Federal Environmental Issues 

Driving the Electricity

and Gas Industries

David B. Conroy

Air Programs Branch

EPA Region 1

Energy in the Northeast Conference

September 9, 2014
Overview of Presentation 

 CPP

 MATS

 NAAQS Implementation 

 O3

 PM2.5

 SO2

 CAIR/CSAPR

2
On June 2, 2014, as part of the President’s Climate Action 

Plan, EPA proposed a commonsense plan to cut carbon 

pollution from power plants. 

The proposed plan will: 

 By 2030, reduce nationwide carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions, from the power sector by approximately 30% 

from 2005 levels.

 Require a reasonable emission reduction glidepath

starting in 2020.

 Cut hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful particulate 

matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as a co-benefit. 

 Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 

billion to $93 billion in 2030. 

 Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature 

deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030.

Proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP)

3
This Proposal Deals With the Largest 

Source of GHG Emissions in the U.S.

4
Reducing Carbon Pollution 

from Power Plants

President’s Directive to EPA:

Develop carbon pollution standards, 

regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for:

1. New power plants

 Proposed: January 8, 2014

2. Modified and reconstructed power plants

 Proposal: June 2014

 Final: June 2015

3. Existing power plants

 Proposed Guidelines: June 2014

 Final Guidelines: June 2015

 State Plans due: June 2016

5
 Section 111 establishes a mechanism for controlling air 

pollution from stationary sources

 Applies to sources for which the Administrator finds “causes, 

or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare”

 Can apply to new, existing, modified and reconstructed 

sources. 

 New sources under section 111(b) 

 Federal standards for new, modified and reconstructed 

sources

 Existing sources under section 111(d) 

 State programs for existing sources that are equivalent to 

federal guidelines

EPA’s Regulatory Approach

Clean Air Act Section 111

6
CAA Section 111(d) requires EPA to develop guidelines for 

states to address existing sources not addressed elsewhere in 

the CAA

 Section 111(d) – Federal Guidelines for States

 The Administrator shall “prescribe regulations . . . 

under which each State shall submit to the 

Administrator a plan which establishes standards of 

performance for any existing source for any air 

pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been 

issued . . . but to which a standard of performance 

under this section would apply if such existing source 

were a new source, and provides for the 

implementation and enforcement of such standards 

of performance.”

Clean Air Act Section 111(d) –

Existing Sources

7
EPA Establishes a Goal 

for Every State

 EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states 

and utilities are already using to lower carbon pollution from the 

power sector. 

 Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, 

calculated with state and regional specific information. 

 The result of the equation is the state goal. 

 Each state goal is a rate – a statewide number for the future 

carbon intensity of covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants 

in a state expressed in lbs/MWhr.

 The state goal rate is calculated to account for the mix of power 

sources in each state and the application of the “building blocks” 

that make up the best system of emission reduction.

 States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal.

8
Building Block Value Allocated in Goal-Setting Formula

1. Make fossil fuel-fired

power plants more 

efficient

Average heat rate improvement of 6% for coal 

steam electric generation units (EGUs)

2. Use lower-emitting 

power sources more

Dispatch to existing and under-construction natural 

gas combined cycle (NGCC) units to up to 70% 

capacity factor

3. Use more zero/lowemitting energy 

sources

Dispatch to new clean generation, including new 

nuclear generation under construction, moderate 

deployment of new renewable generation, and 

continued use of existing nuclear generation

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Increase demand-side energy efficiency to 1.5% 

annually

9
State performance goals 

(lbs/MWh)

State 2012 Fossil 

Emission Rate1

Interim Goal (2020 -

2029 average)2

Final Goal (2030 

and thereafter)2

Connecticut 844 597 540

Maine 873 393 378

Massachusetts 1,001 655 576

New Hampshire 1,119 546 486

Rhode Island 918 822 782

10

1 From Goal Computation Technical Support Document, Appendix 5 – 2012 Emissions Rate and Building Block 

Application, 

2 From Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60 – State Rate-Based CO2 Emission Performance Goals, Proposed
Flexibilities Available To States

 Timing: 

 Up to 15-year window in 

which to plan for and achieve 

reductions in carbon 

pollution. 

