506 63,816 8.45 Coal 33 Walter C Beckjord, Ohio 6,756,632 63,441 9.39 Coal 34 Brunner Island, Pennsylvania 9,994,684 62,535 6.26 Coal 35 Eastlake, Ohio 6,724,187 61,196 9.10 Coal 36 Jeffrey Energy Center, Kansas 15,330,637 61,127 3.99 Coal 37 Martin Lake, Texas 14,825,001 60,238 4.06 Coal 38 Tanner’s Creek, Indiana 5,872,947 56,729 9.66 Coal 39 Wabash River, Indiana 5,744,472 56,155 9.78 Coal 40 WA Parish, Texas 20,026,008 56,090 2.80 Coal 41 Barry, Alabama 16,718,579 54,001 3.23 Coal 42 Gorgas, Alabama 7,216,594 50,825 7.04 Coal Table 3.3 

### UNITED STATES SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a23**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONSTable 3.3 

### UNITED STATES SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)24 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

43 Mitchell, West Virginia 9,231,567 50,811 5.50 Coal 44 Cayuga, Indiana 5,930,084 50,455 8.51 Coal 45 Rockport, Indiana 16,643,319 48,259 2.90 Coal 46 FJ Gannon, Florida 4,815,528 48,008 9.97 Coal 47 Chalk Point, Maryland 6,041,207 47,651 7.89 Coal 48 Big Cajun 2, Louisiana 11,125,719 47,178 4.24 Coal 49 Dunkirk, New York 3,591,017 47,090 13.11 Coal 50 Colbert, Alabama 6,305,034 45,324 7.19 Coal 51 Coleman, Kentucky 2,864,421 44,478 15.53 Coal 52 R Gallagher, Indiana 2,977,365 43,334 14.55 Coal 53 Labadie, Missouri 14,406,589 43,192 3.00 Coal 54 Leland Olds, North Dakota 4,576,988 43,000 9.39 Coal 55 Harding Street Stn (Elmer W Stout), Indiana 3,784,144 42,881 11.33 Coal 56 Petersburg, Indiana 11,641,137 42,776 3.67 Coal 57 EW Brown, Kentucky 3,992,354 42,280 10.59 Coal 58 Ghent, Kentucky 11,533,151 42,233 3.66 Coal 59 St. Clair, Michigan 6,965,047 42,205 6.06 Coal 60 Avon Lake, Ohio 4,169,683 41,721 10.01 Coal 61 Sioux, Missouri 6,296,711 41,693 6.62 Coal 62 James H Miller Jr, Alabama 18,592,131 40,052 2.15 Coal 63 Widows Creek, Alabama 8,868,307 39,901 4.50 Coal 64 Mountaineer, West Virginia 8,985,024 39,213 4.36 Coal 65 Crist, Florida 4,572,235 38,918 8.51 Coal 66 Coffeen, Illinois 5,257,211 38,403 7.30 Coal 67 Bull Run, Tennessee 6,760,080 38,273 5.66 Coal 68 Cheswick, Pennsylvania 3,021,295 38,119 12.62 Coal 69 Pleasants, West Virginia 7,629,209 38,020 4.98 Coal 70 Big Sandy, Kentucky 5,752,379 38,011 6.61 Coal 71 Yates, Georgia 5,368,046 37,665 7.02 Coal 72 Greene County, Alabama 3,892,941 37,167 9.55 Coal 73 HL Spurlock, Kentucky 6,080,970 36,751 6.04 Coal 74 Mohave, Nevada 10,170,230 36,603 3.60 Coal 75 JH Campbell, Michigan 9,269,258 36,587 3.95 Coal 76 Phil Sporn, West Virginia 5,361,190 36,511 6.81 Coal 77 Brandon Shores, Maryland 7,160,408 36,265 5.06 Coal 78 Brayton Point, Massachusetts 8,263,163 35,919 4.35 Coal 79 Kammer, West Virginia 4,029,061 35,468 8.80 Coal 80 Huntley Power, New York 2,923,168 35,379 12.10 Coal 81 Shawville, Pennsylvania 2,991,436 34,679 11.59 Coal 82 Clifty Creek, Indiana 7,838,812 34,653 4.42 Coal 83 Winyah, South Carolina 7,720,938 34,131 4.42 Coal 84 Wateree, South Carolina 4,282,531 33,002 7.71 Coal25**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

85 Welsh Power Plant, Texas 11,000,083 32,460 2.95 Coal 86 Edwards Station, Illinois 3,536,593 32,431 9.17 Coal 87 Shawnee, Kentucky 8,826,178 32,276 3.66 Coal 88 John Sevier, Tennessee 4,880,298 32,194 6.60 Coal 89 RE Burger, Ohio 2,000,668 32,164 16.08 Coal 90 Northeastern, Oklahoma 9,623,635 31,310 3.25 Coal 91 Gallatin, Tennessee 7,271,777 30,989 4.26 Coal 92 White Bluff, Arkansas 8,850,935 30,982 3.50 Coal 93 Dickerson, Maryland 3,263,673 30,764 9.43 Coal 94 Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 7,898,581 30,342 3.84 Coal 95 Yorktown, Virginia 4,238,965 29,965 7.07 Coal 96 Four Corners, New Mexico 13,674,415 29,799 2.18 Coal 97 Manatee, Florida 6,116,586 29,667 4.85 Oil 98 Armstrong, Pennsylvania 2,140,768 29,484 13.77 Coal 99 CP Crane, Maryland 2,132,214 29,381 13.78 Coal 100 Gen JM Gavin, Ohio 15,617,077 29,375 1.88 Coal 101 Chesapeake, Virginia 4,141,111 29,343 7.09 Coal 102 Gerald Gentleman, Nebraska 9,549,816 29,168 3.05 Coal 103 Sam Seymour, Texas 11,749,703 28,847 2.46 Coal 104 GG Allen, North Carolina 5,071,389 28,243 5.57 Coal 105 Richard Gorsuch, Ohio 1,297,873 28,129 21.67 Coal 106 Limestone, Texas 11,385,520 27,977 2.46 Coal 107 Anclote, Florida 4,133,979 27,933 6.76 Oil 108 Merrimack, New Hampshire 2,874,174 27,812 9.68 Coal 109 Bruce Mansfield, Pennsylvania 15,974,911 27,500 1.72 Coal 110 Trenton Channel, Michigan 4,339,844 27,371 6.31 Coal 111 Milton R Young, North Dakota 5,117,272 25,915 5.06 Coal 112 Jack McDonough, Georgia 3,728,220 25,395 6.81 Coal 113 Hammond, Georgia 3,935,825 25,033 6.36 Coal 114 Muskogee, Oklahoma 10,275,348 24,968 2.43 Coal 115 Columbia, Wisconsin 6,472,154 24,950 3.85 Coal 116 RM Schahfer, Indiana 8,756,429 24,943 2.85 Coal 117 Mayo, North Carolina 4,737,089 24,867 5.25 Coal 118 Daniel, Mississippi 10,839,532 24,682 2.28 Coal 119 Clinch River, Virginia 4,620,670 24,492 5.30 Coal 120 Harrington Station, Texas 7,831,512 24,465 3.12 Coal 121 Sherburne County, Minnesota 15,344,648 24,260 1.58 Coal 122 Rochester 7, New York 1,506,960 23,945 15.89 Coal 123 Baldwin, Illinois 12,454,874 23,830 1.91 Coal 124 La Cygne, Kansas 9,517,909 23,590 2.48 Coal 125 New Castle, Pennsylvania 1,577,573 23,180 14.69 Coal 126 Williams, South Carolina 4,428,464 23,174 5.23 CoalTable 3.3 

### UNITED STATES SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)26 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

127 Sunbury, Pennsylvania 1,714,652 22,876 13.34 Coal 128 Meredosia, Illinois 1,326,609 22,815 17.20 Coal 129 Watson, Mississippi 4,731,902 22,738 4.81 Coal 130 Tolk Station, Texas 7,662,008 22,566 2.95 Coal 131 Independence, Arkansas 10,510,564 22,330 2.12 Coal 132 Coal Creek, North Dakota 8,559,089 22,161 2.59 Coal 133 PL Bartow, Florida 2,193,974 22,135 10.09 Coal 134 Belle River, Michigan 7,716,451 22,098 2.86 Coal 135 Portland, Pennsylvania 1,915,994 22,063 11.52 Coal 136 Northport, New York 7,278,114 21,932 3.01 Oil 137 Seminole, Florida 9,241,176 21,848 2.36 Coal 138 Jefferies, South Carolina 1,878,197 21,610 11.51 Coal 139 Mount Storm, West Virginia 11,671,736 21,202 1.82 Coal 140 Sandow, Texas 3,943,323 21,165 5.37 Coal 141 Allen S King, Minnesota 3,311,959 21,111 6.37 Coal 142 Rush Island, Missouri 7,483,574 21,097 2.82 Coal 143 Joppa Steam, Illinois 8,075,552 20,982 2.60 Coal 144 John S Cooper, Kentucky 2,100,208 20,605 9.81 Coal 145 Mill Creek, Kentucky 9,075,622 20,457 2.25 Coal 146 Cliffside, North Carolina 2,723,353 20,046 7.36 Coal 147 Martins Creek, Pennsylvania 2,402,706 20,005 8.33 Coal 148 Canal Station, Massachusetts 4,602,939 19,971 4.34 Oil 149 J T Deely, Texas 5,656,468 19,517 3.45 Coal 150 WH Zimmer, Ohio 9,734,563 19,497 2.00 Coal 151 Dan E Karn, Michigan 4,474,257 19,428 4.34 Coal 152 Clay Boswell, Minnesota 7,266,941 19,202 2.64 Coal 153 George Neal North, Iowa 5,703,855 19,167 3.36 Coal 154 Possum Point, Virginia 3,005,462 19,057 6.34 Coal 155 St. Johns River, Florida 9,795,546 18,967 1.94 Coal 156 L V Sutton, North Carolina 2,622,440 18,929 7.22 Coal 157 Cholla, Arizona 6,706,864 18,843 2.81 Coal 158 Joliet 29, Illinois 5,411,689 18,746 3.46 Coal 159 Albright, West Virginia 1,374,335 18,652 13.57 Coal 160 Council Bluffs, Iowa 5,794,189 18,377 3.17 Coal 161 Jim Bridger, Wyoming 14,593,034 18,223 1.25 Coal 162 Dave Johnston, Wyoming 5,759,784 18,124 3.15 Coal 163 Indian River, Delaware 2,129,702 18,104 8.50 Coal 164 Springerville, Arizona 5,830,542 18,019 3.09 Coal 165 Killen Station, Ohio 3,612,949 17,839 4.94 Coal 166 HW Pirkey, Texas 4,504,102 17,668 3.92 Coal 167 AES Greenidge, New York 1,031,345 17,640 17.10 Coal 168 Naughton, Wyoming 5,019,304 17,518 3.49 Coal27**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

169 Centralia, Washington 9,500,972 17,266 1.82 Coal 170 Hudson, New Jersey 3,356,373 17,195 5.12 Coal 171 S Nelson, Louisiana 5,927,840 17,109 2.89 Coal 172 Port Everglades, Florida 4,497,763 17,089 3.80 Oil 173 Herbert A Wagner, Maryland 3,001,247 17,049 5.68 Coal 174 Allen, Tennessee 4,879,343 16,974 3.48 Coal 175 Canadys Steam, South Carolina 2,124,590 16,866 7.94 Coal 176 Sooner, Oklahoma 6,953,110 16,686 2.40 Coal 177 Frank E Ratts, Indiana 1,517,924 16,379 10.79 Coal 178 Newton, Illinois 7,241,019 16,211 2.24 Coal 179 Coronado Generating, Arizona 5,063,164 16,082 3.18 Coal 180 Kincaid, Illinois 5,847,334 16,026 2.74 Coal 181 Edgewater, Wisconsin 4,786,914 15,817 3.30 Coal 182 Niles, Ohio 1,126,711 15,642 13.88 Coal 183 Grand River Dam Auth, Oklahoma 6,501,431 15,627 2.40 Coal 184 Eagle Valley (HT Pritchard), Indiana 1,332,751 15,618 11.72 Coal 185 Charles R Lowman, Alabama 3,472,719 15,549 4.48 Coal 186 Dolet Hills, Louisiana 4,667,313 15,395 3.30 Coal 187 Presque Isle, Michigan 3,140,761 15,316 4.88 Coal 188 Powerton, Illinois 7,858,082 15,254 1.94 Coal 189 Comanche, Colorado 4,697,167 15,217 3.24 Coal 190 San Juan, New Mexico 12,398,506 15,212 1.23 Coal 191 Colstrip, Montana 13,886,845 15,182 1.09 Coal 192 Asheville, North Carolina 2,628,074 15,160 5.77 Coal 193 Cumberland, Tennessee 16,384,132 15,115 0.92 Coal 194 Vermilion, Illinois 1,102,939 14,984 13.59 Coal 195 Meramec, Missouri 4,434,627 14,920 3.36 Coal 196 River Rouge, Michigan 3,401,765 14,691 4.32 Coal 197 Potomac River, Virginia 2,331,055 14,643 6.28 Coal 198 Ottumwa, Iowa 4,480,923 14,497 3.24 Coal 199 Cherokee, Colorado 4,335,810 14,476 3.34 Coal 200 Louisa, Iowa 4,927,254 14,425 2.93 Coal 201 Kanawha River, West Virginia 2,571,055 14,390 5.60 Coal 202 Montrose, Missouri 2,662,960 14,358 5.39 Coal 203 New Madrid, Missouri 7,606,958 14,332 1.88 Coal 204 Nelson Dewey, Wisconsin 1,172,335 14,250 12.16 Coal 205 George Neal South, Iowa 4,586,420 14,167 3.09 Coal 206 Lee, North Carolina 1,969,494 14,093 7.16 Coal 207 Martin, Florida 12,834,607 13,890 1.08 Natural gas b 208 Thomas Hill, Missouri 6,865,414 13,808 2.01 Coal 209 AES Westover (Goudey), New York 863,979 13,672 15.82 Coal 210 Genoa, Wisconsin 2,203,168 13,650 6.20 CoalTable 3.3 

### UNITED STATES SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)28 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

211 Cane Run, Kentucky 3,068,114 13,587 4.43 Coal 212 Riverbend, North Carolina 1,660,438 13,571 8.17 Coal 213 Hutsonville, Illinois 591,199 13,567 22.95 Coal 214 Iatan, Missouri 4,017,999 13,478 3.35 Coal 215 Pawnee, Colorado 3,316,714 13,456 4.06 Coal 216 Valley (WEPCO), Wisconsin 1,147,954 13,323 11.61 Coal 217 Willow Island, West Virginia 1,151,588 13,115 11.39 Coal 218 Coleto Creek, Texas 4,201,689 12,963 3.09 Coal 219 Mercer, New Jersey 2,752,449 12,938 4.70 Coal 220 Salem Harbor, Massachusetts 2,496,128 12,820 5.14 Coal 221 Cross, South Carolina 8,126,251 12,788 1.57 Coal 222 Coyote, North Dakota 3,060,200 12,763 4.17 Coal 223 Antelope Valley, North Dakota 6,317,269 12,577 1.99 Coal 224 Titus, Pennsylvania 1,105,401 12,556 11.36 Coal 225 Rodemacher, Louisiana 4,279,337 12,459 2.91 Coal 226 Huntington, Utah 5,977,918 12,437 2.08 Coal 227 Will County, Illinois 5,419,706 12,414 2.29 Coal 228 Bay Shore, Ohio 3,538,463 12,320 3.48 Coal 229 Bremo, Virginia 1,609,047 12,208 7.59 Coal 230 San Miguel, Texas 2,855,097 11,950 4.19 Coal 231 J R Whiting, Michigan 2,262,790 11,827 5.23 Coal 232 Green River, Kentucky 719,410 11,819 16.43 Coal 233 Northside, Florida 3,668,086 11,742 3.20 Oil 234 East Bend, Kentucky 2,941,427 11,719 3.98 Coal 235 Riverside, Minnesota 2,436,997 11,706 4.80 Coal 236 Havana, Illinois 2,499,684 11,686 4.68 Coal 237 South Oak Creek, Wisconsin 5,393,774 11,674 2.16 Coal 238 Merom, Indiana 6,643,503 11,654 1.75 Coal 239 Nebraska City, Nebraska 4,104,546 11,630 2.83 Coal 240 BC Cobb, Michigan 2,188,545 11,382 5.20 Coal 241 Boardman, Oregon 3,773,750 11,124 2.95 Coal 242 BL England, New Jersey 1,191,120 10,997 9.23 Coal 243 Dynegy Danskammer, New York 2,449,593 10,995 4.49 Coal 244 Sibley, Missouri 3,061,409 10,709 3.50 Coal 245 Weston, Wisconsin 3,202,588 10,698 3.34 Coal 246 Lansing Smith, Florida 4,020,641 10,673 2.65 Natural gas c 247 Big Stone, South Dakota 3,119,519 10,665 3.42 Coal 248 Cape Fear, North Carolina 1,857,910 10,664 5.74 Coal 249 Glen Lyn, Virginia 1,718,635 10,597 6.17 Coal 250 Big Bend, Florida 8,518,176 10,524 1.24 Coal 251 North Omaha, Nebraska 3,403,969 10,441 3.07 Coal 252 Laramie River, Wyoming 12,398,253 10,100 0.81 Coal29**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

253 Duck Creek, Illinois 2,066,628 10,002 4.84 Coal 254 Flint Creek, Arkansas 3,655,965 9,944 2.72 Coal 255 Gibbons Creek, Texas 3,230,078 9,812 3.04 Coal 256 Waukegan, Illinois 4,230,118 9,781 2.31 Coal 257 Seward, Pennsylvania 864,338 9,741 11.27 Coal 258 Robert Reid, Kentucky 369,652 9,600 25.97 Coal 259 Edge Moor, Delaware 1,911,750 9,550 5.00 Coal 260 Picway, Ohio 380,217 9,486 24.95 Coal 261 Craig, Colorado 9,807,407 9,427 0.96 Coal 262 Cape Canaveral, Florida 3,257,614 9,375 2.88 Oil 263 JC Weadock, Michigan 2,205,966 9,195 4.17 Coal 264 Stanton, North Dakota 1,399,737 9,092 6.50 Coal 265 RD Morrow, Mississippi 2,537,751 9,055 3.57 Coal 266 Dolphus M Grainger, South Carolina 931,468 9,048 9.71 Coal 267 McMeekin, South Carolina 1,265,428 8,909 7.04 Coal 268 Port Washington, Wisconsin 747,511 8,894 11.90 Coal 269 Michigan City, Indiana 2,487,472 8,326 3.35 Coal 270 Turkey Point, Florida 3,030,547 8,287 2.73 Oil 271 Riviera, Florida 2,450,156 8,239 3.36 Oil 272 Marion, Illinois 1,136,616 8,160 7.18 Coal 273 D B Wilson, Kentucky 2,849,550 8,068 2.83 Coal 274 CD McIntosh, Florida 2,810,883 8,009 2.85 Coal 275 Gadsden, Alabama 484,718 7,929 16.36 Coal 276 Harrison, West Virginia 12,927,422 7,885 0.61 Coal 277 A B Brown Generating, Indiana 3,194,749 7,837 2.45 Coal 278 Hugo, Oklahoma 3,030,995 7,762 2.56 Coal 279 Martin Drake, Colorado 1,813,674 7,738 4.27 Coal 280 Ashtabula, Ohio 1,236,725 7,673 6.20 Coal 281 State Line Generating, Indiana 2,923,229 7,659 2.62 Coal 282 HB Robinson, South Carolina 1,021,242 7,652 7.49 Coal 283 Trimble County, Kentucky 3,929,027 7,595 1.93 Coal 284 Wyodak, Wyoming 2,858,420 7,522 2.63 Coal 285 Edwardsport, Indiana 344,544 7,419 21.53 Coal 286 Schiller, New Hampshire 873,475 7,305 8.36 Coal 287 Lovett, New York 1,736,083 7,239 4.17 Coal 288 WH Weatherspoon, North Carolina 794,816 7,148 8.99 Coal 289 Lawrence Energy Center, Kansas 3,759,861 7,030 1.87 Coal 290 Stanton Energy, Florida 6,070,495 6,967 1.15 Coal 291 Nearman Creek, Kansas 1,452,206 6,917 4.76 Coal 292 Crawford, Illinois 2,575,482 6,891 2.68 Coal 293 Deerhaven, Florida 1,588,281 6,799 4.28 Coal 294 JP Madgett, Wisconsin 2,097,984 6,795 3.24 CoalTable 3.3 

### UNITED STATES SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)30 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

295 W S Lee, South Carolina 925,685 6,745 7.29 Coal 296 Buck, North Carolina 1,249,807 6,738 5.39 Coal 297 William C Dale, Kentucky 918,000 6,717 7.32 Coal 298 Alma, Wisconsin 690,029 6,607 9.58 Coal 299 Wood River, Illinois 2,205,841 6,588 2.99 Coal 300 Tecumseh Energy Center, Kansas 1,510,699 6,539 4.33 Coal 301 Kraft, Georgia 1,221,647 6,522 5.34 Coal 302 Blount Street, Wisconsin 438,398 6,514 14.86 Coal 303 FB Culley, Indiana 2,417,245 6,458 2.67 Coal 304 Elmer Smith, Kentucky 2,185,345 6,453 2.95 Coal 305 McIntosh, Georgia 1,162,224 6,389 5.50 Coal 306 Hunter (Emery), Utah 9,403,388 6,374 0.68 Coal 307 Pulliam, Wisconsin 2,349,544 6,261 2.66 Coal 308 North Valmy, Nevada 4,081,381 6,236 1.53 Coal 309 Dynegy Roseton, New York 1,211,549 6,188 5.11 Oil 310 Carbon, Utah 1,323,395 6,137 4.64 Coal 311 Eddystone, Pennsylvania 2,750,581 6,095 2.22 Coal 312 Eckert Station, Michigan 1,540,404 5,953 3.86 Coal 313 Port Jefferson Energy, New York 1,646,561 5,854 3.56 Oil 314 OH Hutchings, Ohio 772,666 5,692 7.37 Coal 315 Sikeston, Missouri 1,693,365 5,657 3.34 Coal 316 Conemaugh, Pennsylvania 12,584,027 5,385 0.43 Coal 317 Sheldon, Nebraska 1,442,114 5,102 3.54 Coal 318 Urquhart, South Carolina 1,703,794 4,999 2.93 Natural gas c 319 AES Cayuga (Milliken), New York 2,353,387 4,928 2.09 Coal 320 Elrama, Pennsylvania 2,321,405 4,895 2.11 Coal 321 Mount Tom, Massachusetts 915,318 4,792 5.23 Coal 322 Burlington, Iowa 1,225,990 4,773 3.89 Coal 323 Newington, New Hampshire 660,451 4,741 7.18 Oil 324 Bailly, Indiana 2,831,251 4,733 1.67 Coal 325 Apache Station, Arizona 2,799,861 4,688 1.67 Coal 326 Indian River (55318), Florida 1,152,524 4,668 4.05 Oil 327 Twin Oaks Power, LP, Texas 2,689,521 4,656 1.73 Coal 328 Arapahoe, Colorado 1,412,418 4,633 3.28 Coal 329 Mystic, Massachusetts 1,584,556 4,539 2.86 Oil 330 Ray D Nixon, Colorado 1,680,513 4,507 2.68 Coal 331 Hennepin, Illinois 2,045,489 4,347 2.13 Coal 332 JK Spruce, Texas 4,135,806 4,338 1.05 Coal 333 Red Hills Generation, Mississippi 2,450,000 4,305 1.76 Coal 334 James River, Missouri 1,587,089 4,276 2.69 Coal 335 RP Smith, Maryland 503,446 4,162 8.27 Coal 336 Mitchell, Georgia 589,174 4,143 7.03 Coal31**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

337 Joliet 9, Illinois 1,292,531 4,136 3.20 Coal 338 Rivesville, West Virginia 386,259 4,003 10.36 Coal 339 Somerset, Massachusetts 800,515 3,991 4.99 Coal 340 Lansing, Iowa 1,257,821 3,981 3.16 Coal 341 Asbury, Missouri 1,213,990 3,946 3.25 Coal 342 Prairie Creek, Iowa 878,699 3,904 4.44 Coal 343 AES Somerset (Kintigh), New York 5,453,551 3,764 0.69 Coal 344 Milton L Kapp, Iowa 1,146,286 3,720 3.25 Coal 345 Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut 1,739,266 3,711 2.13 Coal 346 New Haven Harbor, Connecticut 1,435,307 3,638 2.53 Oil 347 Navajo Generating Station, Arizona 17,832,139 3,635 0.20 Coal 348 Suwannee River, Florida 625,659 3,591 5.74 Oil 349 Erickson, Michigan 809,058 3,508 4.34 Coal 350 Fisk, Illinois 1,299,559 3,486 2.68 Coal 351 Gordon Evans Energy, Kansas 875,810 3,473 3.97 Natural gas b 352 High Bridge, Minnesota 1,308,587 3,466 2.65 Coal 353 Valmont, Colorado 1,281,144 3,435 2.68 Coal 354 Hawthorn, Missouri 4,346,949 3,404 0.78 Coal 355 Oklaunion, Texas 4,686,707 3,391 0.72 Coal 356 Sutherland, Iowa 940,504 3,380 3.59 Coal 357 Cromby, Pennsylvania 629,734 3,326 5.28 Coal 358 SA Carlson, New York 242,156 3,322 13.72 Coal 359 Intermountain, Utah 13,485,597 3,310 0.25 Coal 360 Noblesville, Indiana 196,577 3,276 16.67 Coal 361 HMP&L Station 2, Kentucky 2,056,044 3,161 1.54 Coal 362 Riverton, Kansas 475,354 3,114 6.55 Coal 363 RD Green, Kentucky 3,501,986 3,106 0.89 Coal 364 Dallman, Illinois 1,796,111 3,102 1.73 Coal 365 Southwest, Missouri 1,182,527 3,075 2.60 Coal 366 Sanford, Florida 4,998,936 3,061 0.61 Natural gas b 367 Quindaro, Kansas 965,065 3,035 3.14 Coal 368 E Corette, Montana 1,132,762 2,844 2.51 Coal 369 Irvington Generating, Arizona 1,403,955 2,829 2.02 Coal 370 Muscatine, Iowa 1,259,121 2,822 2.24 Coal 371 Black Dog, Minnesota 1,662,585 2,786 1.68 Coal 372 Dan River, North Carolina 516,712 2,675 5.18 Coal 373 Hayden, Colorado 3,631,182 2,602 0.72 Coal 374 Lake Road, Missouri 668,090 2,575 3.85 Coal 375 Hoot Lake, Minnesota 830,157 2,566 3.09 Coal 376 Greenwood, Michigan 1,138,043 2,554 2.24 Natural gas b 377 AES Deepwater, Inc., Texas 1,287,524 2,530 1.97 Pet. Coke 378 Tyrone, Kentucky 253,778 2,326 9.16 CoalTable 3.3 

### UNITED STATES SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)32 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

379 Taconite Harbor, Minnesota 865,126 2,259 2.61 Coal 380 Oswego Harbor Power, New York 415,194 2,241 5.40 Oil 381 Deepwater, New Jersey 423,355 2,231 5.27 Coal 382 Lake Shore, Ohio 860,853 2,225 2.58 Coal 383 Riverside, Iowa 707,625 2,069 2.92 Coal 384 Platte, Nebraska 563,701 2,041 3.62 Coal

aTo limit its length, this table of US facilities presents only the power plants that emitted more than 1,996 tonnes of SO 2emissions in 2002. The facilities in the table account for 99.5% of the total SO 2emissions.

