Multi-Pollutant Regula

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR (The Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule, a

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air and RadiationOctober 2005
Table of Contents

Section #1: Multi-Pollutant BackgroundSection #2: Provisions of CAIR/CAMR/CAVRSection #3: Air Quality ImprovementsSection #4: Health and Environmental BenefitsSection #5: Pollution Control Additions and Impacts on the 

Fuels, and Electricity Prices

Section #6: Additional Analyses of Key Provisions and ModSection #7: Appendix and Notes
Section #1

Multi-Pollutant Backgro
Introduction

This technical support package is part of a comprehensive U.S. Environmen

analysis of various multi-pollutant proposals. The analysis is based on air qpower sector modeling and provides projections for each proposal for the ye

EPA has modeled the following multi-pollutant approaches:

1. Clean Air Planning Act (Carper, S.843 in 108th) 

2. Clean Power Act (Jeffords, S.150 in 109th)

3. Clear Skies Act of 2005 (Inhofe, S.131 in 109th)

4. Clear Skies Act of 2003 (Inhofe/Voinovich at the Administratio

5. Clear Skies Manager’s Mark (of S.131 in 109th)

6. Clean Air Interstate Rule, Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Cl

These approaches to reducing emissions from the power sector generally h

• Improvement in human health;• Adoption of a market-based cap and trade program; • Substantial reduction in the number of PM2.5 and ozone nonat

• Installation of additional pollution controls on power plants; 

• Alteration of existing regulations; • Reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide
Methodology for Evaluating Impacts of th

• When analyzing the costs and benefits of a particul

ar legislative or regulatory scenario, 

analyzed to a “baseline”. The costs and benefits are typically presented as i

ncremental 

cost of the program in 2010 is the additional cost utilities will incur in 2010 beyond the co

• Without using a baseline, many costs and benefits could be quantified only i

n compariso

annual cost of the program i

n 2010 would be the projected cost i

n 2010 compared to the 

Comparin

g costs to current con

ditions w

ould combine the compliance costs of the scena

costs due to growth i

n electricity demand or changes in other circumstances. The basel

variables, provi

ding another method for comparing various alternatives. The baseli

ne is 

what will happen in the absence of new l

egislation or to serve as a pr

ojectio

n of futur

e i

m

• The projected costs and benefits of different scenarios can be compared to each oth

er w

using the same baseline. 

• For the economic modeling of the utility industry, the baseline includes Title IV, the NOx 

(NSR) settlements, and State-specific rul

es, regul

ations, and/or agreeme

nts in Con

necti

Minnesota, Missouri, New H

ampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and W

mid-2004.

• For air q

u

ality mod

elin

g, the b

aseline als

o includes the Tier II, Heavy Duty Diesel, and N

• The baseline does not include control programs that h

a

ve not be

e

n ad

o

pted (

e.g., yet-to

necessary l

ocal control

s to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQ

attainment deadlines). 

Short-Term Feasibility Constraint and Provisions not Directly Modeled• In the short-term, modeling of the power sector incorporates a feasibility constraint on th

can be i

nstalled to meet the caps set forth in the proposal. This constraint is l

argely ba

s

boilermak

er lab

or that is critical for installing SO2 and N

Ox controls. Post 2010, there is 

additional boilermakers enter the workforce. EPA has also conducted analysis of the prexists, the results of w

hich can be found in Section #6. While EPA believes that there a

the amount of activated carbon i

njection (ACI) for merc

ury control or new ge

n

eration* th

limitati

ons have not been factored into the power sector modeling and results need to b

e 

*F

or more discussion, see page 44.
Description of Modeling Tools

The Integrated Planning Model (IPM)

– IPM is an electric generation cost model that is used for power sector and environmen– IPM finds the least-c

ost solutio

n to meeting electricity demand su

bject to e

nvironm

e

nta

and other system operating constraints for any specified region and time period.