 Up to two or three years to 

submit final plans. 

 Form of goal: States can use 

either a rate-based or massbased goal.

 Single or multi-state plans: 

States can collaborate and 

develop plans on a multi-state 

basis.

 Selection of measures: 

 States will choose how to 

meet the goal through 

whatever collection of 

measures reflects its 

particular circumstances 

and policy objectives. 

 State measures may 

impact and, in fact may be 

explicitly designed to 

reduce, CO2 emissions 

from utilities on a regional 

basis.

 EPA would support building 

off existing reduction 

programs. 

11
Next Steps

 The proposed rule, as well as information about how 

to comment and supporting technical information, are 

available online at: www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

 EPA held 4 public hearings the week of July 28th in 

Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

 There will be a 120-day public comment period on the 

proposal, closing October 16, 2014.

 Comments on the proposal should be identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. 

12
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Generation (GWh)

Year

ISO New England Electricity Generation Mix by Fuel Type, 2000-

2012

Coal & Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Renewables & Hydro Total Generation (GWh)

New England Generation Mix

13

Data Sources: ISO New England Energy Sources, 2000-2013

http://www.iso-ne.com/nwsiss/grid_mkts/enrgy_srcs/
22%

12%

-20%

-71%

-93%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New England Economic Growth and ISO New England System 

Emissions, 1999-2012

New England GDP Total Generation CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions

Emissions, Generation and Economic Growth

14

Data Sources: 2012 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions 

Report, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
http://www.rggi.org/market/tracking/allowance-allocation

Northeast states implement RGGI:

 2014 emissions cap: 91 million short tons

 2015 – 2020 emissions caps: annual 

2.5% reductions

 2020 emissions cap: 78 million short tons

 Auction proceeds invested in the region 

(EE, RE, direct bill assistance, GHG 

abatement, etc.)

Working with the RGGI states:

 EPA’s 111(d) proposal allows for states 

to demonstrate mass-based equivalency 

to the proposed rate-based goals and 

solicits comment on conversion methods 

 EPA’s 111(d) proposal allows states to 

submit multi-state plans

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

15
Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS)

• On Feb 16, 2012, EPA promulgated the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS), the first national standards to reduce emissions of 

mercury and other toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal- and 

oil-fired power plants

• Standards will reduce emissions of:

• Metals, including mercury (Hg), arsenic, chromium, and nickel

• Acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF)

• Particulate matter

• Compliance required by April 14, 2015, with opportunity for 1-year extension

• On April 15, 2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld the rule against challenges from industry groups

• July 14 – Coalition of states file Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking 

Supreme Court to review D.C. Court decision

More information at www.epa.gov/mats 16
NAAQS Reviews: Status Update

Ozone Lead Primary 

NO2

Primary 

SO2

Secondary

NO2 and SO2

PM CO

Last Review

Completed 

(final rule signed)

Mar 2008 Oct 2008 Jan 2010 Jun 2010 Mar 2012 Dec 2012 Aug 2011

 The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) every 5 

years to determine whether they should be 

retained or revised.

17
2008 Ozone NAAQS 

Implementation

 Revised primary 8-hr Ozone standard in 2008 (75 ppb)

 EPA designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS effective on 

July 20, 2012

 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule

 Proposed May 29, 2013 (78 FR 34178)

 Anticipate final rule in late 2014

 RACT plans due July 20, 2014

 Applies in moderate and above NA’s, and throughout OTR

 Attainment demonstrations due July 2015 (Moderate) or July 

2016 (Serious and above)

18
Morongo Tribe

Pechanga Tribe

Final designation Classifications and Area Counts

- EPA has not designated as nonattainment any areas outside the Continental U.S.