There are more than 500 additional fossil fuel power plants in the database that reported less than 1,996 tonnes of SO 2emissions. b This plant’s EIA 906 generation report for 2002 indicates that the largest share of its 2002 generation is from natural gas. Its SO 2emissions, however, are largely from the combustion of oil it

burned as a secondary fuel. c This plant’s EIA 906 generation report for 2002 indicates that the largest share of its 2002 generation is from natural gas. Its SO 2emissions, however, are largely from the combustion of coal it

burned as a secondary fuel.33**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, PROVINCE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MW PRIMARY FUEL

1 Nanticoke, Ontario 22,236,000 86,710 3.90 Coal 2 Lingan, Nova Scotia n/a 76,034 17.27 a Coal 3 Coleson Cove, New Brunswick n/a 45,410 n/a Oil 4 Boundary Dam, Saskatchewan 6,057,364 42,945 7.09 Coal 5 Poplar River, Saskatchewan 4,457,200 42,727 9.59 Coal 6 Trenton, Nova Scotia n/a 37,365 6.10 a Coal 7 Sheerness, Alberta 5,810,000 b 33,016 5.68 Coal 8 Lambton, Ontario 10,455,000 29,882 2.86 Coal 9 Sundance, Alberta n/a 28,894 1.97 a Coal 10 Battle River, Alberta 4,867,000 b 24,603 5.06 Coal 11 Grand Lake, New Brunswick 449,388 c 24,240 53.94 Coal 12 Holyrood, Newfoundland-Labrador n/a 23,235 n/a Oil 13 Genesee, Alberta n/a 14,494 2.40 a Coal 14 Lakeview, Ontario 2,455,000 14,336 5.84 Coal 15 Shand Power, Saskatchewan 2,150,000 13,740 6.39 Coal 16 Keephills, Alberta n/a 13,041 2.03 a Coal 17 Wabamun, Alberta n/a 12,992 3.32 a Coal 18 Point Tupper, Nova Scotia n/a 12,712 10.59 a Coal 19 Thunder Bay, Ontario 1,522,000 9,133 6.00 Coal 20 Dalhousie, New Brunswick n/a 8,960 n/a Orimulsion 21 Atikokan, Ontario 823,000 4,934 5.99 Coal 22 H.R. Milner, Alberta 790,000 b 4,790 6.06 Coal 23 Point Aconi, Nova Scotia n/a 3,661 2.58 a Coal 24 Courtenay Bay, New Brunswick n/a 2,410 n/a Oil 25 Lennox, Ontario 2,762,000 d 2,260 0.82 Oil 26 Belledune, New Brunswick 3,616,790 2,070 0.57 Coal 27 Tufts Cove, Nova Scotia n/a 1,905 n/a Oil 28 Brandon GS, Manitoba 273,053 649 2.38 Coal 29 Sarnia Regional Cogen Plant, Ontario n/a 595 n/a Natural gas 30 Iles-de-la-Madeleine 2, Quebec n/a 565 e n/a Oil 31 Selkirk GS, Manitoba 143,765 354 2.46 Coal f 32 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island n/a 294 n/a Oil 33 Tracy, Quebec n/a 103 e n/a Oil 34 Calstock Power Plant, Ontario n/a 29 n/a Wood refuse 35 Meridian, Saskatchewan n/a 27 n/a Natural gas 36 Bayside Power LP, New Brunswick n/a 17 n/a Natural gas 37 Brooklyn Energy Centre, Nova Scotia n/a 5 n/a Wood refuse 38 Joffre, Alberta n/a 1 n/a Natural gas

aData for 2002 annual net generation were not available, so output emission rates are for 2001, derived from power plant information reports available from the Canadian Electricity Association at

http://www.ceamercuryprogram.ca/index.html

. bNet generation obtained from ATCO Power report, Environment, Health and Safety Review 2002. Online at http://www.atcopower.com/Environment_Health_&_Safety/Reports/environmental_reports.htm

. c Net generation estimated assuming Grand Lake was in operation 90% of the time during 2002. See the methodology discussion in the Appendix

. dNet generation obtained from Ontario Power Generation report, Towards Sustainable Development: 2002 Progress Report . Online at http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_annual_report.asp

. e Information provided by the Province of Quebec in September 2004 differs from the SO 2values contained in the NPRI March 2004 update for these facilities. Quebec gives 1,032.1 tonnes SO 2

from Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and 109.8 tonnes SO 2from Tracy. f Selkirk converted to natural gas in July 2002. Table 3.4 

### CANADA SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS34 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2 EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 C.T. PDTE. A. López Mateos (Tuxpan), Veracruz 15,030,690 253,430 16.86 Oil 2 C.T. Francisco Pérez Ríos (Tula), Hidalgo 9,734,170 158,326 16.26 Oil 3 C.T. Plutarco Elias Calles (Petacalco), Guerrero 13,879,470 113,207 8.16 Coal 4 C.T. Gral. Manuel Alvarez (Manzanillo I), Colima 6,449,140 107,032 16.60 Oil 5 C.T. José López Portillo (Río Escondido), Coahuila 7,515,560 104,213 13.87 Coal 6 C.T. Carbón II, Coahuila 8,636,350 102,729 11.89 Coal 7 C.T. Altamira, Tamaulipas 4,655,850 86,451 18.57 Oil 8 C.T. Salamanca, Guanajuato 4,841,380 83,019 17.15 Oil 9 C.T. Manzanillo II, Colima 5,034,400 75,416 14.98 Oil 10 C.T. Puerto Libertad, Sonora 3,349,740 61,159 18.26 Oil 11 C.T. José Acevez Pozos (Mazatlan II), Sinaloa 3,284,120 61,155 18.62 Oil 12 C.T. Villa De Reyes (San Luis Potosí), San Luis Potosí 2,925,990 45,727 15.63 Oil 13 C.T. Carlos Rodriguez Rivero (Guaymas II), Sonora 2,259,290 41,972 18.58 Oil 14 C.T. Guadalupe Victoria (Lerdo), Durango 1,980,460 36,173 18.27 Oil 15 C.T. Juan De Díos Batis P. (Topolobampo), Sinaloa 1,996,550 36,131 18.10 Oil 16 C.T. Francisco Villa (Delicias), Chihuahua 1,919,730 29,196 15.21 Oil 17 C.T. Monterrey, Nuevo León 2,538,090 26,792 10.56 Oil 18 C.T. Emilio Portes Gil (Río Bravo), Tamaulipas 1,745,990 24,388 13.97 Oil 19 C.T. Benito Juárez (Samalayuca I), Chihuahua 1,232,800 22,379 18.15 Oil 20 C.T. Campeche II (Lerma), Campeche 812,720 17,742 21.83 Oil 21 C.T. Mérida II, Yucatán 1,099,710 17,497 15.91 Oil 22 C.T. Poza Rica, Veracruz 654,040 12,768 19.52 Oil 23 C.T. Felipe Carrilo P. (Valladolid), Yucatán 414,970 8,409 20.27 Oil 24 C.T. Presidente Juárez (Tijuana), Baja California 1,488,840 7,019 4.71 Oil 25 C.T. Punta Prieta II, Baja California Sur 621,830 6,004 9.66 Oil 26 C.CI. Puerto San Carlos, Baja California Sur 470,680 5,933 12.61 Oil 27 C.T. Nachi-Cocom, Yucatán 249,470 5,838 23.40 Oil 28 C.T. Guaymas I, Sonora 186,750 5,106 27.34 Oil 29 C.TG. Cancún, Quintana Roo 77,770 326 4.19 Diesel 30 C.TG. Las Cruces, Guerrero 46,400 198 4.27 Diesel 31 C.C.C. El Sauz, Querétaro 1,370,540 176 0.13 Natural gas 32 C.TG. Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur 33,690 171 5.08 Diesel 33 C.TG. Los Cabos, Baja California Sur 30,900 134 4.34 Diesel 34 C.C.C. Felipe Carrilo P. (Valladolid), Yucatán 1,517,600 123 0.08 Diesel 35 C.CI. Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur 36,390 117 3.22 Diesel 36 C.TG. Caborca Industrial, Sonora 26,140 109 4.19 Diesel 37 C.TG. Nizuc, Quintana Roo 27,630 99 3.60 Diesel 38 C.CI. Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur 26,220 87 3.30 Diesel 39 C.TG. Culiacan, Sinaloa 17,550 63 3.60 Diesel 40 C.TG. Parque, Chihuahua 15,580 62 3.97 Diesel 41 C.TG. Tecnológico, Nuevo León 13,400 57 4.24 Diesel Table 3.5 

### MEXICO SO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS35**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh SO 2 EMISSIONS, metric tonnes SO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

42 C.TG. Ciudad Obregón, Sonora 10,780 53 4.95 Diesel 43 C.TG. Punta Prieta I (La Paz), Baja California Sur 9,870 51 5.17 Diesel 44 C.CI. Villa Constitución, Baja California Sur 17,170 50 2.93 Diesel 45 Pueblo Nuevo (Movil), Sonora 12,050 46 3.83 Diesel 46 C.TG. Cipres, Baja California 10,120 45 4.44 Diesel 47 C.TG. El Verde, Jalisco 29,110 44 1.53 Natural gas 48 C.TG. Arroyo De Coyote, Tamaulipas 6,540 41 6.21 Diesel 49 C.TG. Xul-Ha, Quintana Roo 8,770 40 4.59 Diesel 50 C.TG. Chihuahua I, Chihuahua 7,980 37 4.60 Diesel 51 Nuevo Nogales (Movil), Sonora 7,730 28 3.67 Diesel 52 C.TG. Mexicali, Baja California 5,330 26 4.92 Diesel 53 C.TG. Presidente Juárez (Tijuana), Baja California 648,420 25 0.04 Natural gas 54 C.TG. Esperanzas, Coahuila 4,590 23 4.92 Diesel 55 C.TG. Industrial (Juárez), Chihuahua 1,980 19 9.41 Diesel 56 C.T. La Laguna, Durango 179,590 15 0.08 Natural gas 57 C.TG. Portes Gil (Río Bravo), Tamaulipas 1,031,400 14 0.01 Natural gas 58 C.C.C. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 2,949,700 12 0.00 Natural gas 59 C.T. Valle de México, México 3,894,120 11 0.00 Natural gas 60 C.C.C. Benito Juárez (Samalayuca II), Chihuahua 3,901,950 10 0.00 Natural gas 61 C.C.C. FCO. Pérez Ríos (Tula), Hidalgo 3,260,940 8 0.00 Natural gas 62 C.C.C. Dos Bocas, Veracruz 2,428,890 7 0.00 Natural gas 63 C.C.C. Huinala, Nuevo León 2,331,460 6 0.00 Natural gas 64 C.CI. Yecora, Sonora 1,890 5 2.84 Diesel 65 C.C.C. Presidente Juárez (Rosarito), Baja California 2,077,250 4 0.00 Natural gas 66 C.TG. El Sauz, Querétaro 1,495,570 4 0.00 Natural gas 67 C.TG. Monclava, Coahuila n/a 4 n/a Natural gas 68 C.C.C. Gómez Palacio, Durango 1,045,260 3 0.00 Natural gas 69 C.C.C. Huinala II, Nuevo León 1,333,060 3 0.00 Natural gas 70 C.TG. La Laguna, Durango 62,260 2 0.03 Natural gas 71 C.T. Jorge Luque (LFC), México 497,160 2 0.00 Natural gas 72 C.TG. Hermosillo, Sonora 507,150 2 0.00 Natural gas 73 C.TG. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 329,140 1 0.00 Natural gas 74 C.TG. Huinala, Nuevo León 259,700 1 0.00 Natural gas 75 C.T. San Jerónimo, Nuevo León 222,010 1 0.00 Natural gas 76 C.TG. Jorge Luque (Lechería) (LFC), México 145,390 1 0.00 Natural gas 77 C.TG. Nonalco (LFC), DF 131,470 1 0.00 Natural gas 78 C.TG. Valle de México (LFC), México 104,780 0.45 0.00 Natural gas 79 C.TG. Chávez, Coahuila 25,250 0.12 0.00 Natural gas 80 C.TG. Universidad, Nuevo León 17,220 0.09 0.01 Natural gas 81 C.TG. Leona, Nuevo León 16,570 0.09 0.01 Natural gas 82 C.TG. Fundidora, Nuevo León 4,810 0.03 0.01 Natural gas36 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Cumberland, Tennessee 16,384,132 45,309 2.8 Coal 2 Paradise, Kentucky 14,130,150 42,663 3.0 Coal 3 J M Stuart, Ohio 15,351,286 42,429 2.8 Coal 4 Belews Creek, North Carolina 16,912,850 40,717 2.4 Coal 5 Gen J M Gavin, Ohio 15,617,077 39,771 2.5 Coal 6 John E Amos, West Virginia 17,995,089 39,464 2.2 Coal 7 Monroe, Michigan 16,720,823 37,762 2.3 Coal 8 Four Corners, New Mexico 13,674,415 37,719 2.8 Coal 9 Mount Storm, West Virginia 11,671,736 36,176 3.1 Coal 10 W H Sammis, Ohio 15,521,117 35,040 2.3 Coal 11 La Cygne, Kansas 9,517,909 34,854 3.7 Coal 12 Gibson, Indiana 20,522,153 34,692 1.7 Coal 13 New Madrid, Missouri 7,606,958 33,988 4.5 Coal 14 Bowen, Georgia 21,674,542 33,839 1.6 Coal 15 Navajo Generating Station, Arizona 17,832,139 32,268 1.8 Coal 16 Crystal River, Florida 14,465,667 31,806 2.2 Coal 17 Rockport, Indiana 16,643,319 31,065 1.9 Coal 18 Colstrip, Montana 13,886,845 29,603 2.1 Coal 19 Jeffrey Energy Center, Kansas 15,330,637 28,396 1.9 Coal 20 Jim Bridger, Wyoming 14,593,034 27,979 1.9 Coal 21 San Juan, New Mexico 12,398,506 27,536 2.2 Coal 22 Intermountain, Utah 13,485,597 27,448 2.0 Coal 23 Bruce Mansfield, Pennsylvania 15,974,911 27,097 1.7 Coal 24 Big Bend, Florida 8,518,176 26,893 3.2 Coal 25 Mitchell, West Virginia 9,231,567 26,851 2.9 Coal 26 Clifty Creek, Indiana 7,838,812 26,518 3.4 Coal 27 E C Gaston, Alabama 12,639,541 26,464 2.1 Coal 28 Harrison, West Virginia 12,927,422 26,390 2.0 Coal 29 James H Miller Jr, Alabama 18,592,131 25,434 1.4 Coal 30 Harllee Branch, Georgia 9,018,458 25,228 2.8 Coal 31 Scherer, Georgia 20,817,252 25,062 1.2 Coal 32 Muskingum River, Ohio 8,359,764 24,802 3.0 Coal 33 Powerton, Illinois 7,858,082 24,694 3.1 Coal 34 Conesville, Ohio 10,158,928 24,185 2.4 Coal 35 Sherburne County, Minnesota 15,344,648 23,849 1.6 Coal 36 Kingston, Tennessee 9,866,292 23,664 2.4 Coal 37 Kyger Creek, Ohio 6,852,119 22,968 3.4 Coal 38 Homer City, Pennsylvania 10,938,699 22,834 2.1 Coal 39 Widows Creek, Alabama 8,868,307 22,826 2.6 Coal 40 St. Johns River, Florida 9,795,546 22,366 2.3 Coal 41 F J Gannon, Florida 4,815,528 22,166 4.6 Coal Table 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a37**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

42 Barry, Alabama 16,718,579 22,136 1.3 Coal 43 Johnsonville, Tennessee 8,275,776 21,694 2.6 Coal 44 Roxboro, North Carolina 14,281,069 21,461 1.5 Coal 45 Cardinal, Ohio 8,555,500 21,209 2.5 Coal 46 Hatfield’s Ferry, Pennsylvania 9,753,564 20,924 2.1 Coal 47 Milton R Young, North Dakota 5,117,272 20,725 4.0 Coal 48 Seminole, Florida 9,241,176 20,527 2.2 Coal 49 Baldwin, Illinois 12,454,874 20,298 1.6 Coal 50 Gerald Gentleman, Nebraska 9,549,816 20,035 2.1 Coal 51 Winyah, South Carolina 7,720,938 19,669 2.5 Coal 52 Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 7,898,581 19,493 2.5 Coal 53 Eastlake, Ohio 6,724,187 19,137 2.8 Coal 54 W H Zimmer, Ohio 9,734,563 19,020 2.0 Coal 55 Kincaid, Illinois 5,847,334 18,965 3.2 Coal 56 Wansley, Georgia 11,197,521 18,446 1.6 Coal 57 Mohave, Nevada 10,170,230 18,386 1.8 Coal 58 Petersburg, Indiana 11,641,137 18,370 1.6 Coal 59 Shawnee, Kentucky 8,826,178 18,199 2.1 Coal 60 Big Cajun 2, Louisiana 11,125,719 18,061 1.6 Coal 61 Hunter (Emery), Utah 9,403,388 18,016 1.9 Coal 62 Conemaugh, Pennsylvania 12,584,027 17,655 1.4 Coal 63 Craig, Colorado 9,807,407 17,583 1.8 Coal 64 Ghent, Kentucky 11,533,151 17,399 1.5 Coal 65 Marshall, North Carolina 14,498,223 17,391 1.2 Coal 66 Sam Seymour, Texas 11,749,703 17,344 1.5 Coal 67 Laramie River, Wyoming 12,398,253 17,200 1.4 Coal 68 Morgantown, Maryland 7,550,506 17,066 2.3 Coal 69 Walter C Beckjord, Ohio 6,756,632 17,013 2.5 Coal 70 Martin Lake, Texas 14,825,001 16,751 1.1 Coal 71 Thomas Hill, Missouri 6,865,414 16,580 2.4 Coal 72 Keystone, Pennsylvania 11,790,991 16,514 1.4 Coal 73 Northeastern, Oklahoma 9,623,635 16,408 1.7 Coal 74 Avon Lake, Ohio 4,169,683 16,401 3.9 Coal 75 Bull Run, Tennessee 6,760,080 16,250 2.4 Coal 76 Muskogee, Oklahoma 10,275,348 16,097 1.6 Coal 77 White Bluff, Arkansas 8,850,935 16,062 1.8 Coal 78 Warrick, Indiana 5,066,020 15,921 3.1 Coal 79 Tanner’s Creek, Indiana 5,872,947 15,907 2.7 Coal 80 R M Schahfer, Indiana 8,756,429 15,759 1.8 Coal 81 Gorgas, Alabama 7,216,594 15,248 2.1 Coal 82 W A Parish, Texas 20,026,008 14,939 0.7 CoalTable 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)38 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

83 George Neal North, Iowa 5,703,855 14,870 2.6 Coal 84 Bailly, Indiana 2,831,251 14,860 5.2 Coal 85 Independence, Arkansas 10,510,564 14,801 1.4 Coal 86 Brunner Island, Pennsylvania 9,994,684 14,688 1.5 Coal 87 Miami Fort, Ohio 7,587,241 14,660 1.9 Coal 88 Monticello, Texas 13,127,881 14,443 1.1 Coal 89 Chesterfield, Virginia 9,502,996 14,363 1.5 Coal 90 Cross, South Carolina 8,126,251 14,311 1.8 Coal 91 Centralia, Washington 9,500,972 14,034 1.5 Coal 92 J H Campbell, Michigan 9,269,258 14,000 1.5 Coal 93 Grand River Dam Auth, Oklahoma 6,501,431 13,959 2.1 Coal 94 Chalk Point, Maryland 6,041,207 13,894 2.3 Coal 95 Colbert, Alabama 6,305,034 13,872 2.2 Coal 96 Big Sandy, Kentucky 5,752,379 13,743 2.4 Coal 97 Dave Johnston, Wyoming 5,759,784 13,625 2.4 Coal 98 Big Stone, South Dakota 3,119,519 13,566 4.3 Coal 99 Welsh Power Plant, Texas 11,000,083 13,545 1.2 Coal 100 Clay Boswell, Minnesota 7,266,941 13,411 1.8 Coal 101 Mill Creek, Kentucky 9,075,622 13,244 1.5 Coal 102 Allen, Tennessee 4,879,343 13,128 2.7 Coal 103 Coffeen, Illinois 5,257,211 13,009 2.5 Coal 104 Merom, Indiana 6,643,503 13,003 2.0 Coal 105 Sioux, Missouri 6,296,711 12,783 2.0 Coal 106 Leland Olds, North Dakota 4,576,988 12,488 2.7 Coal 107 Limestone, Texas 11,385,520 12,481 1.1 Coal 108 Pleasants, West Virginia 7,629,209 12,442 1.6 Coal 109 Riverside, Minnesota 2,436,997 12,377 5.1 Coal 110 Crist, Florida 4,572,235 12,370 2.7 Coal 111 St. Clair, Michigan 6,965,047 12,300 1.8 Coal 112 Council Bluffs, Iowa 5,794,189 12,207 2.1 Coal 113 Phil Sporn, West Virginia 5,361,190 11,961 2.2 Coal 114 Kammer, West Virginia 4,029,061 11,951 3.0 Coal 115 Coyote, North Dakota 3,060,200 11,951 3.9 Coal 116 Harrington Station, Texas 7,831,512 11,920 1.5 Coal 117 Ninemile Point, Louisiana 6,187,124 11,878 1.9 Natural gas 118 Naughton, Wyoming 5,019,304 11,714 2.3 Coal 119 Mountaineer, West Virginia 8,985,024 11,713 1.3 Coal 120 Cholla, Arizona 6,706,864 11,686 1.7 Coal 121 Clinch River, Virginia 4,620,670 11,633 2.5 Coal 122 Brayton Point, Massachusetts 8,263,163 11,494 1.4 Coal 123 Watson, Mississippi 4,731,902 11,470 2.4 Coal39**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

124 Springerville, Arizona 5,830,542 11,405 2.0 Coal 125 Montour, Pennsylvania 9,263,444 11,213 1.2 Coal 126 Sooner, Oklahoma 6,953,110 11,185 1.6 Coal 127 Tolk Station, Texas 7,662,008 10,990 1.4 Coal 128 Mercer, New Jersey 2,752,449 10,860 3.9 Coal 129 Allen S King, Minnesota 3,311,959 10,826 3.3 Coal 130 Coronado Generating, Arizona 5,063,164 10,825 2.1 Coal 131 Gallatin, Tennessee 7,271,777 10,716 1.5 Coal 132 Antelope Valley, North Dakota 6,317,269 10,699 1.7 Coal 133 Brandon Shores, Maryland 7,160,408 10,586 1.5 Coal 134 Sibley, Missouri 3,061,409 10,425 3.4 Coal 135 Fort Martin, West Virginia 7,855,193 10,193 1.3 Coal 136 Columbia, Wisconsin 6,472,154 10,183 1.6 Coal 137 Huntington, Utah 5,977,918 10,145 1.7 Coal 138 Wabash River, Indiana 5,744,472 10,034 1.7 Coal 139 C P Crane, Maryland 2,132,214 9,745 4.6 Coal 140 Reid Gardner, Nevada 4,191,103 9,739 2.3 Coal 141 Will County, Illinois 5,419,706 9,634 1.8 Coal 142 Presque Isle, Michigan 3,140,761 9,502 3.0 Coal 143 Daniel, Mississippi 10,839,532 9,408 0.9 Coal 144 Dolet Hills, Louisiana 4,667,313 9,408 2.0 Coal 145 Coal Creek, North Dakota 8,559,089 9,394 1.1 Coal 146 Greene County, Alabama 3,892,941 9,356 2.4 Coal 147 Williams, South Carolina 4,428,464 9,266 2.1 Coal 148 John Sevier, Tennessee 4,880,298 9,263 1.9 Coal 149 Clover Power Station, Virginia 6,307,712 9,197 1.5 Coal 150 Michigan City, Indiana 2,487,472 8,979 3.6 Coal 151 Cape Canaveral, Florida 3,257,614 8,978 2.8 Oil 152 Belle River, Michigan 7,716,451 8,921 1.2 Coal 153 Mayo, North Carolina 4,737,089 8,809 1.9 Coal 154 Charles R Lowman, Alabama 3,472,719 8,766 2.5 Coal 155 Chesapeake, Virginia 4,141,111 8,695 2.1 Coal 156 Elmer Smith, Kentucky 2,185,345 8,673 4.0 Coal 157 Cherokee, Colorado 4,335,810 8,596 2.0 Coal 158 Meramec, Missouri 4,434,627 8,545 1.9 Coal 159 Port Everglades, Florida 4,497,763 8,527 1.9 Oil 160 Wateree, South Carolina 4,282,531 8,510 2.0 Coal 161 Yates, Georgia 5,368,046 8,279 1.5 Coal 162 G G Allen, North Carolina 5,071,389 8,181 1.6 Coal 163 L V Sutton, North Carolina 2,622,440 8,171 3.1 Coal 164 Hudson, New Jersey 3,356,373 8,159 2.4 CoalTable 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)40 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