– IPM provi

des both a broad and detailed analysis of control 

o

ptions for major e

missio

ns 

power generation adjustments, pollution control actions, air emissions changes (natio

n

fuel use c

hanges, and economic impacts (

costs, wholesale electricit

y prices, closures, 

Retail Electricity Pricing Mod

el

–

The Retail Electricity Pricing Model provides a forecast of average retail electricity pric

U.S.; it considers areas of the country that (1) will have competitive pricing of power geretail power on a cost-of-service basis.

Air Quality Modeling (CMAQ and CAMx)

–

The Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model is a photochemical air quality m

and fate of multi

ple pollutants across large geographic areas. CMAQ was applied to m

SO2 and N

Ox emissio

ns reducti

o

ns.

–

The Comprehensive Air quality Model with extensions (CAMx) simulates the formation 

including ozone over multi

ple spatial scales. CAM

x is applied for selected 

s

ummer ep

the ozone i

mpacts associated with NOx emissions reductions.

Benefits Modeling (BENMap)

– BENM

a

p

e

stimates expected healt

h improvement

s acro

s

s the population (

avoided pre

heart attacks, asthma attacks, etc.) using results from the air quality mod

eling. BENM

monetary value of those health i

mprovements.
Uncertainty in Projections of Costs and TeFeasibility

There are a number of factors that can lead to uncertainty in cost e

•

Differences in assumptions about key variables such as natural g

demand –

EPA has addressed this uncertainty by perfor

ming sen

natural gas prices and electric demand.

•

Uncertainty about availability, cost, and performance of control te

• If technology is not available to meet emission constraints (

unit-specific mer

cury constraints under the Clean Air Plann

or the fir

st phase CO

2 caps or mercury requirements under 

(Jeffords, S.150)), costs could be significantly higher for tho

• If there are technical innovations (including new technologie

existing technologies), this could lead to lower costs. This i

longer term.

•

Unquantified costs of regulation vs. legislation.

•

State-by-State plan development process under CAIR, CAM

source-specific determinations under CAVR results in additThese costs are borne by both State regulators and inter

es

power sector and environmental groups, that participate in t

•

Uncertainty of litigation under regulation can delay pollution 

increasing costs in later “rush to compliance”.
Uncertainty in Projections of Benefits

There are a number of factors that can lead to uncertainty in the beincluding*:

•

Gaps in scientific knowledge that prevent us from quantifying 

benefits.

•

Variability in estimated pollution concentr

ations and response 

introduced through differences in study design and statistica

•

Errors in measurement and projection for important variables 

population growth rates, changes in emissions and pollutant from air quality modeling.

In addition, if emission reductions occur more slowly than projected

• If litigation results in delaying CAIR, CAMR, or CAVR, benefi

Litigation could r

esult in other changes to timing or control le

benefits.

• If emission contr

ols cannot be installed quickly enough, or if 

projected prices so that safety valves are triggered, benefits 

*For a more complete discussion of uncertainties related to benefits estimates for fine particles (PM2.5) and Ozone, see 

“Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule”, EPA-452/R-/05-002, March 2005, U.S. EPA
Section #2

Provisions of CAIR/CAMR
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR – OverviewGeneral:

– CAIR and CAMR set an emission reduction requirement for each af– Implemented under existing EPA authorities under Sections 110, 1

Clean Air Act.

– Retains the basic framework of Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA).– Retains existing Title IV and NOx SIP Call requirements until new re

Allowance System: For CAIR and CAMR, creates EPA administered cap a

NOx (annual and seasonal), and Hg that States can opt to join to meet the re

CAIR annual programs cover 23 States and DC, the CAIR ozone season NO

and DC; and the CAMR mercury program covers 50 States and DC.*

CAIR State

CAIR 

CAIR 

Opt-ins (CAIR): Under CAIR, fossil fuel-fired boilers, and turbines that are not otherwise subject to the new 

SO2 and NOx trading programs (e.g., that are not 

selling power to the grid) may opt into these programs if certain requirements are met. Units can choose to 

opt in for one or both pollutants.BART (CAVR): Sources outside of the CAIR cap and trade program may be subject to installing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to address impacts on visibility. 