- Map reflects classifications following requests for voluntary bump-up.

Nonattainment Areas for 2008 Ozone NAAQS by Classification 

(Effective July 20, 2012)

19
Final 2013 Ozone Design Values

3-Year average of the 

4

th high concentration 

for 2011, 2012, 2013

Created by ME DEP

Unclassified

/Attainment

Nonattainment

76 - 84 ppb

> 84 ppb

71 - 75 ppb

< 66 ppb

66 - 70 ppb
New England Exceedance Day 

Trend for 2008 O3 NAAQS

2014 

(# Exceedance Days)*

(As of Sept 3)

2013 

(# Exceedance Days)

2012 

(# Exceedance Days)

CT 8 17 27

ME 0 5 4

MA 0 6 17

NH 1 3 4

RI 0 7 12

VT 0 0 0

NE 9 20 29

*2014 Data are Preliminary
Current Ozone NAAQS Review

 Received court ruling on April 29, 2014

 Propose December 1, 2014

 Final October 1, 2015

 CASAC letter of June 26, 2014

 Primary standard

“there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend a range of 

levels for a revised primary ozone standard from 70 ppb to 60 

ppb. . . our policy advice is to set the level of the standard lower 

than 70 ppb within a range down to 60 ppb, taking into account 

your judgment regarding the desired margin of safety to protect 

public health, and taking into account that lower levels will provide 

incrementally greater margins of safety.” 

 Secondary standard: W126 within the range of 7 ppm-hrs

to 15 ppm-hrs

22
Current Ozone NAAQS Review

(con’t)

 August 29, 2014 – Final Policy Assessment for the 

Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards released

 For the primary standard, EPA staff “concludes that it is 

appropriate in this review to consider a revised primary O3 

standard level within the range of 70 ppb to 60 ppb. A 

standard set within this range would result in important 

improvements in public protection, compared to the current 

standard, and could reasonably be judged to provide an 

appropriate degree of public health protection, including for 

at-risk populations and lifestages.”

 For the secondary standard, EPA staff concludes that it is 

“appropriate to give consideration to a range of levels from 

17 to 7 parts per million-hours (ppm-hrs), expressed in 

terms of the W126 index.”

 The W126 index is a method for measuring cumulative, seasonal 

exposures of ozone. 

23
PM2.5 NAAQS Implementation

 EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 μg/m3from the 

previous level of 15 μg/m3 on Dec 14, 2012. 

 EPA retained daily PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3 set in 2006. 

 Status of Designations 

 Aug 19, 2014 - EPA sent letters to all states (and certain tribes) 

outlining its intended area designations for annual standards.

 EPA intends to designate 14 areas (in six states (CA, ID, KY/IN, OH, PA)) as 

“nonattainment.”

 EPA intends to designate certain areas as “unclassifiable” 

 EPA is deferring designations for 1 year for certain GA areas

 All other areas of the country will be designated as “unclassifiable/attainment” 

 Next Steps 

 States/tribes have until Oct 29 to submit additional information for 

EPA to consider 

 Final designations expected in December 2014 24
2010 SO2 NAAQS 

Implementation 

 Revised primary SO2 standard: June 2010 (75 ppb/1-hr)

 Initial nonattainment area designations, based on violating 

monitors, were effective October 4, 2013

 29 areas in 16 states designated (In New England, only NH area)

 Attainment plans due April 2015

25
2010 SO2 NAAQS 

Implementation

 1-hr SO2 NAAQS Nonattainment SIP Elements Guidance 

 Objective is to provide assistance to areas developing their 

nonattainment area plans 

 Issued guidance on April 24, 2014 

 SO2 Data Requirements Rule

 Objective is to provide information to EPA in an orderly 

fashion to inform initial area designations for areas not 

designated in 2013

 Proposal published in FR on May 13, 2014

 Comment period closed on July 14, 2014

 Final scheduled for early 2015

26
Expected Implementation Timeline: 

SO2 DRR Proposal

 Early 2015: EPA issues final rule

 Jan. 2016: Air agency: (1) identifies sources to be characterized with 

monitoring data; and (2) provides modeling protocol for other sources

 July 2016: Air agency updates annual air quality monitoring plan

 Jan. 2017:

 Air agency submits modeling analyses for “modeling” areas (i.e., areas above 

threshold for which they are not installing new monitors)

 Air agency can submit boundary recommendations for all areas except those 

relying on new monitoring data 

 New monitoring sites operational for “monitoring” areas

 Dec. 2017: EPA intends to designate areas not installing new monitors

 Designations based on: modeling data, properly sited pre-existing monitors, areas 

having no sources

 Early 2020: New monitoring sites have 3 years of data; air agency submits 

monitoring data

 Air agency can submit boundary recommendations for monitored areas

 Dec. 2020: EPA intends to designate areas for rest of country
Source Threshold Options

Option

TPY Threshold

For SO2 Sources

Number of 

Sources**

Percent of

National 

Emissions†

Plus Sources

In Designated

Nonattainment 

Areas‡

Total Annual 

Emissions

Coverage

Inside 

CBSAs 

Greater 

than 1M

Outside 

CBSAs 

Greater 

than 1M

1* 1,000 2,000 443 75% 53 90%

2 2,000 5,000 270 66% 53 82%

3 3,000 10,000 158 54% 53 69%

* Preferred option.

** These do not include sources located in nonattainment areas designated in 2013.

† Total SO2 emissions in 2011 were 5.8 million tons. 

‡ There are 53 sources with annual emissions greater than 1,000 tpy in nonattainment areas designated in 2013.
Location of Source 

Above Threshold Options
Proposed Consent Decree

 Deadline Suit: Sierra Club et al. v. McCarthy, Civil 

Action No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI (N.D. Cal.) filed on 

August 26, 2013

 EPA lodged the proposed consent decree in May 2014

 Published for comment on June 2, with comment period closing 

July 2

 EPA received 133 comments, most supporting the decree.

 On August 8, EPA filed a motion to enter the SO2

designations CD 
Proposed Consent Decree 

Requirements

 16 months from the date of the consent decree, EPA will 

designate the following undesignated areas:

 Areas with air quality monitoring in the three full calendar 

years preceding such deadline that have monitored violations 

of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; 

 Areas containing any stationary source that has not been 

‘‘announced for retirement’’ and that, according to the data in 

EPA’s Air Markets Database, either 

1.emitted more than 16,000 tons of SO2in 2012, or

2.emitted more than 2,600 tons of SO2 and had an annual 

average emission rate of 0.45 lbs SO2/MMBtu or higher in 

2012

 By Dec 31, 2017, EPA will designate the remaining undesignated 

areas in which, by January 1, 2017, states have not installed and 

begun operating a new SO2 monitoring network

 By Dec 31, 2020, EPA will designate the remaining undesignated 

areas.
Status of Proposed Consent Decree 

for SO2 Designations

 Seven states that have intervened and objected to the 

proposed consent decree (ND, AZ, KY, LA, NV, TX, and NC)

 EPA filed its response to these objections on Aug 29

 EPA stated:

 Nationwide unclassifiable designations are not compelled by the 

Clean Air Act.

 The proposed Consent Decree does not interfere with EPA’s 

discretion to promulgate designations, nor does it impose 

requirements on states.

 The proposed Consent Decree does not “avoid” “unclassifiable” 

designations.

 Hearing before the judge is likely to be Oct. 17 

 If judge enters the CD right away after the hearing, that would 

put the down payment round of designations due in midFebruary 2016.
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

 Clean Air Act requires states to address emissions that “contribute 

significantly” to nonattainment or “interfere with maintenance” of NAAQS in 

downwind states.