165 Edwards Station, Illinois 3,536,593 8,025 2.3 Coal 166 Stanton Energy, Florida 6,070,495 8,022 1.3 Coal 167 Comanche, Colorado 4,697,167 7,992 1.7 Coal 168 Edgewater, Wisconsin 4,786,914 7,939 1.7 Coal 169 Louisa, Iowa 4,927,254 7,865 1.6 Coal 170 Hayden, Colorado 3,631,182 7,805 2.1 Coal 171 Dan E Karn, Michigan 4,474,257 7,780 1.7 Coal 172 D B Wilson, Kentucky 2,849,550 7,726 2.7 Coal 173 Anclote, Florida 4,133,979 7,643 1.8 Oil 174 Bay Shore, Ohio 3,538,463 7,636 2.2 Coal 175 Hammond, Georgia 3,935,825 7,629 1.9 Coal 176 Boardman, Oregon 3,773,750 7,621 2.0 Coal 177 Ottumwa, Iowa 4,480,923 7,555 1.7 Coal 178 Oklaunion, Texas 4,686,707 7,499 1.6 Coal 179 George Neal South, Iowa 4,586,420 7,491 1.6 Coal 180 Manatee, Florida 6,116,586 7,485 1.2 Oil 181 H L Spurlock, Kentucky 6,080,970 7,470 1.2 Coal 182 Pulliam, Wisconsin 2,349,544 7,463 3.2 Coal 183 Nebraska City, Nebraska 4,104,546 7,451 1.8 Coal 184 Rodemacher, Louisiana 4,279,337 7,347 1.7 Coal 185 Elrama, Pennsylvania 2,321,405 7,330 3.2 Coal 186 Dallman, Illinois 1,796,111 7,285 4.1 Coal 187 Killen Station, Ohio 3,612,949 7,198 2.0 Coal 188 E W Brown, Kentucky 3,992,354 7,189 1.8 Coal 189 R S Nelson, Louisiana 5,927,840 7,161 1.2 Coal 190 North Valmy, Nevada 4,081,381 7,140 1.7 Coal 191 Sheldon, Nebraska 1,442,114 7,113 4.9 Coal 192 Labadie, Missouri 14,406,589 7,094 0.5 Coal 193 Yorktown, Virginia 4,238,965 7,067 1.7 Coal 194 Cayuga, Indiana 5,930,084 7,051 1.2 Coal 195 AES Somerset (Kintigh), New York 5,453,551 7,015 1.3 Coal 196 Sandow, Texas 3,943,323 6,958 1.8 Coal 197 Iatan, Missouri 4,017,999 6,891 1.7 Coal 198 R D Green, Kentucky 3,501,986 6,714 1.9 Coal 199 A B Brown Generating, Indiana 3,194,749 6,713 2.1 Coal 200 Dickerson, Maryland 3,263,673 6,695 2.1 Coal 201 Martin, Florida 12,834,607 6,637 0.5 Natural gas 202 Big Brown, Texas 7,920,848 6,536 0.8 Coal 203 Huntley Power, New York 2,923,168 6,493 2.2 Coal 204 C D McIntosh, Florida 2,810,883 6,482 2.3 Coal 205 State Line Generating, Indiana 2,923,229 6,478 2.2 Coal41**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

206 San Miguel, Texas 2,855,097 6,459 2.3 Coal 207 Northport, New York 7,278,114 6,237 0.9 Oil 208 Coleman, Kentucky 2,864,421 6,213 2.2 Coal 209 R E Burger, Ohio 2,000,668 6,132 3.1 Coal 210 Bonanza, Utah 3,923,323 6,089 1.6 Coal 211 Marion, Illinois 1,136,616 6,081 5.3 Coal 212 Harding Street Stn. (Elmer W Stout), Indiana 3,784,144 6,018 1.6 Coal

213 South Oak Creek, Wisconsin 5,393,774 5,929 1.1 Coal 214 Shawville, Pennsylvania 2,991,436 5,927 2.0 Coal 215 Apache Station, Arizona 2,799,861 5,923 2.1 Coal 216 Black Dog, Minnesota 1,662,585 5,904 3.6 Coal 217 Baxter Wilson, Mississippi 2,551,638 5,784 2.3 Natural gas 218 F B Culley, Indiana 2,417,245 5,732 2.4 Coal 219 R D Morrow, Mississippi 2,537,751 5,701 2.2 Coal 220 Cane Run, Kentucky 3,068,114 5,693 1.9 Coal 221 Turkey Point, Florida 3,030,547 5,682 1.9 Oil 222 Weston, Wisconsin 3,202,588 5,677 1.8 Coal 223 Lawrence Energy Center, Kansas 3,759,861 5,625 1.5 Coal 224 Asbury, Missouri 1,213,990 5,597 4.6 Coal 225 Kanawha River, West Virginia 2,571,055 5,596 2.2 Coal 226 Dunkirk, New York 3,591,017 5,572 1.6 Coal 227 R Gallagher, Indiana 2,977,365 5,564 1.9 Coal 228 J T Deely, Texas 5,656,468 5,550 1.0 Coal 229 North Omaha, Nebraska 3,403,969 5,541 1.6 Coal 230 Potomac River, Virginia 2,331,055 5,452 2.3 Coal 231 Willow Island, West Virginia 1,151,588 5,394 4.7 Coal 232 Niles, Ohio 1,126,711 5,363 4.8 Coal 233 Trenton Channel, Michigan 4,339,844 5,305 1.2 Coal 234 Joppa Steam, Illinois 8,075,552 5,258 0.7 Coal 235 High Bridge, Minnesota 1,308,587 5,253 4.0 Coal 236 Cheswick, Pennsylvania 3,021,295 5,227 1.7 Coal 237 Herbert A Wagner, Maryland 3,001,247 5,178 1.7 Coal 238 HMP&L Station 2, Kentucky 2,056,044 5,157 2.5 Coal 239 Decordova, Texas 3,042,636 5,108 1.7 Natural gas 240 Canal Station, Massachusetts 4,602,939 5,079 1.1 Oil 241 Montrose, Missouri 2,662,960 5,068 1.9 Coal 242 Michoud, Louisiana 2,416,824 5,049 2.1 Natural gas 243 River Rouge, Michigan 3,401,765 5,009 1.5 Coal 244 Lee, North Carolina 1,969,494 5,004 2.5 Coal 245 East Bend, Kentucky 2,941,427 4,949 1.7 Coal 246 Sunbury, Pennsylvania 1,714,652 4,909 2.9 CoalTable 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)42 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

247 Sabine, Texas 7,087,729 4,871 0.7 Natural gas 248 Tradinghouse, Texas 3,007,375 4,851 1.6 Natural gas 249 Arapahoe, Colorado 1,412,418 4,847 3.4 Coal 250 Duck Creek, Illinois 2,066,628 4,833 2.3 Coal 251 Nelson Dewey, Wisconsin 1,172,335 4,796 4.1 Coal 252 Newton, Illinois 7,241,019 4,764 0.7 Coal 253 Trimble County, Kentucky 3,929,027 4,730 1.2 Coal 254 Asheville, North Carolina 2,628,074 4,707 1.8 Coal 255 Martins Creek, Pennsylvania 2,402,706 4,666 1.9 Coal 256 Flint Creek, Arkansas 3,655,965 4,623 1.3 Coal 257 Possum Point, Virginia 3,005,462 4,560 1.5 Coal 258 Waukegan, Illinois 4,230,118 4,486 1.1 Coal 259 Eddystone, Pennsylvania 2,750,581 4,448 1.6 Coal 260 Dynegy Danskammer, New York 2,449,593 4,432 1.8 Coal 261 Jack McDonough, Georgia 3,728,220 4,430 1.2 Coal 262 Jefferies, South Carolina 1,878,197 4,421 2.4 Coal 263 Glen Lyn, Virginia 1,718,635 4,390 2.6 Coal 264 Gerald Andrus, Mississippi 2,319,949 4,363 1.9 Natural gas 265 John S Cooper, Kentucky 2,100,208 4,328 2.1 Coal 266 H W Pirkey, Texas 4,504,102 4,308 1.0 Coal 267 Lansing Smith, Florida 4,020,641 4,283 1.1 Natural gas 268 Bremo, Virginia 1,609,047 4,282 2.7 Coal 269 Wyodak, Wyoming 2,858,420 4,261 1.5 Coal 270 Albright, West Virginia 1,374,335 4,239 3.1 Coal 271 J P Madgett, Wisconsin 2,097,984 4,187 2.0 Coal 272 Pawnee, Colorado 3,316,714 4,166 1.3 Coal 273 James River, Missouri 1,587,089 4,159 2.6 Coal 274 Indian River, Delaware 2,129,702 4,081 1.9 Coal 275 Eagle Valley (H T Pritchard), Indiana 1,332,751 4,077 3.1 Coal 276 Genoa, Wisconsin 2,203,168 4,036 1.8 Coal 277 Muscatine, Iowa 1,259,121 4,020 3.2 Coal 278 Riviera, Florida 2,450,156 4,010 1.6 Oil 279 Canadys Steam, South Carolina 2,124,590 3,990 1.9 Coal 280 P L Bartow, Florida 2,193,974 3,841 1.8 Oil 281 Martin Drake, Colorado 1,813,674 3,815 2.1 Coal 282 McIntosh, Georgia 1,162,224 3,794 3.3 Coal 283 Cope Station, South Carolina 3,243,770 3,774 1.2 Coal 284 Northside, Florida 3,668,086 3,762 1.0 Oil 285 J K Spruce, Texas 4,135,806 3,761 0.9 Coal 286 Armstrong, Pennsylvania 2,140,768 3,745 1.7 Coal 287 AES Cayuga (Milliken), New York 2,353,387 3,643 1.5 Coal43**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

288 Rawhide, Colorado 2,078,175 3,642 1.8 Coal 289 Frank E Ratts, Indiana 1,517,924 3,640 2.4 Coal 290 Seminole, Oklahoma 3,398,357 3,630 1.1 Natural gas 291 Rush Island, Missouri 7,483,574 3,621 0.5 Coal 292 Little Gypsy, Louisiana 2,358,145 3,612 1.5 Natural gas 293 Havana, Illinois 2,499,684 3,602 1.4 Coal 294 Putnam, Florida 2,220,194 3,545 1.6 Natural gas 295 Nearman Creek, Kansas 1,452,206 3,502 2.4 Coal 296 Holcomb, Kansas 2,454,689 3,492 1.4 Coal 297 Merrimack, New Hampshire 2,874,174 3,490 1.2 Coal 298 Hugo, Oklahoma 3,030,995 3,476 1.1 Coal 299 Meredosia, Illinois 1,326,609 3,462 2.6 Coal 300 Joliet 29, Illinois 5,411,689 3,456 0.6 Coal 301 Salem Harbor, Massachusetts 2,496,128 3,442 1.4 Coal 302 Riverbend, North Carolina 1,660,438 3,441 2.1 Coal 303 J C Weadock, Michigan 2,205,966 3,439 1.6 Coal 304 Sutherland, Iowa 940,504 3,402 3.6 Coal 305 J R Whiting, Michigan 2,262,790 3,382 1.5 Coal 306 B L England, New Jersey 1,191,120 3,372 2.8 Coal 307 Cliffside, North Carolina 2,723,353 3,296 1.2 Coal 308 Hennepin, Illinois 2,045,489 3,285 1.6 Coal 309 Deerhaven, Florida 1,588,281 3,278 2.1 Coal 310 Sanford, Florida 4,998,936 3,275 0.7 Natural gas 311 Los Medanos, California 3,712,422 3,254 0.9 Natural gas 312 Coleto Creek, Texas 4,201,689 3,224 0.8 Coal 313 Eckert Station, Michigan 1,540,404 3,181 2.1 Coal 314 New Castle, Pennsylvania 1,577,573 3,179 2.0 Coal 315 Lovett, New York 1,736,083 3,164 1.8 Coal 316 H B Robinson, South Carolina 1,021,242 3,157 3.1 Coal 317 Prewitt Escalante, New Mexico 1,653,093 3,148 1.9 Coal 318 Tecumseh Energy Center, Kansas 1,510,699 3,091 2.0 Coal 319 Carbon, Utah 1,323,395 3,065 2.3 Coal 320 Lake Road, Missouri 668,090 3,057 4.6 Coal 321 Kraft, Georgia 1,221,647 3,031 2.5 Coal 322 Lansing, Iowa 1,257,821 3,016 2.4 Coal 323 Edge Moor, Delaware 1,911,750 3,004 1.6 Coal 324 Valley (WEPCO), Wisconsin 1,147,954 2,976 2.6 Coal 325 W H Weatherspoon, North Carolina 794,816 2,956 3.7 Coal 326 B C Cobb, Michigan 2,188,545 2,956 1.4 Coal 327 Ravenswood, New York 4,940,254 2,937 0.6 Natural gas 328 Richard Gorsuch, Ohio 1,297,873 2,928 2.3 CoalTable 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)44 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

329 AES Greenidge, New York 1,031,345 2,891 2.8 Coal 330 Stanton, North Dakota 1,399,737 2,811 2.0 Coal 331 Dolphus M Grainger, South Carolina 931,468 2,782 3.0 Coal 332 Rochester 7, New York 1,506,960 2,780 1.8 Coal 333 Portland, Pennsylvania 1,915,994 2,743 1.4 Coal 334 Riverside, Oklahoma 2,342,296 2,729 1.2 Natural gas 335 P H Robinson, Texas 2,917,855 2,720 0.9 Natural gas 336 Alma, Wisconsin 690,029 2,719 3.9 Coal 337 Comanche, Oklahoma 1,338,064 2,698 2.0 Natural gas 338 Ashtabula, Ohio 1,236,725 2,672 2.2 Coal 339 Permian Basin, Texas 2,263,521 2,653 1.2 Natural gas 340 Lauderdale, Florida 6,436,413 2,646 0.4 Natural gas 341 Morgan Creek, Texas 1,121,868 2,641 2.4 Natural gas 342 Southwestern, Oklahoma 783,636 2,604 3.3 Natural gas 343 Crawford, Illinois 2,575,482 2,585 1.0 Coal 344 Ray D Nixon, Colorado 1,680,513 2,571 1.5 Coal 345 O H Hutchings, Ohio 772,666 2,528 3.3 Coal 346 AES Westover (Goudey), New York 863,979 2,493 2.9 Coal 347 Quindaro, Kansas 965,065 2,437 2.5 Coal 348 Southwest, Missouri 1,182,527 2,424 2.0 Coal 349 Cape Fear, North Carolina 1,857,910 2,400 1.3 Coal 350 Prairie Creek, Iowa 878,699 2,340 2.7 Coal 351 Joliet 9, Illinois 1,292,531 2,324 1.8 Coal 352 McMeekin, South Carolina 1,265,428 2,316 1.8 Coal 353 Irvington Generating, Arizona 1,403,955 2,304 1.6 Coal 354 Astoria Generating Stn, New York 3,172,909 2,256 0.7 Natural gas 355 Fisk, Illinois 1,299,559 2,234 1.7 Coal 356 Willow Glen, Louisiana 3,054,850 2,211 0.7 Natural gas 357 Mustang, Oklahoma 1,010,802 2,203 2.2 Natural gas 358 Wood River, Illinois 2,205,841 2,201 1.0 Coal 359 Twin Oaks Power, LP, Texas 2,689,521 2,186 0.8 Coal 360 Hawthorn, Missouri 4,346,949 2,176 0.5 Coal 361 Gibbons Creek, Texas 3,230,078 2,161 0.7 Coal 362 AES Deepwater, Inc., Texas 1,287,524 2,152 1.7 Pet. Coke 363 Gordon Evans Energy, Kansas 875,810 2,095 2.4 Natural gas 364 Mitchell, Pennsylvania 1,256,106 2,064 1.6 Coal 365 Vermilion, Illinois 1,102,939 2,011 1.8 Coal 366 Fort Churchill, Nevada 1,052,429 2,006 1.9 Natural gas 367 Syl Laskin, Minnesota 622,586 2,005 3.2 Coal 368 Lewis Creek, Texas 2,276,678 2,004 0.9 Natural gas 369 Sikeston, Missouri 1,693,365 2,000 1.2 Coal45**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

370 Green River, Kentucky 719,410 1,994 2.8 Coal 371 Valley, Texas 1,628,130 1,975 1.2 Natural gas 372 Buck, North Carolina 1,249,807 1,914 1.5 Coal 373 Graham, Texas 1,216,627 1,869 1.5 Natural gas 374 Valmont, Colorado 1,281,144 1,866 1.5 Coal 375 Bowline Generating, New York 1,706,219 1,841 1.1 Natural gas 376 Rivesville, West Virginia 386,259 1,839 4.8 Coal 377 Handley Steam, Texas 2,232,746 1,835 0.8 Natural gas 378 Sterlington, Louisiana 1,070,959 1,826 1.7 Natural gas 379 Mount Tom, Massachusetts 915,318 1,806 2.0 Coal 380 Taconite Harbor, Minnesota 865,126 1,797 2.1 Coal 381 William C Dale, Kentucky 918,000 1,794 2.0 Coal 382 Charles Poletti, New York 2,282,203 1,771 0.8 Natural gas 383 Edwardsport, Indiana 344,544 1,746 5.1 Coal 384 Gadsden, Alabama 484,718 1,740 3.6 Coal 385 Jones Station, Texas 2,066,025 1,729 0.8 Natural gas 386 Collins Station, Illinois 2,070,864 1,717 0.8 Natural gas 387 Mitchell, Georgia 589,174 1,712 2.9 Coal 388 Cedar Bayou, Texas 3,584,591 1,706 0.5 Natural gas 389 Erickson, Michigan 809,058 1,701 2.1 Coal 390 Waterford 1 & 2, Louisiana 1,473,543 1,699 1.2 Natural gas 391 Schiller, New Hampshire 873,475 1,694 1.9 Coal 392 Hoot Lake, Minnesota 830,157 1,666 2.0 Coal 393 Indian River (55318), Florida 1,152,524 1,634 1.4 Oil 394 Hutsonville, Illinois 591,199 1,632 2.8 Coal 395 Titus, Pennsylvania 1,105,401 1,628 1.5 Coal 396 Seward, Pennsylvania 864,338 1,589 1.8 Coal 397 Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut 1,739,266 1,575 0.9 Coal 398 Port Washington, Wisconsin 747,511 1,568 2.1 Coal 399 J E Corette, Montana 1,132,762 1,545 1.4 Coal 400 Newman, Texas 1,574,783 1,523 1.0 Natural gas 401 W S Lee, South Carolina 925,685 1,504 1.6 Coal 402 Dynegy Roseton, New York 1,211,549 1,498 1.2 Oil 403 Louisiana 1, Louisiana 2,857,455 1,490 0.5 Natural gas 404 Sweeny Cogeneration, Texas 1,727,172 1,469 0.9 Natural gas 405 Horseshoe Lake, Oklahoma 1,188,522 1,458 1.2 Natural gas 406 J L Bates, Texas 328,219 1,449 4.4 Natural gas 407 Tracy, Nevada 1,308,301 1,445 1.1 Natural gas 408 Lake Catherine, Arkansas 1,182,799 1,424 1.2 Natural gas 409 Blount Street, Wisconsin 438,398 1,374 3.1 Coal 410 East River, New York 737,620 1,369 1.9 Natural gasTable 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)46 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

411 Lake Shore, Ohio 860,853 1,335 1.6 Coal 412 Riverside, Iowa 707,625 1,331 1.9 Coal 413 Mystic, Massachusetts 1,584,556 1,331 0.8 Oil 414 Riverton, Kansas 475,354 1,324 2.8 Coal 415 Somerset, Massachusetts 800,515 1,317 1.6 Coal 416 Cromby, Pennsylvania 629,734 1,285 2.0 Coal 417 Barney M Davis, Texas 1,563,689 1,273 0.8 Natural gas 418 Dan River, North Carolina 516,712 1,247 2.4 Coal 419 Nucla, Colorado 707,378 1,209 1.7 Coal 420 Port Jefferson Energy, New York 1,646,561 1,200 0.7 Oil 421 Cunningham, New Mexico 1,215,956 1,195 1.0 Natural gas 422 Platte, Nebraska 563,701 1,195 2.1 Coal 423 Robert Reid, Kentucky 369,652 1,175 3.2 Coal 424 Harbor Beach, Michigan 240,305 1,169 4.9 Coal 425 Burlington, Iowa 1,225,990 1,140 0.9 Coal 426 R P Smith, Maryland 503,446 1,140 2.3 Coal 427 Urquhart, South Carolina 1,703,794 1,079 0.6 Natural gas 428 Red Hills Generation, Mississippi 2,450,000 1,068 0.4 Coal 429 Noblesville, Indiana 196,577 1,046 5.3 Coal 430 Clark, Nevada 761,622 1,041 1.4 Natural gas 431 New Haven Harbor, Connecticut 1,435,307 1,037 0.7 Oil 432 Picway, Ohio 380,217 996 2.6 Coal 433 North Lake, Texas 1,271,870 988 0.8 Natural gas 434 Wilkes Power Plant, Texas 1,393,954 971 0.7 Natural gas 435 E F Barrett, New York 1,789,225 953 0.5 Natural gas 436 Greenwood, Michigan 1,138,043 946 0.8 Natural gas 437 Deepwater, New Jersey 423,355 928 2.2 Coal 438 Rex Brown, Mississippi 424,614 896 2.1 Natural gas 439 Nueces Bay, Texas 1,046,627 882 0.8 Natural gas 440 Plant X, Texas 835,626 872 1.0 Natural gas 441 Coolwater Generating, California 1,547,033 861 0.6 Natural gas 442 Newington, New Hampshire 660,451 855 1.3 Oil 443 Eagle Mountain, Texas 821,805 849 1.0 Natural gas 444 Milton L Kapp, Iowa 1,146,286 846 0.7 Coal 445 R M Heskett, North Dakota 523,027 833 1.6 Coal 446 Rio Grande, New Mexico 720,534 828 1.1 Natural gas 447 Nichols Station, Texas 805,424 825 1.0 Natural gas 448 Teche, Louisiana 797,974 822 1.0 Natural gas 449 Fort Myers, Florida 6,578,229 820 0.1 Natural gas 450 Sim Gideon, Texas 1,309,562 815 0.6 Natural gas 451 CoGen Lyondell, Inc., Texas 3,423,308 802 0.2 Natural gas47**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

452 Humboldt Bay, California 376,679 790 2.1 Natural gas 453 Suwannee River, Florida 625,659 775 1.2 Oil 454 Sunrise, Nevada 357,148 772 2.2 Natural gas 455 Decker Creek, Texas 1,719,800 771 0.4 Natural gas 456 Agua Fria Generating, Arizona 625,908 770 1.2 Natural gas 457 Neil Simpson II, Wyoming 878,364 744 0.8 Coal 458 Waterside, New York 474,701 738 1.6 Natural gas 459 Arvah B Hopkins, Florida 740,853 731 1.0 Natural gas 460 Moselle, Mississippi 474,705 717 1.5 Natural gas 461 Blackhawk Station, Texas 1,629,786 715 0.4 Natural gas 462 V H Braunig, Texas 738,602 711 1.0 Natural gas 463 Pittsburg, California 3,884,118 694 0.2 Natural gas 464 Middletown, Connecticut 564,810 691 1.2 Oil 465 Fort Phantom, Texas 870,584 689 0.8 Natural gas 466 Kendall Square, Massachusetts 349,753 675 1.9 Natural gas 467 Mountain Creek Steam, Texas 971,731 669 0.7 Natural gas 468 Brunot Island Power, Pennsylvania 70,668 639 9.0 Natural gas 469 Payne Creek, Florida 2,424,966 622 0.3 Natural gas 470 Tyrone, Kentucky 253,778 615 2.4 Coal 471 O W Sommers, Texas 814,900 611 0.8 Natural gas 472 Doc Bonin, Louisiana 428,186 597 1.4 Natural gas 473 Arkwright, Georgia 141,283 591 4.2 Coal 474 S A Carlson, New York 242,156 586 2.4 Coal 475 T C Ferguson, Texas 701,794 585 0.8 Natural gas 476 Polk, Florida 1,955,959 579 0.3 Coal 477 Ray Olinger, Texas 794,042 573 0.7 Natural gas 478 Pasadena Power Plant, Texas 4,555,258 571 0.1 Natural gas 479 La Palma, Texas 574,479 570 1.0 Natural gas 480 Stryker Creek, Texas 1,115,276 569 0.5 Natural gas 481 Lake Hubbard, Texas 1,684,853 559 0.3 Natural gas 482 Guadalupe Generating, Texas 3,804,525 541 0.1 Natural gas 483 Lamar Power (Paris), Texas 5,685,767 539 0.1 Natural gas 484 Moss Landing, California 6,393,111 538 0.1 Natural gas 485 Arthur Kill, New York 1,204,507 535 0.4 Natural gas 486 Tiger Bay, Florida 1,412,706 522 0.4 Natural gas 487 William F Wyman, Maine 407,834 511 1.3 Oil 488 Lake Creek, Texas 311,442 508 1.6 Natural gas 489 Knox Lee Power Plant, Texas 618,463 503 0.8 Natural gas 490 Oswego Harbor Power, New York 415,194 494 1.2 Oil 491 Gregory Power Facility, Texas 2,965,571 493 0.2 Natural gas 492 Tenaska Frontier, Texas 4,139,042 486 0.1 Natural gasTable 3.6 

### UNITED STATES NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)48 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