*EPA has proposed to include New Jersey and Delaware in the annual SO2 and annual NOx programs, which 

affected by the CAIR annual programs to 25 States and DC.
CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule) SO

2 Prog

Applicability: Covers new and existing fossil fuel-fired electricity ge

turbines, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants with a genameplate capacity > 25 MW, in 23 States and DC. 

•

Exempts cogeneration units that sell less than 1/3 of their po

capacity.

Caps and Timing: Annual SO

2 emissions for affected units are cap

starting in 2010 and 2.5 million tons starting in 2015. 

Allowance Allocations: Retains existing Title IV allowance allocat

achieved by changing the retirement ratio at which sources in CAIR Title IV allowances –

2 allowances for each ton of SO

2 for the years 

2.86 allowances for every ton of SO

2 for the years 2015 and beyond

Interaction with Title IV Bank: Banked pre-2010 Title IV SO

2 allow

used at a 1:1 ratio.
CAIR NOx Program

Applicability: Covers new and existing fossil fuel-fired electricity ge

turbines, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants with a genameplate capacity > 25 MW. The annual program covers 23 State

ozone season program covers 25 States and DC.

• Exempts cogeneration units that sell less than 1/3 of their poten

Caps and Timing: CAIR has two trading programs for NOx:

• Annual: 1.5 million tons in 2009; 1.3 million tons in 2015.• Ozone Season: 0.6 million tons in 2009; 0.5 million tons in 2

Allowance Allocations: States can choose how to allocate allowa

an example allocation approach that relies on historic heat input, adfor existing units. For new units, allowances are allocated from a ne

(5% from 2010-2014; 3% in 2015 and thereafter) until a baseline (ba

is established. 

NOx Compliance Supplement Pool: Makes an additional 200,00

NOx allowances available to States, to be used to provide credit for reductions, or to provide assistance with compliance.

• Reductions under Federal or State regulations, or those att

do not qualify as early reductions. 

*Includes portion of compliance supplement pool designated for New Jersey and Delaware, equal to about 1,
CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule) Mercury P

Applicability: Covers new and existing coal-fired electricity genera

integrated gasification combined cycle plants with a generator havin25 MW, in 50 States and DC. 

• Exempts cogeneration units that sell less than 1/3 of their po

capacity.

Caps and Timing: Annual mercury emissions for affected units are 

starting in 2010 and 15 tons starting in 2018.Allowance Allocations: States can choose how to allocate allowaEPA provides an example allocation approach that relies on historic coal type. For new units, allowances are allocated from a new sour

2010-2014; 3% in 2015 and thereafter) until a baseline (based on geestablished. New Source Performance Standards: New coal-fired power units January 30, 2004 will have to meet new source performance standa

subject to the caps.
CAVR (Clean Air Visibility Rule)

Applicability: Major sources in 26 categories emitting more than 2

impair visibility annually, and were built between 1962 and 1977.Requirements: Amends 1999 Regional Haze Rule to provide BARdetermining if a source is “reasonably anticipated to cause or contribtherefore subject to BART. States must determine which facilities mand submit State Implementation Plans (SIP) by December 2007. 

• BART presumptive requirements for units > 200 MW at plan

– S

O2: 95% control or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu.

– N

Ox: In NOx SIP Call area, extend use of controls to year-roun

area, use of selective catalytic reduction (SC

R) or selective non

or 0.2 –

0.45 lbs/MMBtu, depending on coal and boiler type.

Timing: Compliance with BART must be achieved within 5 years o

controls are likely to be installed by late 2013 or early 2014.Interaction with CAIR: EPA determined that CAIR is “better than CAIR region. States that adopt the CAIR cap and trade programs f

substitute CAIR controls for contr

ols that would be required under B
Caps and Timing for the Electric Power SeCAIR/CAMR/CAVR

2004: The NO

x SIP Call (sum

mertime NO

x

cap in 19 Eastern States + D.C.)