 March 2005 - EPA issued Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) covering 27 

eastern states and DC. CAIR uses cap & trade program to reduce SO2 and 

NOx emissions from power plants to meet 1997 annual and 24-hour fine 

particle (PM2.5) and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

 CAIR was projected, at full implementation, to reduce power plant SO2

emissions in affected states to just 2.5 million tons, 73% below 2003 

emissions levels.

 For NOx, CAIR will reduce power plant NOx emissions by 2 million tons, 

achieving a regional emissions level of 1.3 million tons, a 61% reduction 

from 2003 levels.

 States were required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA 

demonstrating compliance with their applicable SO2 and NOx EGU budgets.

33
States Covered by CAIR

34
CAIR Challenged in US Court of 

Appeals for the DC Circuit

 July 11, 2008 – Court issues decision to vacate 

CAIR

 Fall 2008 – Parties to the litigation submit 

requests for rehearing and other information 

including expected effects of a vacatur

 Dec 23, 2008 – Court amends decision and 

remands CAIR without vacatur

 Requires EPA to promulgate replacement rules to 

CAIR, consistent with the Court's July 11, 2008 ruling 

 Leaves CAIR in effect until replacement rules are 

promulgated

35
Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR)

 July 2011- EPA finalized CAIR replacement rule, the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

 CSAPR focused on attainment and maintenance of the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

 CSAPR was intended to cover emissions in 2012 and beyond.

 CSAPR implemented through a federal rule.

 CSAPR established new allowances for all programs.

 There is no carryover of Acid Rain Program, NOx SIP Call/NOx 

Budget Trading Program (NBP), or CAIR allowances. 

 By 2014, combined with other final state and EPA actions, the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was projected to reduce power 

plant SO2 emissions by 73 percent and NOx emissions by 54 

percent from 2005 levels in the CSAPR region.

36
States Covered by CSAPR

*This map includes states covered in the supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking.

• Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule includes 

separate requirements 

for:

• Annual SO2

reductions

• Annual NOx

reductions

• Ozone-season NOx

reductions

37
Litigation on CSAPR

 December 2011 - D.C. Circuit issued ruling to 

stay CSAPR pending judicial review.

 March 2012 - EPA filed brief defending 

CSAPR and reasons rule should be upheld. 

 August 2012 - D.C. Circuit issued decision to 

vacate CSAPR. 

 Orders EPA to “continue administering CAIR pending 

the promulgation of a valid replacement.”

 April 2014 - U.S. Supreme Court (by 6-2 vote) 

reversed D.C. Circuit opinion vacating 

CSAPR.

More information at www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR 38
Efforts to Implement CSAPR

 June 26, 2014 – EPA filed motion with D.C. Circuit to lift stay of 

CSAPR and to allow it to go into effect beginning Jan 1, 2015

 If the court adopts EPA’s suggestion, phase 1 of the rule would 

begin in 2015 and phase 2 would go into effect two years later, in 

2017.

 While Court considers motion, CAIR remains in place.

 July 11 – Environmental and public health groups said EPA's 

schedule is too slow. Think EPA should move directly to 

implement the second phase of the program. 

 July 31 - Utility industry groups and several states file motions 

fighting EPA's request to lift its stay on implementation of 

CSAPR.

 Aug 22 - EPA again asks court to reinstate CSAPR while 

delaying the rule's compliance deadlines by three years.

 New filing focuses on rejecting industry's and certain states' 

opposition on lifting the stay

39
CAIR and CSAPR 

in New England

 Connecticut and Massachusetts were included in 

ozone season CAIR program, but are not in 

CSAPR, because air quality modeling shows they 

no longer contribute significantly to nonattainment 

of the 1997 and 2006 PM NAAQS or the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in other states.

 CAIR is in each of these state’s SIPs and relied on 

to meet various Clean Air Act obligations for 

programs such as Regional Haze and ozone. 

 If CSAPR is implemented, EPA will work with these 

states to develop a replacement program to retain 

emission reductions achieved under CAIR.

40
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS

41