493 Hamilton, Ohio 289,025 482 1.7 Coal 494 Sam Bertron, Texas 775,429 452 0.6 Natural gas 495 Fort St. Vrain, Colorado 4,663,215 448 0.1 Natural gas 496 Parkdale, Texas 286,669 445 1.6 Natural gas 497 Odessa-Ector, Texas 4,381,108 436 0.1 Natural gas 498 Laredo, Texas 475,725 435 0.9 Natural gas 499 Rock River, Wisconsin 279,656 410 1.5 Natural gas 500 Tulsa, Oklahoma 214,917 397 1.8 Natural gas 501 Delaware City Refinery, Delaware 356,319 394 1.1 Natural gas 502 New Boston, Massachusetts 767,936 389 0.5 Natural gas 503 R W Miller, Texas 717,635 388 0.5 Natural gas 504 San Angelo Power Station, Texas 597,742 383 0.6 Natural gas 505 Maddox, New Mexico 441,736 383 0.9 Natural gas 506 Mistersky, Michigan 244,285 380 1.6 Natural gas 507 Montville, Connecticut 298,902 378 1.3 Oil 508 Hines Energy Complex, Florida 3,034,621 373 0.1 Natural gas 509 Lon D Wright, Nebraska 337,950 372 1.1 Coal 510 Benning, District of Columbia 218,124 372 1.7 Oil 511 Eagle Point Cogen, New Jersey 959,951 371 0.4 Natural gas 512 Judson Large, Kansas 276,019 370 1.3 Natural gas 513 M L Hibbard, Minnesota 18,257 368 20.2 Wood 514 Tenaska Gateway, Texas 4,426,124 364 0.1 Natural gas 515 Robert E Ritchie, Arkansas 224,982 357 1.6 Natural gas 516 Midlothian Energy, Texas 5,966,805 348 0.1 Natural gas 517 McKee Run, Delaware 157,768 346 2.2 Oil 518 Bastrop Clean Energy, Texas 1,697,296 337 0.2 Natural gas 519 Eastex Cogeneration, Texas 2,565,604 336 0.1 Natural gas 520 Sweetwater, Texas 573,906 334 0.6 Natural gas 521 Gould Street, Maryland 192,843 330 1.7 Oil 522 Mustang Station, Texas 2,902,235 328 0.1 Natural gas 523 Glenwood, New York 838,938 318 0.4 Natural gas 524 Intercession City, Florida 811,379 317 0.4 Natural gas 525 Hay Road, Delaware 1,219,432 315 0.3 Natural gas 526 Grand Tower, Illinois 1,136,680 311 0.3 Natural gas 527 Richmond County Plant, North Carolina 1,479,857 307 0.2 Natural gas 528 Devon, Connecticut 458,926 303 0.7 Oil 529 Norwalk Harbor Station, Connecticut 268,015 302 1.1 Oil 530 Freestone Power, Texas 3,363,526 299 0.1 Natural gas 531 AES Alamitos, California 4,221,013 288 0.1 Natural gas 532 Vienna, Maryland 151,030 288 1.9 Oil 533 Linden, New Jersey 435,762 285 0.7 Natural gas49**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO x EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

534 El Centro, California 421,736 277 0.7 Natural gas 535 Gadsby, Utah 655,259 273 0.4 Natural gas 536 Bergen, New Jersey 3,370,171 273 0.1 Natural gas 537 SRW Cogen Facility, Texas 2,912,891 271 0.1 Natural gas 538 Holly Street, Texas 443,027 266 0.6 Natural gas 539 Kyrene Generating Stn, Arizona 829,674 263 0.3 Natural gas 540 Murray Gill Energy, Kansas 149,892 263 1.8 Natural gas 541 Delaware, Pennsylvania 115,348 262 2.3 Oil 542 Manchester Street, Rhode Island 2,124,155 261 0.1 Natural gas 543 Morro Bay, California 1,528,517 257 0.2 Natural gas 544 McClellan, Arkansas 175,521 253 1.4 Natural gas 545 Cabrillo Power I (Encina), California 2,355,455 249 0.1 Natural gas 546 Sewaren, New Jersey 343,799 246 0.7 Natural gas 547 Magic Valley, Texas 2,476,733 245 0.1 Natural gas 548 Hutchinson Energy, Kansas 154,476 242 1.6 Natural gas 549 J K Smith Generating, Kentucky 255,803 238 0.9 Natural gas 550 Washington County, Alabama 852,951 235 0.3 Natural gas 551 Trinidad, Texas 218,526 230 1.1 Natural gas 552 Contra Costa, California 1,951,799 226 0.1 Natural gas 553 Debary, Florida 514,580 223 0.4 Natural gas 554 Chevron Cogenerating, Mississippi 1,136,535 217 0.2 Natural gas 555 San Jacinto Steam, Texas 1,326,910 216 0.2 Natural gas 556 Big Cajun 1, Louisiana 85,259 213 2.5 Natural gas 557 Manchief Electric, Colorado 794,580 213 0.3 Natural gas 558 Grays Ferry Cogen, Pennsylvania 860,624 212 0.2 Natural gas 559 Pine Bluff Energy Center, Arkansas 1,260,496 207 0.2 Natural gas 560 John S Rainey, South Carolina 2,211,598 205 0.1 Natural gas 561 Orlando Cogen, Florida 860,496 203 0.2 Natural gas 562 Hidalgo Energy Center, Texas 1,926,715 201 0.1 Natural gas 563 Haynes Gen Station, California 2,328,262 200 0.1 Natural gas 564 Garden City, Kansas 153,401 190 1.2 Natural gas 565 Reliant Energy Channelview, Texas 3,385,962 190 0.1 Natural gas

a To limit its length, this table presents only the US power plants that emitted more than 190 tonnes of NO xemissions in 2002. The facilities in the table account for 99.5% of the total NO xemissions.

There are more than 300 additional fossil fuel power plants in the database that reported fewer than 190 tonnes of NO xemissions during 2002.50 **PLANT, PROVINCE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO xEMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Nanticoke, Ontario 22,236,000 38,204 1.72 Coal 2 Sundance, Alberta n/a 22,609 1.56 a Coal 3 Boundary Dam, Saskatchewan 6,057,364 17,191 2.84 Coal 4 Lambton, Ontario 10,455,000 15,323 1.47 Coal 5 Keephills, Alberta n/a 13,565 2.21 a Coal 6 Genesee, Alberta n/a 13,316 2.14 a Coal 7 Lingan, Nova Scotia n/a 12,871 2.43 a Coal 8 Coleson Cove, New Brunswick n/a 12,260 n/a Oil 9 Poplar River, Saskatchewan 4,457,200 11,668 2.62 Coal 10 Battle River, Alberta 4,867,000 b 11,367 2.34 Coal 11 Sheerness, Alberta 5,810,000 b 9,830 1.69 Coal 12 Trenton, Nova Scotia n/a 8,883 1.48 a Coal 13 Wabamun, Alberta n/a 8,160 2.17 a Coal 14 Shand Power, Saskatchewan 2,150,000 5,863 2.73 Coal 15 Belledune, New Brunswick 3,616,790 5,730 1.58 Coal 16 Lakeview, Ontario 2,455,000 4,934 2.01 Coal 17 Holyrood, Newfoundland-Labrador n/a 4,553 n/a Oil 18 Iles-de-la-Madeleine 2, Quebec n/a 4,242 c n/a Oil 19 Tufts Cove, Nova Scotia n/a 3,680 n/a Oil 20 Thunder Bay, Ontario 1,522,000 3,202 2.10 Coal 21 Dalhousie, New Brunswick n/a 3,070 n/a Orimulsion 22 Lennox, Ontario 2,762,000 d 2,999 1.09 Oil 23 Point Tupper, Nova Scotia n/a 2,951 2.57 a Coal 24 Sarnia Regional Cogen Plant, Ontario n/a 2,699 n/a Natural gas 25 Iroquois Falls, Ontario n/a 2,605 n/a Natural gas 26 HR Milner, Alberta 790,000 b 2,332 2.95 Coal 27 Point Aconi, Nova Scotia n/a 1,783 1.64 a Coal 28 Kirkland Lake, Ontario n/a 1,679 n/a Natural gas 29 Atikokan, Ontario 823,000 1,585 1.93 Coal 30 Grand Lake, New Brunswick 449,388 e 910 2.02 Coal 31 Meridian, Saskatchewan n/a 774 n/a Natural gas 32 Medicine Hat, Alberta n/a 757 n/a Natural gas 33 Joffre, Alberta n/a 722 n/a Natural gas 34 Williams Lake, British Columbia n/a 551 n/a Wood refuse 35 Queen Elizabeth, Saskatchewan n/a 546 n/a Natural gas 36 Brandon GS, Manitoba 273,053 543 1.99 Coal 37 Mississauga, Ontario n/a 503 n/a Natural gas 38 Cardinal, Ontario n/a 466 n/a Natural gas 39 Tunis, Ontario n/a 465 n/a Natural gas 40 Brooklyn Energy Centre, Nova Scotia n/a 371 n/a Wood refuse 41 Clover Bar, Alberta n/a 363 n/a Natural gas 42 Landis, Saskatchewan n/a 360 n/a Natural gas 43 Calstock Power Plant, Ontario n/a 354 n/a Wood refuse 44 Courtenay Bay, New Brunswick n/a 340 n/a Oil Table 3.7 

### CANADA NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS51**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, PROVINCE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO xEMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

45 Nipigon Power Plant, Ontario n/a 317 n/a Natural gas 46 Rossdale, Alberta n/a 307 n/a Natural gas 47 Selkirk GS, Manitoba 143,765 268 1.86 Coal f 48 Rainbow Lake (Units 4-5), Alberta 627,000 b 255 0.41 Natural gas 49 Ottawa Health Science Center, Ontario n/a 242 n/a Natural gas 50 Cochrane Generating Station, Ontario n/a 223 n/a Wood refuse 51 Rainbow Lake (Units 1-3), Alberta 33,000 b 196 5.95 Natural gas 52 Balzac Power Station, Alberta n/a 175 n/a Natural gas 53 Cavalier Power Plant, Alberta n/a 167 n/a Natural gas 54 Carseland, Alberta n/a 163 n/a Natural gas 55 Bayside Power L.P., New Brunswick n/a 163 n/a Natural gas 56 Windsor Powerhouse, Ontario n/a 131 n/a Natural gas 57 Fort Nelson Generating Station, British Columbia n/a 127 n/a Natural gas

58 Brock West Landfill Gas Power Plant, Ontario n/a 125 n/a Waste gas 59 Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta n/a 114 n/a Natural gas 60 Burnside, Nova Scotia n/a 112 n/a Diesel 61 Windsor Essex, Ontario n/a 99 n/a Natural gas 62 Keele Valley Landfill Gas Power Plant, Ontario n/a 91 n/a Waste gas 63 Redwater, Alberta n/a 79 n/a Natural gas 64 Kapuskasing Power Plant, Ontario n/a 76 n/a Natural gas 65 North Bay, Ontario n/a 70 n/a Natural gas 66 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island n/a 68 n/a Oil 67 Poplar Hill, Alberta 138,000 b 37 0.27 Natural gas 68 Tracy, Quebec n/a 38 c n/a Oil 69 Millbank, New Brunswick n/a 26 n/a Diesel 70 Valleyview, Alberta 55,000 b 23 0.42 Natural gas

a 2002 annual generation was not available, so output emission rates are for 2001, derived from power plant information reports available from the Canadian Electricity Association at http://www.ceamercuryprogram.ca/index.html

. b Net generation obtained from ATCO Power report, Environment, Health and Safety Review 2002.Online at http://www.atcopower.com/Environment_Health_&_Safety/Reports/environmental_reports.htm

. c Information provided by the Province of Quebec in September 2004 differs from the NO xvalues contained in the NPRI March 2004 update for these facilities. Quebec gives 4,013 tonnes NO xfrom Iles-de-la-Madeleine,

and 31.9 tonnes NO xfrom Tracy. d Net generation obtained from Ontario Power Generation report, Towards Sustainable Development: 2002 Progress Report. Online at http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_annual_report.asp

. e Net generation estimated assuming Grand Lake was in operation 90% of the time during 2002. See the methodology discussion in the Appendix

. f Selkirk converted to natural gas in July 2002.52 **PLANT, PROVINCE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO xEMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 C.T. José López Portillo (Río Escondido), Coahuila 7,515,560 45,932 6.11 Coal 2 C.T. Carbón II, Coahuila 8,636,350 40,099 4.64 Coal 3 C.T. Plutarco Elias Calles (Petacalco), Guerrero 13,879,470 30,931 2.23 Coal 4 C.T. PDTE. A. López Mateos (Tuxpan), Veracruz 15,030,690 15,899 1.06 Oil 5 C.T. Francisco Pérez Ríos (Tula), Hidalgo 9,734,170 10,949 1.12 Oil 6 C.T. Altamira, Tamaulipas 4,655,850 6,899 1.48 Oil 7 C.T. Gral. Manuel Álvarez (Manzanillo I), Colima 6,449,140 6,146 0.95 Oil 8 C.T. Salamanca, Guanajuato 4,841,380 5,393 1.11 Oil 9 C.T. Manzanillo II, Colima 5,034,400 4,555 0.90 Oil 10 C.C.C. Benito Juárez (Samalayuca II), Chihuahua 3,901,950 4,140 1.06 Natural gas 11 C.C.C. FCO. Pérez Ríos (Tula), Hidalgo 3,260,940 4,088 1.25 Natural gas 12 C.T. José Acevez Pozos (Mazatlan II), Sinaloa 3,284,120 4,056 1.23 Oil 13 C.C.C. Dos Bocas, Veracruz 2,428,890 3,712 1.53 Natural gas 14 C.TG. Portes Gil (Río Bravo), Tamaulipas 1,031,400 3,437 3.33 Natural gas 15 C.T. Monterrey, Nuevo León 2,538,090 3,429 1.35 Oil 16 C.T. Puerto Libertad, Sonora 3,349,740 3,289 0.98 Oil 17 C.C.C. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 2,949,700 3,264 1.11 Natural gas 18 C.T. Valle de México, México 3,894,120 3,096 0.80 Natural gas 19 C.C.C. Huinala, Nuevo León 2,331,460 3,009 1.29 Natural gas 20 C.T. Carlos Rodríguez Rivero (Guaymas II), Sonora 2,259,290 2,958 1.31 Oil 21 C.T. Villa De Reyes (San Luis Potosí), San Luis Potosí 2,925,990 2,882 0.98 Oil 22 C.T. Francisco Villa (Delicias), Chihuahua 1,919,730 2,871 1.50 Oil 23 C.T. Juan De Díos Batis P. (Topolobampo), Sinaloa 1,996,550 2,775 1.39 Oil 24 C.T. Presidente Juárez (Tijuana), Baja California 1,488,840 2,392 1.61 Oil 25 C.C.C. Presidente Juárez (Rosarito), Baja California 2,077,250 2,242 1.08 Natural gas 26 C.TG. El Sauz, Querétaro 1,495,570 2,221 1.49 Natural gas 27 C.C.C. Felipe Carrilo P. (Valladolid), Yucatán 1,517,600 2,025 1.33 Natural gas 28 C.C.C. El Sauz, Querétaro 1,370,540 1,955 1.43 Natural gas 29 C.T. Guadalupe Victoria (Lerdo), Durango 1,980,460 1,892 0.96 Oil 30 C.T. Benito Juárez (Samalayuca I), Chihuahua 1,232,800 1,814 1.47 Oil 31 C.C.C. Gómez Palacio, Durango 1,045,260 1,668 1.60 Natural gas 32 C.T. Emilio Portes Gil (Río Bravo), Tamaulipas 1,745,990 1,634 0.94 Oil 33 C.C.C. Huinala II, Nuevo León 1,333,060 1,418 1.06 Natural gas 34 C.TG. Presidente Juárez (Tijuana), Baja California 648,420 1,222 1.88 Natural gas 35 C.T. Mérida II, Yucatán 1,099,710 1,151 1.05 Oil 36 C.CI. Puerto San Carlos, Baja California Sur 470,680 1,148 2.44 Oil 37 C.T. Poza Rica, Veracruz 654,040 1,124 1.72 Oil 38 C.T. Campeche II (Lerma), Campeche 812,720 1,005 1.24 Oil 39 C.CI. Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur 36,390 903 24.80 Diesel 40 C.TG. Hermosillo, Sonora 507,150 875 1.73 Natural gas 41 C.T. Jorge Luque (LFC), México 497,160 847 1.70 Natural gas 42 C.T. Punta Prieta II, Baja California Sur 621,830 833 1.34 Oil 43 C.T. Felipe Carrilo P. (Valladolid), Yucatán 414,970 709 1.71 Oil 44 C.CI. Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur 26,220 667 25.42 Diesel 45 C.TG. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 329,140 582 1.77 Natural gas Table 3.8 

### MEXICO NOX

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS53**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, PROVINCE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh NO xEMISSIONS, metric tonnes NO xEMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

46 C.TG. Cancún, Quintana Roo 77,770 508 6.54 Diesel 47 C.TG. Huinala, Nuevo León 259,700 427 1.64 Natural gas 48 C.T. Guaymas I, Sonora 186,750 403 2.16 Oil 49 C.CI. Villa Constitución, Baja California Sur 17,170 386 22.51 Diesel 50 Pueblo Nuevo (Movil), Sonora 12,050 355 29.49 Diesel 51 C.T. Nachi-Cocom, Yucatán 249,470 332 1.33 Oil 52 C.TG. Jorge Luque (Lechería) (LFC), México 145,390 326 2.24 Natural gas 53 C.TG. Las Cruces, Guerrero 46,400 309 6.66 Diesel 54 C.T. La Laguna, Durango 179,590 303 1.69 Natural gas 55 C.TG. Nonalco (LFC), DF 131,470 281 2.13 Natural gas 56 C.TG. Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur 33,690 267 7.91 Diesel 57 C.TG. Valle de México (LFC), México 104,780 242 2.31 Natural gas 58 C.T. San Jerónimo, Nuevo León 222,010 219 0.99 Natural gas 59 Nuevo Nogales (Movil), Sonora 7,730 219 28.28 Diesel 60 C.TG. Monclava, Coahuila n/a 217 n/a Natural gas 61 C.TG. Los Cabos, Baja California Sur 30,900 209 6.77 Diesel 62 C.TG. Caborca Industrial, Sonora 26,140 171 6.53 Diesel 63 C.TG. La Laguna, Durango 62,260 159 2.56 Natural gas 64 C.TG. Nizuc, Quintana Roo 27,630 156 5.64 Diesel 65 C.TG. El Verde, Jalisco 29,110 114 3.93 Natural gas 66 C.TG. Culiacan, Sinaloa 17,550 98 5.61 Diesel 67 C.TG. Parque, Chihuahua 15,580 96 6.19 Diesel 68 C.TG. Tecnológico, Nuevo León 13,400 89 6.61 Diesel 69 C.TG. Ciudad Obregón, Sonora 10,780 83 7.71 Diesel 70 C.TG. Punta Prieta I (La Paz), Baja California Sur 9,870 79 8.05 Diesel 71 C.TG. Cipres, Baja California 10,120 70 6.92 Diesel 72 C.TG. Chávez, Coahuila 25,250 65 2.58 Natural gas 73 C.TG. Arroyo De Coyote, Tamaulipas 6,540 63 9.68 Diesel 74 C.TG. Xul-Ha, Quintana Roo 8,770 63 7.15 Diesel 75 C.TG. Chihuahua I, Chihuahua 7,980 57 7.16 Diesel 76 C.TG. Universidad, Nuevo León 17,220 50 2.93 Natural gas 77 C.TG. Leona, Nuevo León 16,570 48 2.91 Natural gas 78 C.CI. Yecora, Sonora 1,890 41 21.83 Diesel 79 C.TG. Mexicali, Baja California 5,330 41 7.67 Diesel 80 C.TG. Esperanzas, Coahuila 4,590 35 7.66 Diesel 81 C.TG. Industrial (Juárez), Chihuahua 1,980 29 14.66 Diesel 82 C.TG. Fundidora, Nuevo León 4,810 13 2.79 Natural gas54 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Monticello, Texas 13,127,881 849 0.065 Coal 2 Keystone, Pennsylvania 11,790,991 787 0.067 Coal 3 Homer City, Pennsylvania 10,938,699 743 0.068 Coal 4 James H Miller Jr, Alabama 18,592,131 717 0.039 Coal 5 Montour, Pennsylvania 9,263,444 634 0.068 Coal 6 Powerton, Illinois 7,858,082 584 0.074 Coal 7 Martin Lake, Texas 14,825,001 547 0.037 Coal 8 Bruce Mansfield, Pennsylvania 15,974,911 528 0.033 Coal 9 Mount Storm, West Virginia 11,671,736 521 0.045 Coal 10 Scherer, Georgia 20,817,252 515 0.025 Coal 11 San Juan, New Mexico 12,398,506 486 0.039 Coal 12 Big Brown, Texas 7,920,848 473 0.060 Coal 13 Jeffrey Energy Center, Kansas 15,330,637 467 0.030 Coal 14 Rockport, Indiana 16,643,319 467 0.028 Coal 15 Conesville, Ohio 10,158,928 451 0.044 Coal 16 John E Amos, West Virginia 17,995,089 450 0.025 Coal 17 E C Gaston, Alabama 12,639,541 417 0.033 Coal 18 Limestone, Texas 11,385,520 407 0.036 Coal 19 Four Corners, New Mexico 12,914,233 407 0.031 Coal 20 H W Pirkey, Texas 4,504,102 382 0.085 Coal 21 Eastlake, Ohio 6,724,187 381 0.057 Coal 22 Shawville, Pennsylvania 2,991,436 377 0.126 Coal 23 Gorgas, Alabama 7,216,594 374 0.052 Coal 24 Joliet 29, Illinois 5,411,689 364 0.067 Coal 25 Sam Seymour, Texas 11,749,703 361 0.031 Coal 26 Roxboro, North Carolina 14,281,069 352 0.025 Coal 27 Will County, Illinois 5,419,706 348 0.064 Coal 28 Colstrip, Montana 13,886,845 347 0.025 Coal 29 Monroe, Michigan 16,720,823 344 0.021 Coal 30 Bowen, Georgia 21,674,542 339 0.016 Coal 31 Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 7,898,581 338 0.043 Coal 32 J M Stuart, Ohio 15,351,286 318 0.021 Coal 33 Waukegan, Illinois 4,230,118 317 0.075 Coal 34 Labadie, Missouri 14,406,589 316 0.022 Coal 35 Paradise, Kentucky 14,130,150 296 0.021 Coal 36 Sherburne County, Minnesota 19,161,794 289 0.015 Coal 37 Gibson, Indiana 20,522,153 282 0.014 Coal 38 Belews Creek, North Carolina 16,912,850 269 0.016 Coal 39 Cardinal, Ohio 8,555,500 266 0.031 Coal 40 W H Sammis, Ohio 15,521,117 263 0.017 Coal 41 Joppa Steam, Illinois 8,075,552 262 0.032 Coal 42 Jim Bridger, Wyoming 14,593,034 255 0.017 Coal 43 Coal Creek, North Dakota 8,559,089 249 0.029 Coal 44 Kingston, Tennessee 9,866,292 248 0.025 Coal54 Table 3.9 

### UNITED STATES MERCURY POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a**PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

45 J H Campbell, Michigan 9,269,258 248 0.027 Coal 46 Centralia, Washington 9,500,972 247 0.026 Coal 47 Marshall, North Carolina 14,498,223 243 0.017 Coal 48 W A Parish, Texas 20,026,008 240 0.012 Coal 49 Gen J M Gavin, Ohio 15,617,077 238 0.015 Coal 50 Big Cajun 2, Louisiana 10,094,370 236 0.023 Coal 51 Brunner Island, Pennsylvania 9,994,684 235 0.024 Coal 52 Laramie River, Wyoming 12,398,253 234 0.019 Coal 53 Phil Sporn, West Virginia 5,361,190 230 0.043 Coal 54 Rush Island, Missouri 7,483,574 230 0.031 Coal 55 Avon Lake, Ohio 4,169,683 228 0.055 Coal 56 Hatfield’s Ferry, Pennsylvania 9,753,564 227 0.023 Coal 57 Conemaugh, Pennsylvania 12,584,027 224 0.018 Coal 58 Baldwin, Illinois 12,454,874 223 0.018 Coal 59 Clifty Creek, Indiana 7,838,812 221 0.028 Coal 60 Welsh Power Plant, Texas 11,000,083 217 0.020 Coal 61 Barry, Alabama 16,718,579 213 0.013 Coal 62 Mountaineer (WV), West Virginia 8,985,024 211 0.023 Coal 63 J T Deely, Texas 5,656,468 211 0.037 Coal 64 Chesterfield, Virginia 9,502,996 210 0.022 Coal 65 Kyger Creek, Ohio 6,852,119 209 0.030 Coal 66 Brandon Shores, Maryland 7,160,408 208 0.029 Coal 67 White Bluff, Arkansas 8,850,935 207 0.023 Coal 68 Johnsonville, Tennessee 8,275,776 207 0.025 Coal 69 Muskogee, Oklahoma 10,275,348 206 0.020 Coal 70 Mitchell, West Virginia 9,231,567 204 0.022 Coal 71 Ghent, Kentucky 11,533,151 203 0.018 Coal 72 La Cygne, Kansas 9,517,909 200 0.021 Coal 73 Milton R Young, North Dakota 5,117,272 199 0.039 Coal 74 Muskingum River, Ohio 8,359,764 198 0.024 Coal 75 Fort Martin, West Virginia 7,855,193 195 0.025 Coal 76 Big Sandy, Kentucky 5,752,379 189 0.033 Coal 77 Chalk Point, Maryland 6,041,207 187 0.031 Coal 78 Clay Boswell, Minnesota 7,266,941 183 0.025 Coal 79 George Neal North, Iowa 5,703,855 183 0.032 Coal 80 Coyote, North Dakota 3,060,200 181 0.059 Coal 81 Widows Creek, Alabama 8,868,307 181 0.020 Coal 82 Bull Run, Tennessee 6,760,080 179 0.026 Coal 83 Morgantown, Maryland 7,550,506 178 0.024 Coal 84 Walter C Beckjord, Ohio 6,756,632 178 0.026 Coal 85 Gallatin, Tennessee 7,271,777 171 0.023 Coal 86 Antelope Valley, North Dakota 6,317,269 169 0.027 Coal 87 Newton, Illinois 7,886,447 168 0.021 Coal 88 Harllee Branch, Georgia 9,018,458 168 0.019 Coal55**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONSTable 3.9 

### UNITED STATES MERCURY POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)56 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