2004

2009: CAIR NOx Annual Phase I (1.5 million

ton ann

u

al cap with trading program in 23 

States + D

C)

2008

2010: CAMR Hcap with a na

2012

2016

2020

2010: CAIR SO

annual cap w+ DC) 2015: CAIR NO

x

Annual Phase II (1.3 

million ton annual cap assign

ed with 

trading program in 23 States + DC)

2018: CAMR Hwith a n

ationa

2015: CAIR S

annual cap w+ DC)

2009: CAIR NOx 

O

zone Season Phase I (0.6 

million ton annual cap with trading program in 25 States + DC)

2013/2014: In

2015: CAIR NO

x

O

zone Season Phase II 

(0.5 million ton annual cap with tradingprogram in 25 States + DC)
Section #3

Air Quality Improveme
Nonattainment under the Clean Air Act

• Section 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to designate areas as attai

n

uncl

assifi

a

ble withi

n 2 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

• Section 171 requires that within 3 year

s of designation, areas designated nonattainmen

Implementation Plan (SIP) containing measures sufficient to provide for attai

nment of t

• Attainment deadlines are defined by the statute and are triggered by effective date of d• In 1997, new NAAQS were established for both ozone and fine particles. Because of c

for designations, SIP submittal, and attainment was delay

ed.

• The current schedule for attainm

ent is as follows:

Pollutant

Effectiv

e Date of

D

esignations

SIP Submitt

al 

Deadline

Attainm

Ozone June 15, 200

4 June 15, 200

7 Subpart 1 areas: 2009 (m

a

ximu

Subpart 2 areas: 

Marginal 200

7

Moderate 201

0

Serious 2013Sev

ere (15)

2019

Severe (17) 2021Extr

e

m

e 202

4 (no 

areas i

PM2.5 April 5, 200

5

A

pril 5, 200

8

All areas: 2010 (m

a

ximu

m possib

• The CAA requires that States reach attainment by these deadlines. The analyses con

only the impact of regional and national measures on air quality

and attain

ment status

necessary for States to adopt additional l

ocal controls to meet the NAAQS.

*Under Subp

art 1 areas may request 2 one-year e

xtensions.
Number of Areas1 Projected to Meet or Exand 8-Hour Ozone Standards with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR and Some Current Rules2 Absent Additional Local Controls

PM2.5

Designated

Nonattainment Areas

(Based on 2001- 2003 Ambient Data)

2010 with 

CAIR

# of Nonattainment Areas 39 21 # of Areas Projected to Come into Attainment 18 

# of Areas Projected to Come into Attainment 104 # of Nonattainment Areas 126 22 

2010 with 

CAIR

Designated

Nonattainment Areas

(Based on 2001- 2003 Ambient Data)

8-Hour Ozone3

1 This table provides information on nonattainment areas. For information on nonattainment counties, see pa2 Current rules in place by the time IPM was updated in 2004. These include Title IV, the NOx SIP Call and a 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/section3powsysop.pdf for more details.

3 Ozone in the West was not modeled as part of this analysis. Future year ozone nonattainment in the West 

for the Nonroad Engine Rule. 
129 Areas Currently Designated as NonatPM2.5 and/or 8-Hour Ozone

Legend

Both P

M and Ozon

e Nonattainme

nt

PM O

nly Nonattainment

Ozone Only Nonattainme

nt

Are

a Count

36

3

90

Nonattainme

nt

Ozone Only Nonattainme

nt

Are

a Count

36

3

90

Legend

Both P

M and Ozon

e Nonattainme

nt

PM O

nly Nonattainment

Ozone Only Nonattainme

nt

Are

a Count

36

3

90

Legend

Both P

M and Ozon

e Nonattainme

nt

PM O

nly Nonattainment

Ozone Only Nonattainme

nt

Are

a Count

36

3

90

Nonattainme

nt

Ozone Only Nonattainme

nt

Are

a Count

36

3

90

F

or further inform

ation on 

http://www.

e

pa.

g

o

v/air/

o

a

http://www.

e

pa.

g

o

v/pm

d

e
92 Areas Projected to Meet the PM2.5 and 

Standards in 2010

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**Areas forecast to additional local or dates set pursuant re

gional measures 

overstat

es the exte

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.