89 R M Schahfer, Indiana 8,756,429 167 0.019 Coal 90 Kincaid, Illinois 3,888,878 166 0.043 Coal 91 Gerald Gentleman, Nebraska 9,549,816 166 0.017 Coal 92 Wansley, Georgia 11,197,521 162 0.015 Coal 93 Independence, Arkansas 10,510,564 162 0.015 Coal 94 Crawford, Illinois 2,575,482 162 0.063 Coal 95 Miami Fort, Ohio 7,587,241 160 0.021 Coal 96 Council Bluffs, Iowa 5,794,189 156 0.027 Coal 97 Daniel, Mississippi 10,839,532 155 0.014 Coal 98 Armstrong, Pennsylvania 2,140,768 154 0.072 Coal 99 Springerville, Arizona 5,830,542 153 0.026 Coal 100 H L Spurlock, Kentucky 6,080,970 152 0.025 Coal 101 Navajo Generating Station, Arizona 17,832,139 149 0.008 Coal 102 Columbia, Wisconsin 6,472,154 147 0.023 Coal 103 Leland Olds, North Dakota 4,576,988 147 0.032 Coal 104 Dave Johnston, Wyoming 5,759,784 146 0.025 Coal 105 Louisa, Iowa 4,927,254 143 0.029 Coal 106 Tanner’s Creek, Indiana 5,872,947 143 0.024 Coal 107 Grand River Dam Auth, Oklahoma 6,501,431 137 0.021 Coal 108 George Neal South, Iowa 4,586,420 136 0.030 Coal 109 Sunbury, Pennsylvania 1,714,652 135 0.079 Coal 110 Sooner, Oklahoma 6,953,110 135 0.019 Coal 111 Harrison, West Virginia 12,927,422 133 0.010 Coal 112 F J Gannon, Florida 4,815,528 132 0.028 Coal 113 Dickerson, Maryland 3,263,673 131 0.040 Coal 114 Harrington Station, Texas 7,831,512 130 0.017 Coal 115 New Madrid, Missouri 7,606,958 127 0.017 Coal 116 Crystal River, Florida 6,903,533 124 0.018 Coal 117 Mayo, North Carolina 4,737,089 123 0.026 Coal 118 South Oak Creek, Wisconsin 5,393,774 122 0.023 Coal 119 Gibbons Creek, Texas 3,230,078 122 0.038 Coal 120 Lawrence Energy Center, Kansas 3,759,861 120 0.032 Coal 121 Coleman, Kentucky 2,864,421 119 0.042 Coal 122 Kammer, West Virginia 4,029,061 117 0.029 Coal 123 Cumberland, Tennessee 16,384,132 117 0.007 Coal 124 Brayton Point, Massachusetts 8,263,163 116 0.014 Coal 125 Sandow, Texas 3,943,323 116 0.029 Coal 126 Dan E Karn, Michigan 4,474,257 116 0.026 Coal 127 J K Spruce, Texas 4,135,806 114 0.028 Coal 128 Sioux, Missouri 6,296,711 112 0.018 Coal 129 Watson, Mississippi 4,731,902 110 0.023 Coal 130 Mohave, Nevada 10,170,230 110 0.011 Coal 131 John Sevier, Tennessee 4,880,298 108 0.022 Coal 132 Cholla, Arizona 6,157,206 108 0.018 Coal57**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

133 Coronado Generating, Arizona 5,063,164 106 0.021 Coal 134 Cheswick, Pennsylvania 3,021,295 105 0.035 Coal 135 New Castle, Pennsylvania 1,577,573 105 0.066 Coal 136 Petersburg, Indiana 11,641,137 104 0.009 Coal 137 Hawthorn, Missouri 4,346,949 103 0.024 Coal 138 Bay Shore, Ohio 3,538,463 103 0.029 Coal 139 Northeastern, Oklahoma 9,623,635 102 0.011 Coal 140 Wateree, South Carolina 4,282,531 102 0.024 Coal 141 R D Morrow, Mississippi 2,329,127 102 0.044 Coal 142 Thomas Hill, Missouri 6,865,414 101 0.015 Coal 143 Greene County, Alabama 3,892,941 100 0.026 Coal 144 R S Nelson, Louisiana 5,927,840 98 0.017 Coal 145 Colbert, Alabama 6,305,034 98 0.016 Coal 146 Belle River, Michigan 7,716,451 98 0.013 Coal 147 G G Allen, North Carolina 5,071,389 98 0.019 Coal 148 St. Clair, Michigan 6,965,047 97 0.014 Coal 149 E W Brown, Kentucky 3,992,354 97 0.024 Coal 150 Coffeen, Illinois 5,257,211 97 0.019 Coal 151 Warrick, Indiana 1,044,762 96 0.092 Coal 152 Dolet Hills, Louisiana 4,667,313 96 0.021 Coal 153 R Gallagher, Indiana 2,253,862 96 0.042 Coal 154 Cayuga, Indiana 5,930,084 92 0.015 Coal 155 Edgewater, Wisconsin 4,786,914 92 0.019 Coal 156 Huntley Power, New York 2,923,168 91 0.031 Coal 157 Nebraska City, Nebraska 4,104,546 90 0.022 Coal 158 W H Zimmer, Ohio 9,734,563 90 0.009 Coal 159 Eckert Station, Michigan 1,540,404 90 0.058 Coal 160 Mill Creek, Kentucky 9,075,622 89 0.010 Coal 161 Joliet 9, Illinois 1,292,531 89 0.069 Coal 162 Winyah, South Carolina 7,720,938 89 0.011 Coal 163 Wabash River, Indiana 5,744,472 88 0.015 Coal 164 Dunkirk, New York 3,591,017 86 0.024 Coal 165 Naughton, Wyoming 5,019,304 85 0.017 Coal 166 Wyodak, Wyoming 2,858,420 85 0.030 Coal 167 North Omaha, Nebraska 3,403,969 84 0.025 Coal 168 Crist, Florida 4,572,235 84 0.018 Coal 169 Fisk, Illinois 1,299,559 84 0.064 Coal 170 Craig, Colorado 9,807,407 83 0.008 Coal 171 Chesapeake, Virginia 4,141,111 82 0.020 Coal 172 Meramec, Missouri 4,434,627 82 0.019 Coal 173 East Bend, Kentucky 2,941,427 81 0.027 Coal 174 Ashtabula, Ohio 1,236,725 79 0.064 Coal 175 L V Sutton, North Carolina 2,622,440 78 0.030 Coal 176 Oklaunion, Texas 4,264,449 78 0.018 CoalTable 3.9 

### UNITED STATES MERCURY POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)58 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

177 Yates, Georgia 5,368,046 77 0.014 Coal 178 Hugo, Oklahoma 3,030,995 76 0.025 Coal 179 Boardman, Oregon 3,773,750 76 0.020 Coal 180 Clinch River, Virginia 4,620,670 75 0.016 Coal 181 Muscatine, Iowa 1,259,121 73 0.058 Coal 182 Bremo, Virginia 1,609,047 73 0.046 Coal 183 Iatan, Missouri 4,017,999 73 0.018 Coal 184 Weston, Wisconsin 3,202,588 72 0.022 Coal 185 Charles R Lowman, Alabama 3,472,719 72 0.021 Coal 186 Big Bend, Florida 8,518,176 72 0.008 Coal 187 Killen Station, Ohio 3,612,949 71 0.020 Coal 188 Trenton Channel, Michigan 4,339,844 70 0.016 Coal 189 J R Whiting, Michigan 2,262,790 70 0.031 Coal 190 John S Cooper, Kentucky 2,100,208 70 0.033 Coal 191 Kanawha River, West Virginia 2,571,055 70 0.027 Coal 192 Tolk Station, Texas 7,662,008 69 0.009 Coal 193 Harding Street Stn (Elmer W Stout), Indiana 3,784,144 69 0.018 Coal 194 R E Burger, Ohio 2,000,668 68 0.034 Coal 195 Indian River, Delaware 2,129,702 68 0.032 Coal 196 Niles, Ohio 1,126,711 67 0.060 Coal 197 Edwards Station, Illinois 3,536,593 66 0.019 Coal 198 Asheville, North Carolina 2,628,074 64 0.025 Coal 199 Albright, West Virginia 1,374,335 64 0.047 Coal 200 Allen, Tennessee 4,879,343 64 0.013 Coal 201 Flint Creek, Arkansas 3,655,965 63 0.017 Coal 202 Huntington, Utah 5,977,918 62 0.010 Coal 203 San Miguel, Texas 2,855,097 60 0.021 Coal 204 B C Cobb, Michigan 2,188,545 59 0.027 Coal 205 J C Weadock, Michigan 2,205,966 59 0.027 Coal 206 Dynegy Danskammer, New York 2,449,593 59 0.024 Coal 207 Hudson, New Jersey 3,356,373 58 0.017 Coal 208 Herbert A Wagner, Maryland 3,001,247 58 0.019 Coal 209 Possum Point, Virginia 3,005,462 58 0.019 Coal 210 Portland, Pennsylvania 1,915,994 57 0.030 Coal 211 St. Johns River, Florida 9,795,546 57 0.006 Coal 212 J P Madgett, Wisconsin 2,097,984 57 0.027 Coal 213 Pleasants, West Virginia 7,629,209 56 0.007 Coal 214 Michigan City, Indiana 2,487,472 56 0.023 Coal 215 Yorktown, Virginia 4,238,965 56 0.013 Coal 216 Cross, South Carolina 8,126,251 56 0.007 Coal 217 Stanton, North Dakota 1,399,737 55 0.040 Coal 218 Sibley, Missouri 3,061,409 55 0.018 Coal 219 Lee, North Carolina 1,969,494 55 0.028 Coal 220 Ottumwa, Iowa 4,480,923 54 0.012 Coal59**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

221 Jefferies, South Carolina 1,878,197 53 0.028 Coal 222 Stanton Energy, Florida 6,070,495 53 0.009 Coal 223 Apache Station, Arizona 2,799,861 53 0.019 Coal 224 River Rouge, Michigan 3,401,765 52 0.015 Coal 225 Merom, Indiana 6,643,503 52 0.008 Coal 226 Lansing Smith, Florida 4,020,641 51 0.013 Coal b 227 State Line Generating, Indiana 1,599,873 51 0.032 Coal 228 Richard Gorsuch, Ohio 1,297,873 50 0.038 Coal 229 Seminole, Florida 9,241,176 49 0.005 Coal 230 Gadsden, Alabama 484,718 48 0.100 Coal 231 Coleto Creek, Texas 3,780,383 48 0.013 Coal 232 Allen S King, Minnesota 3,311,959 48 0.014 Coal 233 Williams, South Carolina 4,428,464 48 0.011 Coal 234 Big Stone, South Dakota 3,119,519 48 0.015 Coal 235 Montrose, Missouri 2,662,960 47 0.018 Coal 236 Lansing, Iowa 1,257,821 46 0.037 Coal 237 Reid Gardner, Nevada 4,191,103 46 0.011 Coal 238 AES Cayuga (Milliken), New York 2,353,387 46 0.020 Coal 239 Edge Moor, Delaware 1,911,750 46 0.024 Coal 240 Canadys Steam, South Carolina 2,124,590 45 0.021 Coal 241 Cape Fear, North Carolina 1,857,910 45 0.024 Coal 242 Hennepin, Illinois 2,045,489 45 0.022 Coal 243 Hammond, Georgia 3,935,825 44 0.011 Coal 244 Wood River, Illinois 2,205,841 42 0.019 Coal 245 Trimble County, Kentucky 3,929,027 42 0.011 Coal 246 Tecumseh Energy Center, Kansas 1,510,699 42 0.028 Coal 247 Rodemacher, Louisiana 4,279,337 40 0.009 Coal 248 Riverbend, North Carolina 1,660,438 40 0.024 Coal 249 Presque Isle, Michigan 3,140,761 40 0.013 Coal 250 Comanche, Colorado 4,697,167 39 0.008 Coal 251 Prewitt Escalante, New Mexico 1,653,093 39 0.023 Coal 252 Hunter (Emery), Utah 9,403,388 39 0.004 Coal 253 Rochester 7, New York 1,506,960 38 0.025 Coal 254 Sikeston, Missouri 1,693,365 38 0.023 Coal 255 AES Somerset (Kintigh), New York 5,453,551 37 0.007 Coal 256 Pulliam, Wisconsin 2,349,544 37 0.016 Coal 257 Willow Island, West Virginia 1,151,588 37 0.032 Coal 258 Pawnee, Colorado 3,316,714 36 0.011 Coal 259 Jack McDonough, Georgia 3,728,220 36 0.010 Coal 260 Nelson Dewey, Wisconsin 1,172,335 36 0.031 Coal 261 Milton L Kapp, Iowa 1,146,286 35 0.031 Coal 262 Cliffside, North Carolina 2,723,353 35 0.013 Coal 263 Buck, North Carolina 1,249,807 35 0.028 Coal 264 Glen Lyn, Virginia 1,718,635 35 0.020 CoalTable 3.9 

### UNITED STATES MERCURY POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)60 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

265 Riverside, Minnesota 2,436,997 35 0.014 Coal 266 Havana, Illinois 2,499,684 34 0.013 Coal 267 Sheldon, Nebraska 1,442,114 33 0.023 Coal 268 Martins Creek, Pennsylvania 2,402,706 33 0.014 Coal 269 Meredosia, Illinois 1,326,609 33 0.025 Coal 270 Genoa, Wisconsin 2,203,168 32 0.015 Coal 271 Shawnee, Kentucky 8,826,178 32 0.004 Coal 272 Picway, Ohio 380,217 32 0.083 Coal 273 Potomac River, Virginia 2,331,055 31 0.013 Coal 274 Elrama, Pennsylvania 2,321,405 31 0.013 Coal 275 Titus, Pennsylvania 1,105,401 31 0.028 Coal 276 Frank E Ratts, Indiana 1,517,924 31 0.020 Coal 277 Dolphus M Grainger, South Carolina 931,468 30 0.032 Coal 278 Nearman Creek, Kansas 1,452,206 30 0.021 Coal 279 Seward, Pennsylvania 864,338 30 0.034 Coal 280 Elmer Smith, Kentucky 2,185,345 30 0.014 Coal 281 Polk, Florida 1,955,959 29 0.015 Coal 282 Bailly, Indiana 2,831,251 29 0.010 Coal 283 Holcomb, Kansas 2,454,689 28 0.011 Coal 284 AES Greenidge, New York 929,230 28 0.030 Coal 285 James River, Missouri 1,587,089 27 0.017 Coal 286 Rawhide, Colorado 2,078,175 27 0.013 Coal 287 H B Robinson, South Carolina 1,021,242 27 0.026 Coal 288 W S Lee, South Carolina 925,685 26 0.029 Coal 289 O H Hutchings, Ohio 772,666 26 0.034 Coal 290 R D Green, Kentucky 3,501,986 26 0.008 Coal 291 Eagle Valley (H T Pritchard), Indiana 1,332,751 26 0.020 Coal 292 Burlington, Iowa 1,225,990 26 0.021 Coal 293 Hoot Lake, Minnesota 830,157 26 0.031 Coal 294 Arapahoe, Colorado 1,412,418 26 0.018 Coal 295 Black Dog, Minnesota 1,662,585 26 0.015 Coal 296 B L England, New Jersey 1,191,120 25 0.021 Coal 297 Dallman, Illinois 1,796,111 25 0.014 Coal 298 Asbury, Missouri 1,213,990 25 0.021 Coal 299 Marion, Illinois 1,136,616 25 0.022 Coal 300 Prairie Creek, Iowa 878,699 24 0.028 Coal 301 Neil Simpson II, Wyoming 878,364 23 0.026 Coal 302 Southwest, Missouri 1,182,527 23 0.019 Coal 303 McIntosh, Georgia 1,162,224 22 0.019 Coal 304 F B Culley, Indiana 2,417,245 22 0.009 Coal 305 A B Brown Generating, Indiana 3,194,749 22 0.007 Coal 306 R P Smith, Maryland 503,446 22 0.043 Coal 307 Eddystone, Pennsylvania 2,750,581 21 0.008 Coal 308 Port Washington, Wisconsin 747,511 21 0.028 Coal61**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

309 Valley (WEPCO), Wisconsin 1,147,954 21 0.018 Coal 310 Mount Tom, Massachusetts 915,318 21 0.023 Coal 311 Erickson, Michigan 809,058 21 0.026 Coal 312 Quindaro, Kansas 965,065 20 0.021 Coal 313 Green River, Kentucky 719,410 20 0.028 Coal 314 W H Weatherspoon, North Carolina 794,816 20 0.025 Coal 315 Carbon, Utah 1,323,395 20 0.015 Coal 316 Rivesville, West Virginia 386,259 20 0.051 Coal 317 D B Wilson, Kentucky 2,849,550 19 0.007 Coal 318 Cane Run, Kentucky 3,068,114 19 0.006 Coal 319 William C Dale, Kentucky 1,207,356 18 0.015 Coal 320 Hutsonville, Illinois 591,199 18 0.031 Coal 321 Riverside, Iowa 707,625 18 0.025 Coal 322 Lovett, New York 1,736,083 18 0.010 Coal 323 C P Crane, Maryland 2,132,214 18 0.008 Coal 324 Duck Creek, Illinois 2,066,628 17 0.008 Coal 325 High Bridge, Minnesota 1,308,587 17 0.013 Coal 326 Twin Oaks Power, LP, Texas 2,689,521 16 0.006 Coal 327 AES Westover (Goudey), New York 863,979 16 0.018 Coal 328 Sutherland, Iowa 940,504 15 0.016 Coal 329 Vermilion, Illinois 1,102,939 15 0.014 Coal 330 Kraft, Georgia 1,221,647 15 0.012 Coal 331 C D McIntosh, Florida 2,810,883 15 0.005 Coal 332 J E Corette, Montana 1,132,762 14 0.013 Coal 333 Deerhaven, Florida 1,588,281 14 0.009 Coal 334 HMP&L Station 2, Kentucky 1,414,624 14 0.010 Coal 335 Platte, Nebraska 563,701 14 0.025 Coal 336 Urquhart, South Carolina 1,703,794 14 0.008 Coal b 337 Mitchell, Georgia 589,174 14 0.023 Coal

a To limit its length, this table presents only the US coal power plants that emitted more than 14 kilograms (30 pounds) of mercury emissions in 2002. The facilities in the table account for 99.5% of the total mercury emissions from the

electricity sector. There are 39 additional coal-fired power plants in the database that reported less than 14 kilograms (30 pounds) of mercury emissions. b This plant’s EIA 906 generation report for 2002 indicates that the largest share of its 2002 generation is from natural gas. We base the mercury estimate, however, on the amount of coal it burned as a secondary fuel.62

**PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 C.T. Carbón II, Coahuila 8,636,350 361 0.042 Coal 2 C.T. José López Portillo (Río Escondido), Coahuila 7,515,560 349 0.046 Coal

3 C.T. Plutarco Elias Calles (Petacalco), Guerrero 13,879,470 314 0.023 Coal **PLANT, PROVINCE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh MERCURY EMISSIONS, kilograms MERCURY EMISSION RATE, kg/GWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Sundance, Alberta n/a 275 0.019 a Coal 2 Nanticoke, Ontario 22,236,000 241 0.011 Coal 3 Boundary Dam, Saskatchewan 6,057,364 191 0.032 Coal 4 Wabamun, Alberta n/a 153 0.039 a Coal 5 Lambton, Ontario 10,455,000 130 0.012 Coal 6 Poplar River, Saskatchewan 4,457,200 116 0.026 Coal 7 Battle River, Alberta 4,867,000 b 108 0.022 Coal 8 Keephills, Alberta n/a 108 0.017 a Coal 9 Grand Lake, New Brunswick 449,388 c 106 0.24 Coal 10 Lingan, Nova Scotia n/a 104 0.027 a Coal 11 Genesee, Alberta n/a 83 0.005 a Coal 12 Sheerness, Alberta 5,810,000 b 77 0.013 Coal 13 Thunder Bay, Ontario 1,522,000 72 0.047 Coal 14 Shand Power, Saskatchewan 2,150,000 56 0.026 Coal 15 Lakeview, Ontario 2,455,000 46 0.019 Coal 16 Trenton, Nova Scotia n/a 43 0.025 a Coal 17 Atikokan, Ontario 823,000 38 0.046 Coal 18 Point Tupper, Nova Scotia n/a 15 0.012 a Coal 19 Belledune, New Brunswick 3,616,790 12 0.003 Coal 20 HR Milner, Alberta 790,000 b 6 0.007 Coal 21 Brandon GS, Manitoba 273,053 5 0.019 Coal 22 Point Aconi, Nova Scotia n/a 1 0.001 a Coal Table 3.10 

### CANADA MERCURY POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS

a 2002 annual generation was not available, so output emission rates are for 2001 calculated from generation data in power plant information reports available from the Canadian Electricity Association

at http://www.ceamercuryprogram.ca/index.html

. b Net generation obtained from ATCO Power report Environment, Health and Safety Review 2002.Online at http://www.atcopower.com/Environment_Health_&_Safety/Reports/environmental_reports.htm

. c Net generation estimated assuming Grand Lake was in operation 90% of the time during 2002. See the methodology discussion in the Appendix

.

Table 3.11 

### MEXICO MERCURY POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS63**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS Table 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a

**PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Bowen, Georgia 21,674,542 19,968,520 921 Coal 2 Scherer, Georgia 20,817,252 19,943,187 958 Coal 3 W A Parish, Texas 20,026,008 18,785,896 938 Coal 4 Navajo Generating Station, Arizona 17,832,139 18,559,738 1,041 Coal 5 James H Miller Jr, Alabama 18,592,131 17,798,791 957 Coal 6 Gibson, Indiana 20,522,153 17,461,300 851 Coal 7 Cumberland, Tennessee 16,384,132 17,289,553 1,055 Coal 8 Jeffrey Energy Center, Kansas 15,330,637 16,985,550 1,108 Coal 9 Sherburne County, Minnesota 15,344,648 16,529,771 1,077 Coal 10 Martin Lake, Texas 14,825,001 16,074,955 1,084 Coal 11 John E Amos, West Virginia 17,995,089 15,811,948 879 Coal 12 Rockport, Indiana 16,643,319 15,274,755 918 Coal 13 Jim Bridger, Wyoming 14,593,034 15,078,065 1,033 Coal 14 Paradise, Kentucky 14,130,150 14,832,801 1,050 Coal 15 Colstrip, Montana 13,886,845 14,753,691 1,062 Coal 16 Monroe, Michigan 16,720,823 14,737,086 881 Coal 17 W H Sammis, Ohio 15,521,117 14,383,271 927 Coal 18 Belews Creek, North Carolina 16,912,850 14,243,864 842 Coal 19 Monticello, Texas 13,127,881 14,169,801 1,079 Coal 20 J M Stuart, Ohio 15,351,286 14,130,223 920 Coal 21 Bruce Mansfield, Pennsylvania 15,974,911 13,981,403 875 Coal 22 Gen J M Gavin, Ohio 15,617,077 13,928,980 892 Coal 23 Crystal River, Florida 14,465,667 13,784,360 953 Coal 24 Intermountain, Utah 13,485,597 13,593,178 1,008 Coal 25 Roxboro, North Carolina 14,281,069 13,549,679 949 Coal 26 Four Corners, New Mexico 13,674,415 13,544,627 991 Coal 27 Barry, Alabama 16,718,579 13,336,254 798 Coal 28 Labadie, Missouri 14,406,589 13,268,814 921 Coal 29 San Juan, New Mexico 12,398,506 13,144,865 1,060 Coal 30 Laramie River, Wyoming 12,398,253 12,764,448 1,030 Coal 31 Harrison, West Virginia 12,927,422 12,698,743 982 Coal 32 Big Cajun 2, Louisiana 11,125,719 12,602,933 1,133 Coal 33 Petersburg, Indiana 11,641,137 12,233,441 1,051 Coal 34 E C Gaston, Alabama 12,639,541 12,028,111 952 Coal 35 Welsh Power Plant, Texas 11,000,083 12,016,128 1,092 Coal 36 Baldwin, Illinois 12,454,874 11,860,193 952 Coal 37 Limestone, Texas 11,385,520 11,795,683 1,036 Coal 38 Mount Storm, West Virginia 11,671,736 11,628,503 996 Coal 39 Marshall, North Carolina 14,498,223 11,614,641 801 Coal 40 Sam Seymour, Texas 11,749,703 11,318,045 963 Coal 41 Independence, Arkansas 10,510,564 11,102,254 1,056 Coal 42 Ghent, Kentucky 11,533,151 11,087,101 961 Coal 43 Wansley, Georgia 11,197,521 10,937,470 977 Coal 44 Homer City, Pennsylvania 10,938,699 10,623,100 971 CoalTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)64 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

45 Conemaugh, Pennsylvania 12,584,027 10,526,358 836 Coal 46 Keystone, Pennsylvania 11,790,991 10,452,773 887 Coal 47 Muskogee, Oklahoma 10,275,348 10,432,795 1,015 Coal 48 Gerald Gentleman, Nebraska 9,549,816 10,355,153 1,084 Coal 49 La Cygne, Kansas 9,517,909 10,293,421 1,081 Coal 50 Shawnee, Kentucky 8,826,178 9,950,274 1,127 Coal 51 Kingston, Tennessee 9,866,292 9,934,027 1,007 Coal 52 Widows Creek, Alabama 8,868,307 9,857,988 1,112 Coal 53 Craig, Colorado 9,807,407 9,675,496 987 Coal 54 Coal Creek, North Dakota 8,559,089 9,604,570 1,122 Coal 55 Centralia, Washington 9,500,972 9,511,212 1,001 Coal 56 St. Johns River, Florida 9,795,546 9,499,119 970 Coal 57 White Bluff, Arkansas 8,850,935 9,376,480 1,059 Coal 58 R M Schahfer, Indiana 8,756,429 9,331,146 1,066 Coal 59 Big Bend, Florida 8,518,176 9,279,977 1,089 Coal 60 Conesville, Ohio 10,158,928 9,265,753 912 Coal 61 J H Campbell, Michigan 9,269,258 9,230,309 996 Coal 62 Mohave, Nevada 10,170,230 9,210,898 906 Coal 63 Hunter (Emery), Utah 9,403,388 9,146,178 973 Coal 64 Seminole, Florida 9,241,176 9,127,351 988 Coal 65 Hatfield’s Ferry, Pennsylvania 9,753,564 9,111,573 934 Coal 66 Harrington Station, Texas 7,831,512 8,788,458 1,122 Coal 67 Big Brown, Texas 7,920,848 8,709,218 1,100 Coal 68 Johnsonville, Tennessee 8,275,776 8,687,167 1,050 Coal 69 Mill Creek, Kentucky 9,075,622 8,674,744 956 Coal 70 Northeastern, Oklahoma 9,623,635 8,589,075 892 Coal 71 Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 7,898,581 8,516,084 1,078 Coal 72 Joppa Steam, Illinois 8,075,552 8,353,182 1,034 Coal 73 Belle River, Michigan 7,716,451 8,288,770 1,074 Coal 74 W H Zimmer, Ohio 9,734,563 8,195,255 842 Coal 75 Harllee Branch, Georgia 9,018,458 8,155,905 904 Coal 76 Montour, Pennsylvania 9,263,444 8,123,577 877 Coal 77 Chesterfield, Virginia 9,502,996 8,032,459 845 Coal 78 Brunner Island, Pennsylvania 9,994,684 7,959,091 796 Coal 79 Winyah, South Carolina 7,720,938 7,870,322 1,019 Coal 80 Mitchell, West Virginia 9,231,567 7,839,431 849 Coal 81 Mountaineer, West Virginia 8,985,024 7,827,466 871 Coal 82 Cross, South Carolina 8,126,251 7,717,151 950 Coal 83 Tolk Station, Texas 7,662,008 7,700,236 1,005 Coal 84 Daniel, Mississippi 10,839,532 7,672,573 708 Coal 85 Cardinal, Ohio 8,555,500 7,629,316 892 Coal 86 Cholla, Arizona 6,706,864 7,575,745 1,130 Coal 87 Clay Boswell, Minnesota 7,266,941 7,532,501 1,037 Coal 88 Gorgas, Alabama 7,216,594 7,509,691 1,041 Coal65**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

89 Clifty Creek, Indiana 7,838,812 7,479,966 954 Coal 90 Martin, Florida 12,834,607 7,413,132 578 Natural gas 91 Muskingum River, Ohio 8,359,764 7,406,103 886 Coal 92 Newton, Illinois 7,241,019 7,368,510 1,018 Coal 93 New Madrid, Missouri 7,606,958 7,332,462 964 Coal 94 Powerton, Illinois 7,858,082 7,302,428 929 Coal 95 Antelope Valley, North Dakota 6,317,269 7,195,135 1,139 Coal 96 Grand River Dam Auth, Oklahoma 6,501,431 7,181,127 1,105 Coal 97 Miami Fort, Ohio 7,587,241 7,179,069 946 Coal 98 Merom, Indiana 6,643,503 7,121,785 1,072 Coal 99 Columbia, Wisconsin 6,472,154 7,074,706 1,093 Coal 100 Pleasants, West Virginia 7,629,209 6,990,738 916 Coal 101 Gallatin, Tennessee 7,271,777 6,962,202 957 Coal 102 Brandon Shores, Maryland 7,160,408 6,871,076 960 Coal 103 Fort Martin, West Virginia 7,855,193 6,850,859 872 Coal 104 St. Clair, Michigan 6,965,047 6,837,376 982 Coal 105 Thomas Hill, Missouri 6,865,414 6,780,664 988 Coal 106 Morgantown, Maryland 7,550,506 6,745,708 893 Coal 107 Brayton Point, Massachusetts 8,263,163 6,745,172 816 Coal 108 Walter C Beckjord, Ohio 6,756,632 6,730,419 996 Coal 109 Sooner, Oklahoma 6,953,110 6,700,882 964 Coal 110 Rush Island, Missouri 7,483,574 6,688,192 894 Coal 111 Colbert, Alabama 6,305,034 6,568,807 1,042 Coal 112 Dave Johnston, Wyoming 5,759,784 6,404,969 1,112 Coal 113 Clover Power Station, Virginia 6,307,712 6,148,890 975 Coal 114 Eastlake, Ohio 6,724,187 6,139,401 913 Coal 115 Kyger Creek, Ohio 6,852,119 6,010,300 877 Coal 116 Kincaid, Illinois 5,847,334 6,003,851 1,027 Coal 117 South Oak Creek, Wisconsin 5,393,774 5,977,481 1,108 Coal 118 J T Deely, Texas 5,656,468 5,965,871 1,055 Coal 119 Springerville, Arizona 5,830,542 5,852,414 1,004 Coal 120 Council Bluffs, Iowa 5,794,189 5,823,420 1,005 Coal 121 Chalk Point, Maryland 6,041,207 5,794,860 959 Coal 122 H L Spurlock, Kentucky 6,080,970 5,742,484 944 Coal 123 Sioux, Missouri 6,296,711 5,695,530 905 Coal 124 Warrick, Indiana 5,066,020 5,667,250 1,119 Coal 125 Will County, Illinois 5,419,706 5,662,452 1,045 Coal 126 Milton R Young, North Dakota 5,117,272 5,593,475 1,093 Coal 127 Joliet 29, Illinois 5,411,689 5,570,469 1,029 Coal 128 George Neal North, Iowa 5,703,855 5,560,720 975 Coal 129 Stanton Energy, Florida 6,070,495 5,532,535 911 Coal 130 Bull Run, Tennessee 6,760,080 5,455,316 807 Coal 131 F J Gannon, Florida 4,815,528 5,419,324 1,125 Coal 132 Leland Olds, North Dakota 4,576,988 5,415,336 1,183 CoalTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)66 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

133 Wabash River, Indiana 5,744,472 5,382,984 937 Coal 134 Tanner’s Creek, Indiana 5,872,947 5,382,507 916 Coal 135 Huntington, Utah 5,977,918 5,319,455 890 Coal 136 Coffeen, Illinois 5,257,211 5,223,089 994 Coal 137 Northport, New York 7,278,114 5,193,350 714 Oil 138 Cayuga, Indiana 5,930,084 5,188,419 875 Coal 139 Naughton, Wyoming 5,019,304 5,180,030 1,032 Coal 140 Coronado Generating, Arizona 5,063,164 5,175,207 1,022 Coal 141 Comanche, Colorado 4,697,167 5,165,030 1,100 Coal 142 Yates, Georgia 5,368,046 5,131,553 956 Coal 143 Louisa, Iowa 4,927,254 5,112,358 1,038 Coal 144 R S Nelson, Louisiana 5,927,840 5,098,818 860 Coal 145 Manatee, Florida 6,116,586 5,061,615 828 Oil 146 Ottumwa, Iowa 4,480,923 5,036,546 1,124 Coal 147 Crist, Florida 4,572,235 5,014,382 1,097 Coal 148 Meramec, Missouri 4,434,627 4,964,082 1,119 Coal 149 Edgewater, Wisconsin 4,786,914 4,935,895 1,031 Coal 150 Mayo, North Carolina 4,737,089 4,902,549 1,035 Coal 151 Big Sandy, Kentucky 5,752,379 4,892,865 851 Coal 152 AES Somerset (Kintigh), New York 5,453,551 4,883,919 896 Coal 153 Allen, Tennessee 4,879,343 4,868,464 998 Coal 154 Reid Gardner, Nevada 4,191,103 4,855,241 1,158 Coal 155 H W Pirkey, Texas 4,504,102 4,777,065 1,061 Coal 156 Lawrence Energy Center, Kansas 3,759,861 4,728,305 1,258 Coal 157 John Sevier, Tennessee 4,880,298 4,710,957 965 Coal 158 Dolet Hills, Louisiana 4,667,313 4,678,630 1,002 Coal 159 Phil Sporn, West Virginia 5,361,190 4,583,252 855 Coal 160 Iatan, Missouri 4,017,999 4,501,197 1,120 Coal 161 Watson, Mississippi 4,731,902 4,462,904 943 Coal 162 G G Allen, North Carolina 5,071,389 4,461,506 880 Coal 163 Hawthorn, Missouri 4,346,949 4,370,904 1,006 Coal 164 Dan E Karn, Michigan 4,474,257 4,331,724 968 Coal 165 Cherokee, Colorado 4,335,810 4,318,928 996 Coal 166 George Neal South, Iowa 4,586,420 4,298,026 937 Coal 167 Trenton Channel, Michigan 4,339,844 4,291,048 989 Coal 168 Oklaunion, Texas 4,686,707 4,274,464 912 Coal 169 Williams, South Carolina 4,428,464 4,260,157 962 Coal 170 Waukegan, Illinois 4,230,118 4,241,483 1,003 Coal 171 Avon Lake, Ohio 4,169,683 4,215,319 1,011 Coal 172 Sandow, Texas 3,943,323 4,175,622 1,059 Coal 173 Bonanza, Utah 3,923,323 4,136,897 1,054 Coal 174 Chesapeake, Virginia 4,141,111 4,117,777 994 Coal 175 North Valmy, Nevada 4,081,381 4,090,471 1,002 Coal 176 J K Spruce, Texas 4,135,806 4,028,622 974 Coal67**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

177 Hayden, Colorado 3,631,182 4,021,778 1,108 Coal 178 Sabine, Texas 7,087,729 4,011,756 566 Natural gas 179 Clinch River, Virginia 4,620,670 3,990,468 864 Coal 180 Coleto Creek, Texas 4,201,689 3,971,983 945 Coal 181 Rodemacher, Louisiana 4,279,337 3,933,827 919 Coal 182 E W Brown, Kentucky 3,992,354 3,895,614 976 Coal 183 Hammond, Georgia 3,935,825 3,875,616 985 Coal 184 Wateree, South Carolina 4,282,531 3,825,820 893 Coal 185 Nebraska City, Nebraska 4,104,546 3,807,140 928 Coal 186 Trimble County, Kentucky 3,929,027 3,765,203 958 Coal 187 Yorktown, Virginia 4,238,965 3,744,934 883 Coal 188 Boardman, Oregon 3,773,750 3,744,011 992 Coal 189 Greene County, Alabama 3,892,941 3,741,492 961 Coal 190 Charles R Lowman, Alabama 3,472,719 3,724,923 1,073 Coal 191 Ninemile Point, Louisiana 6,187,124 3,717,711 601 Natural gas 192 Bay Shore, Ohio 3,538,463 3,694,797 1,044 Coal 193 Canal Station, Massachusetts 4,602,939 3,691,411 802 Oil 194 Harding Street Stn (Elmer W Stout), Indiana 3,784,144 3,656,041 966 Coal 195 Anclote, Florida 4,133,979 3,653,588 884 Oil 196 Edwards Station, Illinois 3,536,593 3,653,185 1,033 Coal 197 Weston, Wisconsin 3,202,588 3,649,498 1,140 Coal 198 Pawnee, Colorado 3,316,714 3,600,101 1,085 Coal 199 R D Green, Kentucky 3,501,986 3,593,384 1,026 Coal 200 Coyote, North Dakota 3,060,200 3,582,290 1,171 Coal 201 North Omaha, Nebraska 3,403,969 3,542,484 1,041 Coal 202 San Miguel, Texas 2,855,097 3,530,384 1,237 Coal 203 Flint Creek, Arkansas 3,655,965 3,529,112 965 Coal 204 Port Everglades, Florida 4,497,763 3,478,447 773 Oil 205 Presque Isle, Michigan 3,140,761 3,455,928 1,100 Coal 206 D B Wilson, Kentucky 2,849,550 3,406,545 1,195 Coal 207 Killen Station, Ohio 3,612,949 3,394,184 939 Coal 208 Kammer, West Virginia 4,029,061 3,351,383 832 Coal 209 C D McIntosh, Florida 2,810,883 3,339,091 1,188 Coal 210 Dunkirk, New York 3,591,017 3,334,297 929 Coal 211 Big Stone, South Dakota 3,119,519 3,327,909 1,067 Coal 212 Wyodak, Wyoming 2,858,420 3,321,577 1,162 Coal 213 Sibley, Missouri 3,061,409 3,278,007 1,071 Coal 214 River Rouge, Michigan 3,401,765 3,252,726 956 Coal 215 Allen S King, Minnesota 3,311,959 3,247,027 980 Coal 216 East Bend, Kentucky 2,941,427 3,244,717 1,103 Coal 217 Eddystone, Pennsylvania 2,750,581 3,206,532 1,166 Coal 218 Hudson, New Jersey 3,356,373 3,204,041 955 Coal 219 Cope Station, South Carolina 3,243,770 3,189,898 983 Coal 220 A B Brown Generating, Indiana 3,194,749 3,182,697 996 CoalTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)68 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

221 Huntley Power, New York 2,923,168 3,177,790 1,087 Coal 222 Elrama, Pennsylvania 2,321,405 3,147,105 1,356 Coal 223 Montrose, Missouri 2,662,960 3,098,470 1,164 Coal 224 Cheswick, Pennsylvania 3,021,295 3,063,153 1,014 Coal 225 Bailly, Indiana 2,831,251 3,041,546 1,074 Coal 226 Northside, Florida 3,668,086 3,029,248 826 Oil 227 Moss Landing, California 6,393,111 3,023,667 473 Natural gas 228 Hugo, Oklahoma 3,030,995 3,023,642 998 Coal 229 Coleman, Kentucky 2,864,421 3,016,958 1,053 Coal 230 Ravenswood, New York 4,940,254 3,006,488 609 Natural gas 231 Jack McDonough, Georgia 3,728,220 2,998,820 804 Coal 232 State Line Generating, Indiana 2,923,229 2,968,260 1,015 Coal 233 Cane Run, Kentucky 3,068,114 2,928,547 955 Coal 234 Herbert A Wagner, Maryland 3,001,247 2,921,654 973 Coal 235 Gibbons Creek, Texas 3,230,078 2,916,781 903 Coal 236 Pulliam, Wisconsin 2,349,544 2,886,951 1,229 Coal 237 Dickerson, Maryland 3,263,673 2,886,884 885 Coal 238 Merrimack, New Hampshire 2,874,174 2,863,834 996 Coal 239 R Gallagher, Indiana 2,977,365 2,823,399 948 Coal 240 Apache Station, Arizona 2,799,861 2,784,043 994 Coal 241 Shawville, Pennsylvania 2,991,436 2,768,637 926 Coal 242 Possum Point, Virginia 3,005,462 2,741,859 912 Coal 243 Lansing Smith, Florida 4,020,641 2,726,898 678 Natural gas 244 Crawford, Illinois 2,575,482 2,696,937 1,047 Coal 245 L V Sutton, North Carolina 2,622,440 2,688,330 1,025 Coal 246 Michigan City, Indiana 2,487,472 2,686,822 1,080 Coal 247 Mercer, New Jersey 2,752,449 2,673,722 971 Coal 248 Havana, Illinois 2,499,684 2,661,842 1,065 Coal 249 Lauderdale, Florida 6,436,413 2,654,469 412 Natural gas 250 Riverside, Minnesota 2,436,997 2,652,370 1,088 Coal 251 Fort Myers, Florida 6,578,229 2,651,563 403 Natural gas 252 Potomac River, Virginia 2,331,055 2,624,785 1,126 Coal 253 Cliffside, North Carolina 2,723,353 2,578,021 947 Coal 254 Twin Oaks Power, LP, Texas 2,689,521 2,527,874 940 Coal 255 J R Whiting, Michigan 2,262,790 2,519,231 1,113 Coal 256 Elmer Smith, Kentucky 2,185,345 2,508,423 1,148 Coal 257 R D Morrow, Mississippi 2,537,751 2,505,097 987 Coal 258 Asheville, North Carolina 2,628,074 2,498,896 951 Coal 259 Red Hills Generation, Mississippi 2,450,000 2,478,806 1,012 Coal 260 Holcomb, Kansas 2,454,689 2,475,592 1,009 Coal 261 F B Culley, Indiana 2,417,245 2,452,357 1,015 Coal 262 Indian River, Delaware 2,129,702 2,446,152 1,149 Coal 263 Sanford, Florida 4,998,936 2,429,425 486 Natural gas 264 AES Cayuga (Milliken), New York 2,353,387 2,412,052 1,025 Coal69**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

265 AES Alamitos, California 4,221,013 2,385,103 565 Natural gas 266 Kanawha River, West Virginia 2,571,055 2,372,774 923 Coal 267 Salem Harbor, Massachusetts 2,496,128 2,355,753 944 Coal 268 Cape Canaveral, Florida 3,257,614 2,350,210 721 Oil 269 Astoria Generating Stn, New York 3,172,909 2,345,190 739 Natural gas 270 Dynegy Danskammer, New York 2,449,593 2,326,118 950 Coal 271 Sweeny Cogeneration, Texas 1,727,172 2,302,505 1,333 Natural gas 272 Midlothian Energy, Texas 5,966,805 2,298,884 385 Natural gas 273 Martins Creek, Pennsylvania 2,402,706 2,294,086 955 Coal 274 Rawhide, Colorado 2,078,175 2,278,587 1,096 Coal 275 Pittsburg, California 3,884,118 2,276,526 586 Natural gas 276 Sunbury, Pennsylvania 1,714,652 2,272,631 1,325 Coal 277 Lee, North Carolina 1,969,494 2,266,986 1,151 Coal 278 B C Cobb, Michigan 2,188,545 2,258,119 1,032 Coal 279 Cedar Bayou, Texas 3,584,591 2,251,010 628 Natural gas 280 HMP&L Station 2, Kentucky 2,056,044 2,250,396 1,095 Coal 281 J C Weadock, Michigan 2,205,966 2,221,071 1,007 Coal 282 C P Crane, Maryland 2,132,214 2,219,243 1,041 Coal 283 J P Madgett, Wisconsin 2,097,984 2,191,443 1,045 Coal 284 Turkey Point, Florida 3,030,547 2,180,126 719 Oil 285 Wood River, Illinois 2,205,841 2,157,739 978 Coal 286 Reliant Energy Channelview, Texas 3,385,962 2,150,973 635 Natural gas 287 Duck Creek, Illinois 2,066,628 2,106,629 1,019 Coal 288 Dallman, Illinois 1,796,111 2,102,173 1,170 Coal 289 Fort St. Vrain, Colorado 4,663,215 2,093,854 449 Natural gas 290 Hennepin, Illinois 2,045,489 2,071,923 1,013 Coal 291 Lamar Power (Paris), Texas 5,685,767 2,055,226 361 Natural gas 292 Canadys Steam, South Carolina 2,124,590 2,045,456 963 Coal 293 Eckert Station, Michigan 1,540,404 2,044,910 1,328 Coal 294 Jefferies, South Carolina 1,878,197 2,022,025 1,077 Coal 295 Edge Moor, Delaware 1,911,750 2,012,520 1,053 Coal 296 Armstrong, Pennsylvania 2,140,768 1,994,882 932 Coal 297 Martin Drake, Colorado 1,813,674 1,989,493 1,097 Coal 298 Arapahoe, Colorado 1,412,418 1,983,670 1,404 Coal 299 R E Burger, Ohio 2,000,668 1,974,057 987 Coal 300 John S Cooper, Kentucky 2,100,208 1,972,202 939 Coal 301 Sikeston, Missouri 1,693,365 1,969,522 1,163 Coal 302 Willow Glen, Louisiana 3,054,850 1,954,483 640 Natural gas 303 Seminole, Oklahoma 3,398,357 1,947,062 573 Natural gas 304 Pasadena Power Plant, Texas 4,555,258 1,903,434 418 Natural gas 305 P L Bartow, Florida 2,193,974 1,875,026 855 Oil 306 Tecumseh Energy Center, Kansas 1,510,699 1,856,083 1,229 Coal 307 Riviera, Florida 2,450,156 1,833,844 748 Oil 308 Portland, Pennsylvania 1,915,994 1,824,895 952 CoalTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)70 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

309 Genoa, Wisconsin 2,203,168 1,819,196 826 Coal 310 High Bridge, Minnesota 1,308,587 1,817,385 1,389 Coal 311 Odessa-Ector, Texas 4,381,108 1,789,186 408 Natural gas 312 Louisiana 1, Louisiana 2,857,455 1,779,180 623 Natural gas 313 Polk, Florida 1,955,959 1,774,571 907 Coal 314 New Castle, Pennsylvania 1,577,573 1,768,160 1,121 Coal 315 Tiger Bay, Florida 1,412,706 1,754,136 1,242 Natural gas 316 Sheldon, Nebraska 1,442,114 1,745,910 1,211 Coal 317 Nearman Creek, Kansas 1,452,206 1,744,606 1,201 Coal 318 Tenaska Frontier, Texas 4,139,042 1,719,276 415 Natural gas 319 Ray D Nixon, Colorado 1,680,513 1,715,965 1,021 Coal 320 Riverbend, North Carolina 1,660,438 1,712,453 1,031 Coal 321 Black Dog, Minnesota 1,662,585 1,710,076 1,029 Coal 322 Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut 1,739,266 1,709,437 983 Coal 323 Gregory Power Facility, Texas 2,965,571 1,702,067 574 Natural gas 324 Lovett, New York 1,736,083 1,695,437 977 Coal 325 P H Robinson, Texas 2,917,855 1,693,676 580 Natural gas 326 Tradinghouse, Texas 3,007,375 1,668,751 555 Natural gas 327 Muscatine, Iowa 1,259,121 1,645,353 1,307 Coal 328 Glen Lyn, Virginia 1,718,635 1,622,462 944 Coal 329 Decordova, Texas 3,042,636 1,622,328 533 Natural gas 330 Bremo, Virginia 1,609,047 1,613,017 1,002 Coal 331 Valley (WEPCO), Wisconsin 1,147,954 1,612,962 1,405 Coal 332 Prewitt Escalante, New Mexico 1,653,093 1,596,485 966 Coal 333 Richard Gorsuch, Ohio 1,297,873 1,570,381 1,210 Coal 334 Michoud, Louisiana 2,416,824 1,557,369 644 Natural gas 335 Cape Fear, North Carolina 1,857,910 1,556,156 838 Coal 336 Southwest, Missouri 1,182,527 1,553,831 1,314 Coal 337 Albright, West Virginia 1,374,335 1,544,218 1,124 Coal 338 Gerald Andrus, Mississippi 2,319,949 1,542,011 665 Natural gas 339 SRW Cogen Facility, Texas 2,912,891 1,540,373 529 Natural gas 340 James River, Missouri 1,587,089 1,537,323 969 Coal 341 Collins Station, Illinois 2,070,864 1,532,642 740 Natural gas 342 Frank E Ratts, Indiana 1,517,924 1,532,568 1,010 Coal 343 Rochester 7, New York 1,506,960 1,532,474 1,017 Coal 344 Deerhaven, Florida 1,588,281 1,528,019 962 Coal 345 Stanton, North Dakota 1,399,737 1,522,602 1,088 Coal 346 Eagle Valley (H T Pritchard), Indiana 1,332,751 1,516,994 1,138 Coal 347 Little Gypsy, Louisiana 2,358,145 1,516,565 643 Natural gas 348 Baxter Wilson, Mississippi 2,551,638 1,512,936 593 Natural gas 349 Guadalupe Generating, Texas 3,804,525 1,502,773 395 Natural gas 350 Meredosia, Illinois 1,326,609 1,498,211 1,129 Coal 351 Ashtabula, Ohio 1,236,725 1,490,932 1,206 Coal 352 Marion, Illinois 1,136,616 1,477,913 1,300 Coal71**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

353 Charles Poletti, New York 2,282,203 1,470,397 644 Natural gas 354 Handley Steam, Texas 2,232,746 1,468,624 658 Natural gas 355 Cabrillo Power I (Encina), California 2,355,455 1,451,293 616 Natural gas 356 Maine Independence, Maine 3,766,773 1,435,201 381 Natural gas 357 Westbrook Energy Center, Maine 3,932,713 1,434,233 365 Natural gas 358 Tenaska Gateway, Texas 4,426,124 1,432,345 324 Natural gas 359 B L England, New Jersey 1,191,120 1,431,247 1,202 Coal 360 Lansing, Iowa 1,257,821 1,419,844 1,129 Coal 361 Reliant Energy Desert Basin, Arizona 3,543,743 1,419,664 401 Natural gas 362 Eastex Cogeneration, Texas 2,565,604 1,416,896 552 Natural gas 363 Carbon, Utah 1,323,395 1,390,417 1,051 Coal 364 Asbury, Missouri 1,213,990 1,380,109 1,137 Coal 365 Lake Road Generating, Connecticut 3,831,019 1,375,055 359 Natural gas 366 Los Medanos, California 3,712,422 1,374,527 370 Natural gas 367 Calpine Sutter Energy, California 2,018,272 1,371,121 679 Natural gas 368 Fisk, Illinois 1,299,559 1,363,563 1,049 Coal 369 Riverside, Oklahoma 2,342,296 1,359,949 581 Natural gas 370 Burlington, Iowa 1,225,990 1,341,888 1,095 Coal 371 Joliet 9, Illinois 1,292,531 1,337,441 1,035 Coal 372 Haynes Gen Station, California 2,328,262 1,330,943 572 Natural gas 373 El Segundo, California 2,447,368 1,329,297 543 Natural gas 374 Freestone Power, Texas 3,363,526 1,324,386 394 Natural gas 375 Lewis Creek, Texas 2,276,678 1,320,736 580 Natural gas 376 Bowline Generating, New York 1,706,219 1,318,663 773 Natural gas 377 El Dorado Energy, Nevada 3,326,924 1,307,405 393 Natural gas 378 Mystic, Massachusetts 1,584,556 1,302,277 822 Oil 379 Ormond Beach, California 2,330,737 1,298,675 557 Natural gas 380 Nelson Dewey, Wisconsin 1,172,335 1,284,668 1,096 Coal 381 Buck, North Carolina 1,249,807 1,260,600 1,009 Coal 382 Lost Pines 1, Texas 3,406,262 1,258,344 369 Natural gas 383 Bridgeport Energy, Connecticut 3,335,252 1,254,956 376 Natural gas 384 Permian Basin, Texas 2,263,521 1,245,551 550 Natural gas 385 New Haven Harbor, Connecticut 1,435,307 1,245,151 868 Oil 386 Willow Island, West Virginia 1,151,588 1,241,972 1,078 Coal 387 Kraft, Georgia 1,221,647 1,240,727 1,016 Coal 388 Valmont, Colorado 1,281,144 1,235,891 965 Coal 389 Port Jefferson Energy, New York 1,646,561 1,235,782 751 Oil 390 Prairie Creek, Iowa 878,699 1,231,830 1,402 Coal 391 Milton L Kapp, Iowa 1,146,286 1,222,384 1,066 Coal 392 Blackhawk Station, Texas 1,629,786 1,208,356 741 Natural gas 393 J E Corette, Montana 1,132,762 1,208,113 1,067 Coal 394 McMeekin, South Carolina 1,265,428 1,194,327 944 Coal 395 Waterford 1 & 2, Louisiana 1,473,543 1,187,035 806 Natural gas 396 Hines Energy Complex, Florida 3,034,621 1,181,285 389 Natural gasTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)72 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