Ar

e

a Count

6

1516

92

Legend

Both PM and O

zone Nonattainm

e

nt

PM Only Nonattainm

e

nt

Ozon

e Only Nonattainm

e

nt

N

o

n

attain

m

e

nt areas projecte

d t

o

attain
104 Areas Projected to Meet the PM2.5 and 

Standards in 2015 

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**Areas forecast to additional local or dates set pursuant re

gional measures 

overstat

es the exte

Ar

e

a Count

3

14

8

104

Legend

Both PM and O

zone Nonattainm

e

nt

PM Only Nonattainm

e

nt

Ozon

e Only Nonattainm

e

nt

N

o

n

attain

m

e

nt areas projecte

d t

o

attain

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.
106 Areas Projected to Meet the PM2.5 and 

Standards in 2020 

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**Areas forecast to additional local or dates set pursuant re

gional measures 

overstat

es the exte

Ar

e

a Count

3

13

7

106

Legend

Both PM and O

zone Nonattainm

e

nt

PM Only Nonattainm

e

nt

Ozon

e Only Nonattainm

e

nt

N

o

n

attain

m

e

nt areas projecte

d t

o

attain

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.
Areas Projected to Exceed the PM2.5 and 8

Standards in 2010-2020 

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**F

or a more detailed listing of projected nonattainment areas and PM/Ozone concentrations, see accompanyi

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.

The following areas are projected to be in nonattainment:**• 2010

• PM: Atlanta, 

G

A, Bir

mingham, AL, Charleston, W

V, Chattanooga, TN-GA, Chica

g

o-Gary-

KY-IN, Cle

v

eland-Akron-Lorain, O

H, Columbus, O

H, D

etroit-Ann Arbor, MI, Flo

y

d County, 

Indianapolis, I

N, Knoxville, TN, Libby, MT, Los Angeles-South Coast Air B

asin, CA, Louis

v

Clairton, PA, San Joaquin Valley, CA, St. Louis, MO-IL, Steubenvill

e-Weirton, OH-W

V

• Ozone: Atlanta, GA, Baltimore, MD, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, N

Y, Chicago-Gary-Lake Coun

F

ort Worth, TX, Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI, Houston-Galveston-Braz

oria, T

X, Kent and Queen 

Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA, Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (

W Mojave), C

Jerse

y-Long Island, 

N

Y-NJC

T, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-M

D-D

E, Pro

Sacra

mento Metro, CA, San Joaquin Valle

y, C

A, Sheboygan, WI, Ventura County, C

A, W

• 2015

• PM: Atlanta, G

A, Bir

mingham, AL, Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN, CincinnatiH

amilton

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH, DetroitAnn Arbor, MI, Floyd County, GA, Huntington-Ashlan

Libby, MT, Los Angeles-S

outh Coast Air

B

asin, C

A, Louisville, KY-IN, Pittsburg-LibertyCl

MO-IL, Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 

• Ozone: Baltimore, MD, Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN, Houston-Galv

eston-Brazoria, T

Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (W Mojave), CA, MilwaukeeR

acine, WI, N

e

w York

Philadelphia-Wilmin

gton-Atlantic City, PANJ-MD-DE, Riverside County, CA, San Joaquin 

• 2020

• PM: Atlanta, G

A, Bir

mingham, AL, Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN, CincinnatiH

amilton

D

etroitAnn Arbor, MI, Floyd County, GA, Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH, Indianapolis, I

S

outh Coast Air B

asin, CA, Pittsburg-Liberty-Clairton, PA, 

San Joaquin 

V

alley, CA, St. Lo

• Ozone: Baltimore, MD, Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN, Houston-Galv

eston-Brazoria, T

Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (W Mojave), CA, MilwaukeeR

acine, WI, N

e

w York

Philadelphia-Wilmin

gton-Atlantic City, PANJ-MD-DE, San Joaquin Valley, CA, Ventura C
Section #4

Health and Environmental B
Annual Human Health Benefits of Reducin

under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

• Reductions in fine particles (PM2.5) and ozone under CAI

R/CAMR/CAVR im

reducing the incidence of various respiratory and cardiovascular health effe

various health effects estimated to be avoided each year under CAI

R/CAM

table bel

ow. 