397 Sutherland, Iowa 940,504 1,177,553 1,252 Coal 398 Dynegy Roseton, New York 1,211,549 1,176,941 971 Oil 399 Bergen, New Jersey 3,370,171 1,176,429 349 Natural gas 400 Jones Station, Texas 2,066,025 1,175,124 569 Natural gas 401 Niles, Ohio 1,126,711 1,173,719 1,042 Coal 402 Channel Energy Center, Texas 1,484,762 1,171,517 789 Natural gas 403 Mitchell, Pennsylvania 1,256,106 1,168,715 930 Coal 404 AES Greenidge, New York 1,031,345 1,166,483 1,131 Coal 405 Mustang Station, Texas 2,902,235 1,157,452 399 Natural gas 406 AES Redondo Beach, California 2,075,007 1,152,358 555 Natural gas 407 Hermiston, Oregon 3,294,305 1,143,109 347 Natural gas 408 Putnam, Florida 2,220,194 1,134,201 511 Natural gas 409 Titus, Pennsylvania 1,105,401 1,124,450 1,017 Coal 410 Vermilion, Illinois 1,102,939 1,120,446 1,016 Coal 411 South Point Energy, Arizona 3,331,352 1,117,670 336 Natural gas 412 Irvington Generating, Arizona 1,403,955 1,113,205 793 Coal 413 McIntosh, Georgia 1,162,224 1,090,709 938 Coal 414 Contra Costa, California 1,951,799 1,071,072 549 Natural gas 415 Quindaro, Kansas 965,065 1,070,349 1,109 Coal 416 Lake Hubbard, Texas 1,684,853 1,062,207 630 Natural gas 417 Schiller, New Hampshire 873,475 1,052,331 1,205 Coal 418 Urquhart, South Carolina 1,703,794 1,024,863 602 Natural gas 419 Lake Shore, Ohio 860,853 1,015,998 1,180 Coal 420 Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York 1,865,308 1,010,082 542 Natural gas 421 V H Braunig, Texas 738,602 1,005,803 1,362 Natural gas 422 William C Dale, Kentucky 918,000 1,001,166 1,091 Coal 423 Manchester Street, Rhode Island 2,124,155 997,723 470 Natural gas 424 Payne Creek, Florida 2,424,966 991,090 409 Natural gas 425 E F Barrett, New York 1,789,225 988,118 552 Natural gas 426 Newman, Texas 1,574,783 966,184 614 Natural gas 427 Mount Tom, Massachusetts 915,318 961,342 1,050 Coal 428 AES Westover (Goudey), New York 863,979 960,969 1,112 Coal 429 Port Washington, Wisconsin 747,511 958,912 1,283 Coal 430 Neil Simpson II, Wyoming 878,364 956,270 1,089 Coal 431 Dolphus M Grainger, South Carolina 931,468 954,920 1,025 Coal 432 W S Lee, South Carolina 925,685 953,638 1,030 Coal 433 Hoot Lake, Minnesota 830,157 947,160 1,141 Coal 434 Valley, Texas 1,628,130 944,398 580 Natural gas 435 Wilkes Power Plant, Texas 1,393,954 943,834 677 Natural gas 436 Barney M Davis, Texas 1,563,689 943,333 603 Natural gas 437 CoGen Lyondell, Inc., Texas 3,423,308 935,591 273 Natural gas 438 H B Robinson, South Carolina 1,021,242 935,513 916 Coal 439 Coolwater Generating, California 1,547,033 924,961 598 Natural gas 440 Hay Road, Delaware 1,219,432 920,628 755 Natural gas73**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

441 Millennium Power, Massachusetts 2,471,188 912,822 369 Natural gas 442 Klamath Cogeneration, Oregon 2,346,920 906,433 386 Natural gas 443 Magic Valley, Texas 2,476,733 903,868 365 Natural gas 444 John S Rainey, South Carolina 2,211,598 896,815 406 Natural gas 445 Decker Creek, Texas 1,719,800 894,568 520 Natural gas 446 San Jacinto Steam, Texas 1,326,910 889,741 671 Natural gas 447 W H Weatherspoon, North Carolina 794,816 869,444 1,094 Coal 448 O H Hutchings, Ohio 772,666 861,570 1,115 Coal 449 Indian River (55318), Florida 1,152,524 859,414 746 Oil 450 Syl Laskin, Minnesota 622,586 849,880 1,365 Coal 451 Green River, Kentucky 719,410 846,889 1,177 Coal 452 AES Huntington Beach, California 1,397,072 842,745 603 Natural gas 453 East River, New York 737,620 842,423 1,142 Natural gas 454 Cane Island, Florida 2,101,547 840,304 400 Natural gas 455 Nucla, Colorado 707,378 837,343 1,184 Coal 456 Morro Bay, California 1,528,517 836,625 547 Natural gas 457 Somerset, Massachusetts 800,515 824,592 1,030 Coal 458 Seward, Pennsylvania 864,338 819,916 949 Coal 459 AES Deepwater, Inc., Texas 1,287,524 815,711 634 Pet. Coke 460 Erickson, Michigan 809,058 812,236 1,004 Coal 461 Cromby, Pennsylvania 629,734 805,900 1,280 Coal 462 Horseshoe Lake, Oklahoma 1,188,522 805,177 677 Natural gas 463 Greenwood, Michigan 1,138,043 801,738 704 Natural gas 464 North Lake, Texas 1,271,870 794,926 625 Natural gas 465 Tracy, Nevada 1,308,301 784,233 599 Natural gas 466 Hidalgo Energy Center, Texas 1,926,715 784,020 407 Natural gas 467 McWilliams, Alabama 1,855,549 778,423 420 Natural gas 468 ANP Blackstone Energy, Massachusetts 1,967,066 763,739 388 Natural gas 469 Taconite Harbor, Minnesota 865,126 754,661 872 Coal 470 Bucksport Clean Energy, Maine 1,480,991 752,513 508 Natural gas 471 Hays Energy Project, Texas 2,047,817 745,271 364 Natural gas 472 Sim Gideon, Texas 1,309,562 742,958 567 Natural gas 473 Alma, Wisconsin 690,029 740,346 1,073 Coal 474 Green Country Energy, Oklahoma 2,149,918 733,602 341 Natural gas 475 Lake Catherine, Arkansas 1,182,799 730,814 618 Natural gas 476 Arthur Kill, New York 1,204,507 725,555 602 Natural gas 477 Duke Energy South Bay, California 1,101,837 724,126 657 Natural gas 478 Pine Bluff Energy Center, Arkansas 1,260,496 721,436 572 Natural gas 479 Rumford Power, Maine 1,832,383 710,247 388 Natural gas 480 Scattergood, California 1,284,789 705,800 549 Natural gas 481 Cunningham, New Mexico 1,215,956 705,336 580 Natural gas 482 Lake Road, Missouri 668,090 704,855 1,055 Coal 483 Riverside, Iowa 707,625 703,594 994 Coal 484 Bosque County Power, Texas 1,675,865 697,372 416 Natural gasTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)74 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

485 Graham, Texas 1,216,627 693,351 570 Natural gas 486 Newington, New Hampshire 660,451 686,258 1,039 Oil 487 S O Purdom, Florida 1,623,738 681,501 420 Natural gas 488 Platte, Nebraska 563,701 675,295 1,198 Coal 489 Gadsden, Alabama 484,718 674,033 1,391 Coal 490 Comanche, Oklahoma 1,338,064 671,661 502 Natural gas 491 Tiverton Power Assoc, Rhode Island 1,723,622 659,351 383 Natural gas 492 Griffith Energy LLC, Arizona 1,643,659 631,151 384 Natural gas 493 Cleburne Cogeneration, Texas 1,429,066 622,068 435 Natural gas 494 Theodore Cogeneration, Alabama 1,258,507 614,873 489 Natural gas 495 Hutsonville, Illinois 591,199 614,667 1,040 Coal 496 Mountain Creek Steam, Texas 971,731 612,623 630 Natural gas 497 Riverton, Kansas 475,354 611,958 1,287 Coal 498 Morgan Creek, Texas 1,121,868 611,218 545 Natural gas 499 Stryker Creek, Texas 1,115,276 602,097 540 Natural gas 500 Bastrop Clean Energy, Texas 1,697,296 601,402 354 Natural gas 501 Fort Churchill, Nevada 1,052,429 599,655 570 Natural gas 502 R M Heskett, North Dakota 523,027 596,291 1,140 Coal 503 Hermiston, Oregon 1,616,638 594,949 368 Natural gas 504 Intercession City, Florida 811,379 594,693 733 Natural gas 505 Eagle Mountain, Texas 821,805 593,615 722 Natural gas 506 Sterlington, Louisiana 1,070,959 591,174 552 Natural gas 507 Mustang, Oklahoma 1,010,802 590,375 584 Natural gas 508 Rio Nogales, Texas 1,258,785 581,170 462 Natural gas 509 Dan River, North Carolina 516,712 576,042 1,115 Coal 510 Mitchell, Georgia 589,174 573,469 973 Coal 511 Blount Street, Wisconsin 438,398 572,229 1,305 Coal 512 Attala Generating Plant, Mississippi 1,396,170 566,747 406 Natural gas 513 Etiwanda Generating, California 902,769 564,942 626 Natural gas 514 River Road, Washington 1,531,925 563,773 368 Natural gas 515 R P Smith, Maryland 503,446 561,062 1,114 Coal 516 Nueces Bay, Texas 1,046,627 557,816 533 Natural gas 517 Tenaska Lindsay Hill, Alabama 1,325,113 557,719 421 Natural gas 518 Southwestern, Oklahoma 783,636 554,480 708 Natural gas 519 Androscoggin Cogen, Maine 692,184 552,449 798 Natural gas 520 Frontera Power Facility, Texas 1,345,813 551,097 409 Natural gas 521 O W Sommers, Texas 814,900 551,062 676 Natural gas 522 State Line, Missouri 1,359,024 545,779 402 Natural gas 523 Ray Olinger, Texas 794,042 544,211 685 Natural gas 524 Edwardsport, Indiana 344,544 536,539 1,557 Coal 525 Sacramento Power Auth, California 1,208,871 534,141 442 Natural gas 526 Berkshire Power, Massachusetts 1,379,085 533,692 387 Natural gas 527 Richard M Flynn (Holtsville), New York 1,249,774 531,375 425 Natural gas 528 Mandalay Generating, California 986,069 531,314 539 Natural gas75**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

529 Richmond County Plant, North Carolina 1,479,857 530,470 358 Natural gas 530 Grays Ferry Cogen, Pennsylvania 860,624 528,781 614 Natural gas 531 McClain Energy Facility, Oklahoma 1,459,050 521,232 357 Natural gas 532 Michigan Power, Michigan 1,095,496 518,328 473 Natural gas 533 Rivesville, West Virginia 386,259 517,603 1,340 Coal 534 Brandy Branch, Florida 631,959 515,508 816 Natural gas 535 Plant X, Texas 835,626 514,910 616 Natural gas 536 Batesville Generation, Mississippi 1,176,849 511,923 435 Natural gas 537 Coyote Springs, Oregon 1,255,078 509,956 406 Natural gas 538 Fort Phantom, Texas 870,584 509,369 585 Natural gas 539 Linden Cogeneration, New Jersey 4,339,848 504,718 116 Natural gas 540 Glenwood, New York 838,938 498,821 595 Natural gas 541 Sam Bertron, Texas 775,429 498,529 643 Natural gas 542 Washington County, Alabama 852,951 494,267 579 Natural gas 543 Duke Energy Hinds, Mississippi 1,369,581 487,981 356 Natural gas 544 Grand Tower, Illinois 1,136,680 484,810 427 Natural gas 545 Deepwater, New Jersey 423,355 481,611 1,138 Coal 546 Manchief Electric, Colorado 794,580 478,489 602 Natural gas 547 Nichols Station, Texas 805,424 477,697 593 Natural gas 548 Liberty Electric Power, Pennsylvania 1,292,916 473,313 366 Natural gas 549 Sabine Cogeneration, Texas 679,830 472,260 695 Natural gas 550 Robert Reid, Kentucky 369,652 471,328 1,275 Coal 551 Indeck Corinth Energy, New York 1,075,913 464,037 431 Natural gas 552 Teche, Louisiana 797,974 463,127 580 Natural gas 553 Picway, Ohio 380,217 459,099 1,207 Coal 554 Suwannee River, Florida 625,659 459,060 734 Oil 555 Clark, Nevada 761,622 457,736 601 Natural gas 556 Arvah B Hopkins, Florida 740,853 457,132 617 Natural gas 557 Rio Grande, New Mexico 720,534 455,232 632 Natural gas 558 AES Ironwood, Pennsylvania 1,452,370 453,401 312 Natural gas 559 New Boston, Massachusetts 767,936 442,982 577 Natural gas 560 Chouteau Power Plant, Oklahoma 862,622 440,386 511 Natural gas 561 Newington Power Facility, New Hampshire 1,171,300 438,880 375 Natural gas 562 R W Miller, Texas 717,635 436,160 608 Natural gas 563 Kendall County, Illinois 1,136,067 426,493 375 Natural gas 564 Middletown, Connecticut 564,810 425,881 754 Oil 565 Chevron Cogenerating, Mississippi 1,136,535 424,105 373 Natural gas 566 Rathdrum Power, LLC, Idaho 999,500 419,096 419 Natural gas 567 Knox Lee Power Plant, Texas 618,463 417,955 676 Natural gas 568 Rex Brown, Mississippi 424,614 414,969 977 Natural gas 569 Lon D Wright, Nebraska 337,950 413,779 1,224 Coal 570 Auburndale Cogen, Florida 1,070,513 412,973 386 Natural gas 571 Gordon Evans Energy, Kansas 875,810 412,415 471 Natural gas 572 SCA Cogen II, California 846,492 403,709 477 Natural gasTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)76 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

573 Oswego Harbor Power, New York 415,194 398,807 961 Oil 574 MEP Pleasant Hill-Aries, Missouri 996,916 396,371 398 Natural gas 575 Shady Hills, Florida 608,977 392,118 644 Natural gas 576 T C Ferguson, Texas 701,794 385,180 549 Natural gas 577 Ennis-Tractebel Power, Texas 1,029,797 384,160 373 Natural gas 578 Agua Fria Generating, Arizona 625,908 383,559 613 Natural gas 579 Orlando Cogen, Florida 860,496 383,317 445 Natural gas 580 Broad River, South Carolina 570,850 376,688 660 Natural gas 581 Harbor Generating Stn, California 624,712 376,084 602 Natural gas 582 Duke Energy Hot Springs, Arkansas 1,174,335 363,114 309 Natural gas 583 Gadsby, Utah 655,259 362,248 553 Natural gas 584 William F Wyman, Maine 407,834 360,214 883 Oil 585 Debary, Florida 514,580 358,675 697 Natural gas 586 Devon, Connecticut 458,926 356,878 778 Oil 587 Cordova Energy Center, Illinois 869,964 344,261 396 Natural gas 588 Duke Energy Murray, Georgia 189,729 339,803 1,791 Natural gas 589 Tyrone, Kentucky 253,778 338,475 1,334 Coal 590 San Angelo Power Station, Texas 597,742 336,847 564 Natural gas 591 Linden, New Jersey 435,762 335,680 770 Natural gas 592 Mistersky, Michigan 244,285 322,642 1,321 Natural gas 593 Potrero, California 572,925 319,562 558 Natural gas 594 Whitewater Cogen, Wisconsin 731,388 317,460 434 Natural gas 595 Kyrene Generating Stn, Arizona 829,674 317,414 383 Natural gas 596 Moselle, Mississippi 474,705 317,044 668 Natural gas 597 Decatur Energy Center, Alabama 783,755 316,504 404 Natural gas 598 Laredo, Texas 475,725 314,731 662 Natural gas 599 Perryville Power Station, Louisiana 930,971 309,818 333 Natural gas 600 Elwood Energy Facility, Illinois 524,560 309,772 591 Natural gas 601 Montville, Connecticut 298,902 306,997 1,027 Oil 602 S A Carlson, New York 242,156 304,734 1,258 Coal 603 Kendall Square, Massachusetts 349,753 301,520 862 Natural gas 604 Delaware City Refinery, Delaware 356,319 297,303 834 Natural gas 605 Sweetwater, Texas 573,906 292,380 509 Natural gas 606 Hunters Point, California 413,104 286,836 694 Natural gas 607 Ouachita Power, LLC, Louisiana 556,983 285,108 512 Natural gas 608 Hamilton, Ohio 289,025 283,404 981 Coal 609 Duke Energy Arlington Valley Energy, Arizona 266,188 276,391 1,038 Natural gas

610 Reliant Energy Osceola, Florida 453,288 271,763 600 Natural gas 611 Bellemeade, Virginia 523,006 267,405 511 Natural gas 612 Rockingham Power, North Carolina 416,994 266,906 640 Natural gas 613 Humboldt Bay, California 376,679 265,569 705 Natural gas 614 West Georgia Generating, Georgia 449,915 265,331 590 Natural gas 615 La Palma, Texas 574,479 262,879 458 Natural gas77**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

616 Holly Street, Texas 443,027 260,610 588 Natural gas 617 Sewaren, New Jersey 343,799 259,963 756 Natural gas 618 Doc Bonin, Louisiana 428,186 259,803 607 Natural gas 619 El Centro, California 421,736 255,306 605 Natural gas 620 Harbor Beach, Michigan 240,305 254,759 1,060 Coal 621 Benning, District of Columbia 218,124 253,502 1,162 Oil 622 Maddox, New Mexico 441,736 252,950 573 Natural gas 623 Eagle Point Cogen, New Jersey 959,951 250,911 261 Natural gas 624 Dighton, Massachusetts 580,585 250,814 432 Natural gas 625 Corpus Christi Energy, Texas 330,321 250,150 757 Natural gas 626 Oleander Power Project, Florida 524,561 248,330 473 Natural gas 627 Norwalk Harbor Station, Connecticut 268,015 248,108 926 Oil 628 Fountain Valley, Colorado 435,954 248,094 569 Natural gas 629 Carson Cogeneration, California 416,857 239,473 574 Natural gas 630 Lagoon Creek, Tennessee 378,882 232,560 614 Natural gas 631 Noblesville, Indiana 196,577 224,646 1,143 Coal 632 West Valley Generation, Utah 363,703 223,080 613 Natural gas 633 St. Francis, Missouri 246,140 222,832 905 Natural gas 634 J K Smith Generating, Kentucky 255,803 217,396 850 Natural gas 635 Heard County Power, Georgia 370,812 216,527 584 Natural gas 636 Cottage Grove Cogen, Minnesota 476,120 216,481 455 Natural gas 637 Acadia Power Station, Louisiana 234,737 216,281 921 Natural gas 638 Hog Bayou Energy Center, Alabama 387,479 215,822 557 Natural gas 639 J L Bates, Texas 328,219 213,038 649 Natural gas 640 Cutler, Florida 306,195 212,418 694 Natural gas 641 Lake Creek, Texas 311,442 206,210 662 Natural gas 642 West Phoenix Power CC4, Arizona 415,475 205,544 495 Natural gas 643 Far Rockaway, New York 403,232 204,213 506 Natural gas 644 Parkdale, Texas 286,669 197,731 690 Natural gas 645 West Lorain, Ohio 286,970 196,572 685 Natural gas 646 Judson Large, Kansas 276,019 196,186 711 Natural gas 647 Gould Street, Maryland 192,843 189,780 984 Oil 648 Mirant Zeeland, Michigan 603,514 189,147 313 Natural gas 649 Sunrise, Nevada 357,148 187,487 525 Natural gas 650 Hartwell Energy Facility, Georgia 283,463 187,157 660 Natural gas 651 Larsen Memorial, Florida 343,806 186,677 543 Natural gas 652 Sunrise Power Company, California 327,030 186,342 570 Natural gas 653 Neenah Power Plant, Wisconsin 332,319 185,855 559 Natural gas 654 Yucca, Arizona 400,642 185,564 463 Natural gas 655 Dahlberg (Jackson Co), Georgia 291,870 184,935 634 Natural gas 656 Orange Cogeneration, Florida 482,757 184,436 382 Natural gas 657 Cherokee County Cogen, South Carolina 415,688 184,058 443 Natural gas 658 Taft Cogeneration, Louisiana 340,596 177,536 521 Natural gas 659 Mulberry Cogeneration, Florida 405,358 176,792 436 Natural gasTable 3.12 

### UNITED STATES CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a 

### (continued)78 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

660 Greens Bayou, Texas 277,313 175,996 635 Natural gas 661 Jackson, Michigan 433,146 175,134 404 Natural gas 662 Mid-Georgia Cogen, Georgia 388,372 174,455 449 Natural gas 663 La Paloma Generating, California 467,321 171,979 368 Natural gas 664 Ocotillo, Arizona 295,374 170,699 578 Natural gas 665 Kearny, New Jersey 251,488 167,175 665 Natural gas 666 Rock River, Wisconsin 279,656 167,059 597 Natural gas 667 Duke Energy Washington Energy Facility, Ohio 434,468 164,317 378 Natural gas

668 Dansby, Texas 268,603 163,291 608 Natural gas 669 Gilbert, New Jersey 260,724 161,662 620 Natural gas 670 Rhode Island State, Rhode Island 559,920 161,363 288 Natural gas 671 Robert E Ritchie, Arkansas 224,982 159,613 709 Natural gas 672 Riverside Generating, Kentucky 157,548 157,510 1,000 Natural gas 673 AES Red Oak, New Jersey 217,822 156,554 719 Natural gas 674 Vienna, Maryland 151,030 154,047 1,020 Oil 675 ANP Bellingham Energy, Massachusetts 417,731 153,737 368 Natural gas 676 Burlington, New Jersey 341,560 151,132 442 Natural gas 677 Doyle Generating Facility, Georgia 245,211 150,401 613 Natural gas 678 Oneta Energy Center, Oklahoma 330,842 148,358 448 Natural gas 679 J R Kelly, Florida 243,107 145,877 600 Natural gas 680 Wrightsville Power, Arkansas 233,653 143,942 616 Natural gas 681 Delaware, Pennsylvania 115,348 142,457 1,235 Oil 682 Grayson, California 176,451 141,775 803 Natural gas

a To limit its length, this table presents only the US power plants that emitted more than 141,030 tonnes (155,457 tons) of CO 2emissions in 2002. The facilities in the table account for 99.5% of the total CO 2emissions.

There are 211 fossil-fired power plants in the database that reported fewer than 141,030 tonnes of CO 2emissions.79**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS Table 3.13 

### CANADA CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS a

**PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 Nanticoke, Ontario 22,236,000 21,370,000 961 Coal 2 Lambton, Ontario 10,455,000 8,990,000 860 Coal 3 Sheerness, Alberta 5,810,000 6,346,000 1092 Coal 4 Battle River, Alberta 4,867,000 5,331,000 1095 Coal 5 Lakeview, Ontario 2,455,000 2,340,000 953 Coal 6 Thunder Bay, Ontario 1,522,000 1,663,000 1093 Coal 7 Lennox, Ontario 2,762,000 1,460,000 529 Oil 8 H.R. Milner, Alberta 790,000 984,000 1246 Coal 9 Atikokan, Ontario 823,000 889,000 1080 Coal 10 Rainbow Lake (Units 4-5), Alberta 627,000 328,000 523 Natural gas 11 Poplar Hill, Alberta 138,000 76,000 551 Natural gas 12 Rainbow Lake (Units 1-3), Alberta 33,000 31,000 939 Natural gas 13 Valleyview, Alberta 55,000 31,000 564 Natural gas

a CO 2emissions data are incomplete in Canada for 2002. Only ATCO Power in Alberta and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in Ontario publicly published individual power plant annual CO2 emissions for 2002. ATCO Power provides

2002 CO 2emissions and net generation in the report Environment, Health and Safety Review 2002. Online athttp://www.atcopower.com/Environment_Health_&_Safety/Reports/environmental_reports.htm . Ontario power plant data are from OPG’s report Towards Sustainable Development: 2002 Progress Report . Online at http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_annual_report.asp

.80 **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

1 C.T. PDTE. A. López Mateos (Tuxpan), Veracruz 15,030,690 10,603,037 705 Oil 2 C.T. Plutarco Elias Calles (Petacalco), Guerrero 13,879,470 8,247,112 594 Coal 3 C.T. Francisco Pérez Ríos (Tula), Hidalgo 9,734,170 7,270,331 747 Oil 4 C.T. Carbón II, Coahuila 8,636,350 6,465,622 749 Coal 5 C.T. José López Portillo (Río Escondido), Coahuila 7,515,560 6,277,829 835 Coal

6 C.T. Gral. Manuel Alvarez (Manzanillo I), Colima 6,449,140 4,802,602 745 Oil 7 C.T. Salamanca, Guanajuato 4,841,380 3,762,227 777 Oil 8 C.T. Altamira, Tamaulipas 4,655,850 3,710,679 797 Oil 9 C.T. Manzanillo II, Colima 5,034,400 3,582,059 712 Oil 10 C.T. Puerto Libertad, Sonora 3,349,740 2,604,163 777 Oil 11 C.T. José Acevez Pozos (Mazatlan II), Sinaloa 3,284,120 2,601,296 792 Oil 12 C.T. Valle de México, México 3,894,120 2,182,656 561 Natural gas 13 C.T. Villa De Reyes (San Luis Potosí), San Luis Potosí 2,925,990 2,175,635 744 Oil

14 C.T. Monterrey, Nuevo León 2,538,090 2,046,405 806 Oil 15 C.T. Carlos Rodriguez Rivero (Guaymas II), Sonora 2,259,290 1,784,843 790 Oil

16 C.T. Guadalupe Victoria (Lerdo), Durango 1,980,460 1,498,768 757 Oil 17 C.T. Juan De Díos Batis P. (Topolobampo), Sinaloa 1,996,550 1,496,539 750 Oil

18 C.T. Francisco Villa (Delicias), Chihuahua 1,919,730 1,484,702 773 Oil 19 C.C.C. Benito Juárez (Samalayuca II), Chihuahua 3,901,950 1,467,057 376 Natural gas

20 C.C.C. FCO. Pérez Ríos (Tula), Hidalgo 3,260,940 1,449,006 444 Natural gas 21 C.C.C. Dos Bocas, Veracruz 2,428,890 1,315,693 542 Natural gas 22 C.T. Emilio Portes Gil (Río Bravo), Tamaulipas 1,745,990 1,262,872 723 Oil 23 C.TG. Portes Gil (Río Bravo), Tamaulipas 1,031,400 1,216,356 1,179 Natural gas 24 C.T. Presidente Juárez (Tijuana), Baja California 1,488,840 1,161,186 780 Oil 25 C.C.C. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 2,949,700 1,155,436 392 Natural gas 26 C.C.C. Huinala, Nuevo León 2,331,460 1,066,807 458 Natural gas 27 C.T. Benito Juárez (Samalayuca I), Chihuahua 1,232,800 972,697 789 Oil 28 C.T. Mérida II, Yucatán 1,099,710 897,935 817 Oil 29 C.T. Campeche II (Lerma), Campeche 812,720 796,032 979 Oil 30 C.C.C. Presidente Juárez (Rosarito), Baja California 2,077,250 794,694 383 Natural gas

31 C.TG. El Sauz, Querétaro 1,495,570 787,424 527 Natural gas 32 C.C.C. Felipe Carrilo P. (Valladolid), Yucatán 1,517,600 685,122 451 Natural gas 33 C.C.C. El Sauz, Querétaro 1,370,540 645,602 471 Natural gas 34 C.T. Poza Rica, Veracruz 654,040 606,247 927 Oil 35 C.C.C. Gómez Palacio, Durango 1,045,260 591,390 566 Natural gas 36 C.T. Punta Prieta II, Baja California Sur 621,830 570,497 917 Oil 37 C.C.C. Huinala II, Nuevo León 1,333,060 502,788 377 Natural gas 38 C.TG. Presidente Juárez (Tijuana), Baja California 648,420 427,061 659 Natural gas

39 C.T. Felipe Carrilo P. (Valladolid), Yucatán 414,970 381,132 918 Oil Table 3.14 

### MEXICO CO 2

### POWER PLANT EMISSIONS, SORTED BY ANNUAL EMISSIONS81**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS **PLANT, STATE** ELECTRICITY GENERATION, MWh CO 2EMISSIONS, metric tonnes CO 2EMISSION RATE, kg/MWh PRIMARY FUEL

40 C.T. Jorge Luque (LFC), México 497,160 362,650 729 Natural gas 41 C.TG. Hermosillo, Sonora 507,150 310,190 612 Natural gas 42 C.CI. Puerto San Carlos, Baja California Sur 470,680 286,608 609 Oil 43 C.T. Nachi-Cocom, Yucatán 249,470 262,614 1,053 Oil 44 C.T. Guaymas I, Sonora 186,750 217,070 1,162 Oil 45 C.TG. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 329,140 206,266 627 Natural gas 46 C.T. San Jerónimo, Nuevo León 222,010 154,502 696 Natural gas 47 C.TG. Huinala, Nuevo León 259,700 151,433 583 Natural gas 48 C.T. La Laguna, Durango 179,590 129,843 723 Natural gas 49 C.TG. Jorge Luque (Lechería) (LFC), México 145,390 115,683 796 Natural gas 50 C.TG. Nonalco (LFC), DF 131,470 99,471 757 Natural gas 51 C.TG. Cancún, Quintana Roo 77,770 90,686 1,166 Diesel 52 C.TG. Valle de México (LFC), México 104,780 85,676 818 Natural gas 53 C.TG. Monclava, Coahuila n/a 75,926 n/a Natural gas 54 C.TG. La Laguna, Durango 62,260 56,003 899 Natural gas 55 C.TG. Las Cruces, Guerrero 46,400 55,123 1,188 Diesel 56 C.TG. Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur 33,690 47,566 1,412 Diesel 57 C.TG. Los Cabos, Baja California Sur 30,900 37,315 1,208 Diesel 58 C.CI. Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur 36,390 33,226 913 Diesel 59 C.TG. Caborca Industrial, Sonora 26,140 30,438 1,164 Diesel 60 C.TG. El Verde, Jalisco 29,110 28,391 975 Natural gas 61 C.TG. Nizuc, Quintana Roo 27,630 27,941 1,011 Diesel 62 C.CI. Santa Rosalía, Baja California Sur 26,220 24,540 936 Diesel 63 C.TG. Chávez, Coahuila 25,250 23,100 915 Natural gas 64 C.TG. Universidad, Nuevo León 17,220 17,884 1,039 Natural gas 65 C.TG. Culiacán, Sinaloa 17,550 17,572 1,001 Diesel 66 C.TG. Parque, Chihuahua 15,580 17,206 1,104 Diesel 67 C.TG. Leona, Nuevo León 16,570 17,121 1,033 Natural gas 68 C.TG. Tecnológico, Nuevo León 13,400 15,794 1,179 Diesel 69 C.TG. Ciudad Obregón, Sonora 10,780 14,827 1,375 Diesel 70 C.CI. Villa Constitución, Baja California Sur 17,170 14,228 829 Diesel 71 C.TG. Punta Prieta I (La Paz), Baja California Sur 9,870 14,173 1,436 Diesel

72 Pueblo Nuevo (Móvil), Sonora 12,050 13,082 1,086 Diesel 73 C.TG. Ciprés, Baja California 10,120 12,499 1,235 Diesel 74 C.TG. Arroyo De Coyote, Tamaulipas 6,540 11,297 1,727 Diesel 75 C.TG. Xul-Ha, Quintana Roo 8,770 11,192 1,276 Diesel 76 C.TG. Chihuahua I, Chihuahua 7,980 10,198 1,278 Diesel 77 Nuevo Nogales (Móvil), Sonora 7,730 8,047 1,041 Diesel 78 C.TG. Mexicali, Baja California 5,330 7,296 1,369 Diesel 79 C.TG. Esperanzas, Coahuila 4,590 6,276 1,367 Diesel 80 C.TG. Industrial (Juárez), Chihuahua 1,980 5,178 2,615 Diesel 81 C.TG. Fundidora, Nuevo León 4,810 4,762 990 Natural gas 82 C.CI. Yécora, Sonora 1,890 1,519 804 Diesel82 

# 4**SAN JUAN**fuel usedcoal,capacity1800 MW,locationWaterflow, New Mexico83**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS 

# Appendix: Methodology

**I NTRODUCTION**

The availability of emission inventory data for North American power plants has been improving over the past decade and there will be further improvements in the future as the three North American countries work together to enhance the development and exchange of air emissions information. Currently, the US has a large amount of information available from the US EPA and Energy Information Administration. The availability of emissions data in the US is in part the result of public right-to-knowreporting legislation as well as the country’s implementation of marketbased regulatory mechanisms, such as the SO 2emissions trading program. Implementation of a cap-and-trade system requires the collection of high-quality emissions information in order to ensure the integrity of the program. Canada currently requires reporting of SO 2 , NO xand mercury from power plants, and is expanding its reporting by requiring all larger emitting facilities to report their CO 2emissions beginning in 2004. All power plants in Mexico report fuel consumption, emissions and several other operating characteristics in their annual operating reports, known as Cédula de Operación Anual (COA), submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat). These documents, however, are generally not available to the public. We were able to obtain data for this report from a publicly available document by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The document contains emission estimates from individual power plants in Mexico based on fuel consumption data provided by Mexico’s Secretaría de Energía(Sener) using emission factors for specific types of power plants. 31 Newly passed reporting legislation with implementing regulations in Mexico will increase the public availability of this information in 2005.



## CANADA

SO 2, NO x, and mercury emissions data are from the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database for 2002, accessible at http://www.ec.gc. ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm

. Canada requires owners or operators of facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use a threshold amount of one or more of the NPRI-listed substances to report their emissions to NPRI. For SO 2and NO x, the threshold is 20 metric tons (tonnes), while for mercury, the threshold is 5 kg. We use data from the NPRI 12 March 2004 updates, which Environment Canada qualifies as preliminary data still subject to review and analysis by the agency. We limited our search to sources listed under SIC codes 4911 and 4111 in the NPRI database. At the time of this report, CO 2data for individual power plants were only available from two companies in Canada—ATCO Power (Alberta) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG). ATCO Power published CO 2emissions for its fossil fuel power plants in a 2002 annual report. 32OPG also publishes information in annual company progress reports from which we were able to obtain 2002 CO 2emissions. 33In the future, we expect annual CO 2emissions information to become available for most fossil fuel power plants in Canada. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Canadian government recently gave formal notice that CO 2reporting will be required for all facilities which emit at least 100 thousand metric tons (tonnes) of greenhouse gases in calendar year 2004. The first round of national reporting will be due in June 2005. Annual net electricity generation by individual power plants is not generally publicly available in Canada, unlike information we could obtain from Mexico and the United States. We were able to collect some annual net generation data, however, from Canadian Electricity Association (CEA) information reports for many coal power plants that are participating in the CEA’s Mercury Program. 34Not all information reports, however, contained complete generation for 2002 so these values could not be included in the tables for Canada. In cases where 2002 data were incomplete, we show output emission rates based on 2001 generation and emissions that are also given in the CEA information reports. We indicate these instances in the tables, and present the 2001 output rates as an indication of power plant performance that we would not expect to change significantly between 2001 and 2002 unless there was a significant shift in the type of fuel used or in the application of new control technologies. ATCO Power and Ontario Power Generation also published generation numbers for their power plants in 2002 editions of the same annual reports we obtained CO 2emissions information from, and we use these for power plants not appearing in the CEA Mercury Program information reports. Using these various information sources, we were able to collect 2001 or 2002 generation information for almost all coal-fired power plants in Canada, with the lone exception of the Grand Lake Generating Station in New Brunswick. For completeness, we conservatively estimated Grand Lake’s 2002 generation assuming the 57 MW power plant was available to generate electricity 90 percent of the time during 2002. As its actual operation in 2002 was likely somewhat less than 90 percent of the time during that year, this provides a conservative lower estimate for the output emissions rates of the various pollutants it reports. Therefore, the estimated output rates for the Grand Lake power plant are likely a lower limit from which to compare its relative environmental performance with other coal power plants in North America in terms of pollution emitted per output of electricity. In creating the maps of North American SO 2, NO x, mercury and CO 2power plant emissions, we combined the emissions of a small number of Canadian facilities with identical latitude and longitude coordinates to present a single circle of summed emissions in the maps. Simply leaving the circles of individual facilities to overlap would obscure the collective amount of emissions at the same location. We list these overlapping facilities in Table 4.1

.

Table 4.1 

### CANADA EMISSIONS TALLIED FOR MAPPING PURPOSES

FACILITY NAME Latitude Longitude SO 2 (tonnes) NO x (tonnes) Hg (kg) CO 2 (tonnes) Boundary Dam, Saskatchewan 49.133 -102.983 42,945 17,191 191

- Shand Power, Saskatchewan 49.133 -102.983 13,740 5,863 56

- Rainbow Lake (Units 1-3), Alberta 58.5 -119.5

- 196

- 31,000 Rainbow Lake (Units 4-5), Alberta 58.5 -119.5

- 255

- 328,00084 Data for all four pollutants (SO 2 , NO x, mercury, and CO 2) were obtained from the report Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico, prepared by the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 35Because data were not available for each individual power plant in Mexico, the authors had to make some estimates. Using the Informe de Operaciónpublished by Mexico’s Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), the authors found the installed and effective generation capacity of thermal power units, as well as gross generation and fossil-fuel consumption data at the plant (not unit) level. For most of the plants, the CFE also provided information on boiler types and combustion configurations to enable more accurate unit-level emission estimates. For each power plant, the report’s authors multiplied the total annual fuel consumption by the respective emission factors for the four pollutants. In creating the maps of North American SO 2 , NO x, mercury, and CO 2 power plant emissions, we combined individual plant emissions from the Mexico facilities with the same latitude and longitude coordinates to present a single point of the summed emissions, rather than simply leaving the points to overlap, which would have obscured the total emissions at the locations. We list the facilities with combined emissions (those with the same latitude and longitude coordinates) in Table 4.2 . The two coal plants in Coahuila (Carbón II and Río Escondido) were also combined because their locations, while not identical, nearly overlap, thus obscuring their aggregate emissions if mapped separately. 

## M EXICO

FACILITY NAME Latitude Longitude SO 2 (tonnes) NO x (tonnes) Hg (kg) CO 2 (tonnes) C.T. Jorge Luque (LFC), México 19.62 -99.18 2 847

- 362,650 C.TG. Jorge Luque (Lechería) (LFC), México 19.62 -99.18 1 326

- 115,683 C.C.C. Huinala, Nuevo León 25.72 -100.10 6 3,009

- 1,066,807 C.C.C. Huinala II, Nuevo León 25.72 -100.10 3 1,418

- 502,788 C.TG. Huinala, Nuevo León 25.72 -100.10 1 427

- 151,433 C.CI. Puerto San Carlos, Baja California Sur 26.00 -111.50 5,933 1,148

- 286,608 C.TG. Ciudad Constitución, Baja California Sur 26.00 -111.50 171 267

- 47,566 C.TG. Los Cabos, Baja California Sur 26.00 -111.50 134 209

- 37,315 C.CI. Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur 26.00 -111.50 117 903

- 33,226 C.CI. Villa Constitución, Baja California Sur 26.00 -111.50 50 386

- 14,228 C.T. San Jerónimo, Nuevo León 26.00 -100.00 1 219

- 154,502 C.TG. Universidad, Nuevo León 26.00 -100.00 0 50

- 17,884 C.TG. Leóna, Nuevo León 26.00 -100.00 0 48

- 17,121 C.TG. Fundidora, Nuevo León 26.00 -100.00 0 13

- 4,762 C.T. Carlos Rodríguez Rivero (Guaymas II), Sonora 27.50 -110.50 41,972 2,958

- 1,784,843 C.T. Guaymas I, Sonora 27.50 -110.50 5,106 403

- 217,070 C.C.C. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 28.38 -106.05 12 3,264

- 1,155,436 C.TG. Chihuahua II (El Encino), Chihuahua 28.38 -106.05 1 582

- 206,266 C.TG. Parque, Chihuahua 28.38 -106.05 62 96

- 17,206 C.TG. Chihuahua I, Chihuahua 28.38 -106.05 37 57

- 10,198 C.T. Carbón II, Coahuila 28.46 -100.70 102,729 40,099 361 6,465,622 C.T. José López Portillo (Río Escondido), Coahuila 28.47 -100.68 104,213 45,932 349 6,277,829 C.TG. Ciudad Obregón, Sonora 29.00 -111.00 53 83

- 14,827 Pueblo Nuevo (Movil), Sonora 29.00 -111.00 46 355

- 13,082 Nuevo Nogales (Movil), Sonora 29.00 -111.00 28 219

- 8,047 C.CI. Yecora, Sonora 29.00 -111.00 5 41

- 1,519 Table 4.2 

### MEXICO EMISSIONS TALLIED FOR MAPPING PURPOSES85**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS We obtained SO 2 , NO x, and CO 2emissions data from the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division online data system, accessible at http://cfpub. epa.gov/gdm , and the data we downloaded from this site were the available reports as of March 2004. Power plants report these data to the Agency under the auspices of the Acid Rain Program. In general, all units over 25 megawatts are required to measure and report emissions under the Acid Rain Program. We limited the number of United States facilities that we compiled emissions for in this report to those 100 megawatts or greater in capacity. Therefore, the total emissions in this report are slightly lower than the national totals from the Acid Rain Program. Many of the affected facilities in the Acid Rain Program database rely on continuous emissions monitoring devices to measure their stack emissions. However, smaller units sometimes rely on alternative measurement techniques. For example, oil-fired units can use fuel sampling to estimate their SO 2emissions, and peaking units are allowed to use periodic stack tests as the basis for estimating their NO xemissions. For mercury, we calculated 2002 emissions from a 1999 database developed by the United States EPA, coupled with 2002 coal use data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the United States Department of Energy. In 1999, EPA conducted an Information Collection Request (ICR) which involved coal sampling at virtually every power generating facility, as well as stack emissions testing at a smaller number of facilities. In order to estimate the 2002 mercury emissions, we calculated mercury emissions ratios for each facility using EPA’s 1999 ICR mercury emissions estimate divided by the quantity (tons) of coal used by each plant in 1999. We then multiplied this plant-specific ratio (which represents mercury emissions per ton of coal consumed) by the amount of coal used by each of the facilities in 2002. This methodology is consistent with the approach used by EPA in its eGRID database of power plant emissions. 36 The EPA 1999 ICR Mercury results covered a little over 450 power plants, 37while we compile emissions for 376 plants. There are several reasons for the fewer facilities covered in this report. As mentioned earlier, we limited the United States facilities covered in this report to those over 100 MW in capacity, while EPA’s ICR effort included smaller facilities. Also, we only included those facilities reporting to EPA’s Acid Rain Program, and not all facilities covered by the EPA ICR effort report emissions to this program. Furthermore, a few plants converted from coal to natural gas or no longer operated in 2002, so would no longer have mercury emissions using the coal-based methodology we employ. Finally, not every coal plant included in EPA’s 1999 ICR power plant list actually operated or burned coal in 1999, therefore we had no reference point to estimate their emissions if the plants were operating and burning coal in 2002. We obtained power plant electricity generation data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), including the EIA-906 and EIA-767 databases. In general, we relied on the EIA-906 database for annual generation data. If a facility did not appear in the EIA-906 database or its monthly generation data were incomplete, we would default to the EIA-767 data. In some cases, it was clear that not all boilers (or stacks) within an individual power plant report emissions to EPA’s Acid Rain Program. Where we were able to identify these instances, we use only the generation from the EIA databases that is attributable to the portion of the facility reporting emissions. Therefore, to the extent we could identify these situations, the generation we use corresponds only to those boilers or stacks that having corresponding emissions data in the Acid Rain Program database. We qualitatively compared the 2002 output rates with the year 2000 output rates reported by EPA’s eGRID database to identify any gross discrepancies in the rates between the two years to help identify possible errors. In most cases, the 2002 output rates were within 10 percent or less of the eGRID 2000 rates. In cases where there were larger differences, we were able to identify changes in fuel use or other differences that made the changes appear reasonable. There were some instances where we could not determine why large changes in output rates occurred between the two years. These may be due to new pollution controls, fuel quality differences, or other operational changes for which we did not have information, or reporting discrepancies between the electricity generation and emissions databases. In creating the maps of North American SO 2 , NO x, mercury, and CO 2 power plant emissions, we combined individual plant emissions from the United States facilities with the same latitude and longitude coordinates to present a single point of the summed emissions, rather than simply leaving the points to overlap, which would have obscured the total emissions at the locations. We list the facilities with combined emissions (those with the same latitude and longitude coordinates) in Table 4.3

. 

## U N ITE D STATE S

FACILITY NAME Latitude Longitude SO 2 (tonnes) NO x (tonnes) Hg (kg) CO 2 (tonnes) Frontera Power Facility, Texas 26.42 -98.22 3 149

- 551,097 Hidalgo Energy Center, Texas 26.42 -98.22 4 201

- 784,020 Cane Island, Florida 27.99 -81.26 6 142

- 840,304 Intercession City, Florida 27.99 -81.26 160 317

- 594,693 Hines Energy Complex, Florida 28.00 -81.62 6 373

- 1,181,285 Tiger Bay, Florida 28.00 -81.62 9 522

- 1,754,136 Orange Cogeneration, Florida 28.00 -81.62 1 77

- 184,436 Mulberry Cogen, Florida 28.00 -81.62 1 40

- 176,792 San Jacinto Steam, Texas 29.83 -95.44 5 216

- 889,741 CoGen Lyondell, Inc., Texas 29.83 -95.44 5 802

- 935,591 Table 4.3 

### UNITED STATES EMISSIONS AGGREGATED FOR MAPPING PURPOSES86 FACILITY NAME Latitude Longitude SO 2 (tonnes) NO x (tonnes) Hg (kg) CO 2 (tonnes) Pasadena Power Plant, Texas 29.83 -95.44 10 571

- 1,903,434 Robins, Georgia 32.49 -83.68 11 9

- 17,699 Dahlberg, Georgia 32.49 -83.68 0 50

- 184,935 Mid-Georgia Cogen, Georgia 32.49 -83.68 1 46

- 174,455 Doyle Generating Facility, Georgia 33.76 -83.74 1 55

- 150,401 MPC Generating, LLC, Georgia 33.76 -83.74 1 26

- 28,774 Cherokee County Cogen, South Carolina 35.01 -81.62 1 37

- 184,058 Broad River Energy, South Carolina 35.01 -81.62 2 106

- 376,688 Reeves, New Mexico 35.04 -106.67 0 157

- 85,734 Person Generating, New Mexico 35.04 -106.67 0 11

- 23,463 Carson Cogeneration, California 38.38 -121.44 1 26

- 239,473 SCA Cogen II, California 38.38 -121.44 2 54

- 403,709 Sacramento Power Auth, California 38.38 -121.44 3 44

- 534,141 Woodsdale, Ohio 39.44 -84.58 0 116

- 113,043 Madison Generating, Ohio 39.44 -84.58 1 44

- 129,706 Hay Road, Delaware 39.57 -75.60 9 315

- 920,628 Delaware City Refinery, Delaware 39.57 -75.60 940 394

- 297,303 Elwood Energy Facility, Illinois 41.47 -87.89 1 95

- 309,772 Lincoln Generating, Illinois 41.47 -87.89

- 14

- 64,495 Joliet 29, Illinois 41.49 -88.08 18,746 3,456 364 5,570,469 Joliet 9, Illinois 41.49 -88.08 4,136 2,324 89 1,337,441 WPS Empire State, New York 43.01 -76.19 2 12

- 61,615 Carr Street, New York 43.01 -76.19 1 30

- 39,187 Concord, Wisconsin 43.02 -88.77 0 20

- 31,134 Whitewater Cogen, Wisconsin 43.02 -88.77 2 50

- 317,460 Table 4.3 

### UNITED STATES EMISSIONS AGGREGATED FOR MAPPING PURPOSES (continued)87**POWER PLANT**AIR EMISSIONS 1 Alpine Geophysics. Availability and Infrastructure of North American Electric

Generating Utility Emission Inventories and Opportunities for Future Coordination. Prepared for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 10 October 2003. Online at http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/Availability-Infrastructure_en.pdf

. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2002. EPA 430-R-04-003. April 2004. Online at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions

. 3 Statistics Canada. Report on Energy Supply and Demand. Catalogue No. 57-003.

Table 18 (October 2003).

4 Environment Canada. Backgrounder— Canada’s 2002 Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_02_report/ghg_backgrounder_e.cfm

. 5Environment Canada. 1995 Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions for Canada.

Online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ape/ape_tables/canada95_e.cfm

. 6Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Environmental

Data Compendium 2002 : Air. 17June 2003. Online at http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/8/62/2958142.pdf

. 7United States Environmental Protection Agency. Acid Rain Program: 2002 Progress

Report.Online at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp02/2002report.pdf

. 8Environment Canada. Op. cit. in endnote 5.

9 OECD. Op. cit. in endnote 6.

10 US EPA. Op. cit. in endnote 7.

11 Environment Canada. Mercury and the Environment.

Online at http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/sm-cr.cfm.

12United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Mercury

Reduction in Coal-Fired Power Plants: DOE’s R&D Program. ARIPPA Technical Symposium. 21 August 2002. Online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/ environment/mercury/pubs/DOE_RD_Prgm_PennState_ARIPPA082102.pdf

. 13Acosta y Asociados. Preliminary Atmospheric Emissions Inventory of Mercury in

Mexico. Prepared for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 30 May 2001. Online at http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/MXHg-air-maps_en.pdf

. 14World Resources Institute. EarthTrends Country Profiles. Climate and Atmosphere—

Canada. 2003. Online at http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/ Cli_cou_124.pdf

. 15World Resources Institute. EarthTrends Country Profiles. Climate and Atmosphere—

Mexico. 2003. Online at http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/ Cli_cou_484.pdf

. 16US EPA. Op. cit. in endnote 2.

17 Mercury emission estimates exist for oil and natural gas power plants in Mexico based

on fuel consumption and standard emission factors (Vijay, Samudra, Molina, Luisa T. and Molina, Mario J. Estimating Air Pollution Emissions from Fossil Fuel Use in the Electricity Sector in Mexico. Prepared by the Integrated Program on Urban, Regional, and Global Air Pollution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. April 2004. Available online at www.cec.org ). We do not include them here to be consistent with the available data from Canada and the United States. The estimates for Mexico indicate coal is the dominant source of mercury air emissions from Mexico’s electricity sector even though coal’s share of national generation is small.

18Based on each fuel’s relative generation share and the total national generation amounts

given in Figure 2.1

. 19 The relative contribution of different fossil fuels to North American CO 2emissions from

the electricity generation sector is not available for 2002 at this time due to lack of CO 2 information by fuel type and power plant in Canada, with the exception of plants owned by ATCO Power (Alberta) and Ontario Power Generation.

20 Vijay et al. Op. cit. in endnote 17.

21 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting

the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies.Online at http://www. epa.gov/clearskies/pdfs/multi102902.pdf

. 22Scrubber installations were determined based on a review of United States EPA’s National

Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS). NEEDS, updated for version 2.1.6 of the Integrated Planning Model, reports emission controls on existing coal and oil/gas steam electric generating units. 23 Vijay et al. 2004. Op. cit. in endnote 17. 24Canadian Electricity Association. CEA Mercury Program.

Online at http://www.ceamercuryprogram.ca/index.html (accessed 16 July 2004). 25United States Energy Information Administration. Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003.Table 72. Production, Heat Content, and Sulfur, Mercury and Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Coal Type and Region, page 117. Online at http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/p117.pdf

. 26Vijay et al. Op. cit. in endnote 17. 27We also combined emissions of other co-located power plants in North America to

better reflect collective emissions at their locations on each of the maps in this chapter. We list the plants with combined emissions for mapping purposes in the Appendix

. 28 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division.

Memorandum entitled: “Allocation Adjustment Factors for the Proposed Mercury Trading Rulemaking.” 10 March 2004 (Table 1). 29 CEA. Op. cit. in endnote 24. 30 US EPA. Op. cit. in endnote 28. 31 Vijay et al. Op. cit. in endnote 17. 32ATCO Power. Environment, Health and Safety Review 2002

.

Online athttp://www.atcopower.com/Environment_Health_&_Safety/Reports/ environmental_reports.htm (accessed 26 July 2004). 33Ontario Power Generation. Towards Sustainable Development: 2002 Progress Report

. Toronto, Ontario. 2003. Online at http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_annual_report.asp (accessed 26 July 2004). 34CEA. Op. cit. in endnote 24. 35Vijay et al. Op. cit. in endnote 17. 36 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Users Manual: Emissions &

Generation Resource Integrated Database—eGRID. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. April 2003. Online at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm. 37 The list of power plants covered by the EPA 1999 ICR effort is at http://www.epa.

gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/pltxplt4.pdf(accessed 30 September 2004). 

## E N DNOTE S