Health Effect Avoided

2010 

Estimated 

Reduction 

(Incidence)

2015 

Estimate

Reductio

(Incidence

Premature mortality* 13,000 18,000 Chronic bronchitis 6,900 9,000 Non-fatal heart attacks 17,000 23,000 Hospital admissions/ER visits 19,000 27,000 

Acute bronchitis 16,000 20,000 

Lower respiratory symptoms 190,000

240,000 

Upper respiratory symptoms 140,000 190,000 

Asthma exacerbations

240,000 300,000 

Minor restricted activity days 8,300,000 11,000,00Work loss days 1,300,000 1,700,000 School absence days 180,000

550,000 

*These estimates include preliminary estimates of premature mortality associated with exposure to ozone of 190, 560, and 500 for 20currently in the process of exa

mining a variety of ozone quantification 

methods that would convey the uncertainty associated with the

note that in the recent C

AIR Regulatory Impact Analysis, the range of uncertainty reflecting the statistical error in the underlying epide

percentile is roughly a factor of four. 
Annual Monetary Health Benefits of Reduc

Ozone under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

• The improvements in health that would be achieved each year under CA

result in substantial monetary benefits. 

• The projected annual quantified health benefits of CAI

R/CAMR/CAVR wo

• $62 to 73 billion in 2010• $91 to 106 billion in 2015• $120 to 140 billion in 2020

• The monetized benefits estimated for C

AIR/C

A

MR/CAVR are from reduc

particle concentrati

ons resulting from l

ower SO2 and NOx emissions. EP

benefits from the Hg or CO2 reductions that also occur.

• Fine particle concentration reductions provide the vast majority of the mo

analysis that has been done of SO2 and NOx reductions, it is clear that ea

occurs to lower fine particle emissions provides more benefits than the N

lower fine particles in the same area. Therefore, we believe that the tota

of SO2 reduction are significantly higher than a ton of NOx reduction.

*All dollar values in this an

alysis are recorded in $19

9

9. The range in benefits estimates reflects the use of a 

are other elements of uncertainty as described on pages 8 and 25. In recent RIAs, the uncertainty analysis hwhich the 95th percentile is nearly twice the mean and the 

5th percentile is appro

ximately one-fourth the mea

percentile for the total benefits represents appro

ximately one order of magnitude. Notably, because any of th

pollutant analyses, the o

verlapping of th

e uncertainty ranges between benefits estimates does not infer there 
Additional Unquantified Benefits under CA

•

Additional health, environmental benefits, and changes in risk t

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR have not been quantified here. These wou

– Improvements in visibility in national parks and recreationa– Improvements in visibility in residential areas–

Decreases in sulfur deposition (resulting in reduced acidific

and damage to forest ecosystems and soils)

–

Decreases in nitrogen deposition (resulting in reduced acid

waters, damage to forest ecosystems and soils, and coasta

–

Exposure to mer

cury through eating fish containing mercur

–

Decreases in ozone-related damage to agricultur

e
Section #5

Pollution Control Addition

Impacts on the Power Secto

and Electricity Price
Projected Emissions from Electric Genera

CO2 Emissions 

CA

0

400800

120016002000240028003200

2000 2005 

Million Short Tons CO2

Projected Referenc

Hg Emissions 

CA

05

10152025303540455055

2000 2005 

Tons

Projected Hg EmissHg CapReference 

SO2 Emissions from Electric Generators with 

CAIR/CA

M

R/CA

V

R

02468

1012

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Million Tons

Projected SO Emissions from the Power SectorProjected SO Emissions at Units > 25 M

W

CAIR SO CapSO Emissions at Units > 25 M

W in CAIR States

Reference Case SO Emissions from the Power Sector

2

2

2

2

2

Annual N

Ox Emissions fro

m Electric Generators with

CAIR/C

A

M

R/CA

V

R

0123456

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Million Tons

Projected NOx Emissions from the Power Sector Projected NOx Emissions at Units > 25 MW CAIR NOx Cap NOx Emissions at Units > 25 MW in CAIR StatesReference Case NOx Emissions from the Power Sector

Note: 

The C

AIR regional S

O2 caps are 3.6

million tons in 2010 and 2.5 million tons in 2015, and the annual regional N

Ox caps are 1.5 

Reference case is based on baseline, as described on page 5.
$2.7

$4.4

$-

$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9

$10

2010 2015 

Billion ($ 1999)

Projected Annual Costs of CAIR/CAMR/CA

• The net present value of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is $47.8 billion*.• The present value of the capital investment in pollution controls 

for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is estimated to be approximately $19.8 billion*.

• The present value of the capital investment in pollution controls 

and new capacity for power production for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is estimated to be approximately $23.0 billion*.

*Present value calculations are incremental to the baseline for the years 2007-2025 and are recorded in 

is between 5% and 7%.
Projected Allowance Prices under CAIR/CA

Projected Allowance Price of SO2, 2010-2020 ($1999)

$616

$892

$1,157

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000

2010 2015 2020

$/ton

Projected Allowance 

$1,450

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,600

2010 

$/ounce

Projected Allowance Price of Annual NOx, 2010-2020 ($1999)

$1,206

$1,481

$1,321

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

2010 2015 2020

$/ton
Projected Coal Capacity with Further Emis

• There is currently around 305 GW of coal-fired capacity. That 

number is projected to increase to about 321 GW of coal-fired capacity by 2020 with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR.

• In 2020 with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, 84% of all coal-fired capacity 

is projected to have one or more of the followi

ng i

nstalled: 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx, flue g

as 

desulf

uriz

ation (

scrubber

s) f

or SO2, and/or activated carbon 

injection (ACI)* for mercury. The existing and/or NOx SIP Call 

SCRs will go from seasonal to annual control.

• The graphics show cumul

ative capacity with existing controls, 

controls projected to be retrofitted under the NOx SIP Call, 

NSR settlements, State-enacted programs, CAA Title IV, and controls projected to be retrofitted with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR.

*There are no constraints on the feasibility of ACI for mercury control in IPM and results need to be reviewed with this in mind.

Projected Coal-Fired Capacity with SCR (GW)

111.3 118.7 121.2

22.7

15.2

37.3

37.0

0

50

100150200250

2010 2015 2020

Existing or NOx SIP Call/ State Retrofit New Pulverized Coal and IGCC Capacity Retrofit for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

Projected C

1.9 

0

50

100150200250

2010 

Projected Coal

110.3 

36.0 

0

50

100150200250

2010 

Existing or CAA Title IV/State Retrofit N
Projected Generation Mix (TWh)

• In 2003, coal-fired gene

That number is projecteby 20

2

0 u

nder CAIR/CA

• In 2020 under CAIR/CA

generation is projected or more of the following 

for SO2, and/or ACI for 

• The graphics show per

coal, by control type i

ns

generation.

*“Other” category includes nuclear, hydroelectric

Projected Generation Mix in 2010

Coal with Advanced 

NOx or SO2 Control 

Only

17.3%

Oil/Gas Steam and 

Turbines

2.6%

Other

29.0%

Coal without

Advanced 

NOx or SO2 Control

17.8

%

Coal with ACI

0.4%

Combined Cycle Gas

16.8%

Coal with Advanced 

NOx and SO2 Control

16.1%

Projected 

Coal with Advanced

NOx or SO2 Control 

Only

14.2%

Other

25.1%

Coal with Advanced

NOx and SO2 Control

24.2%

Projected Generation Mix in 2015

Oil/Gas Steam and 

Turbines

1.9%

Other

27.4%

Coal without 

Advanced

NOx or SO2 Control

11.4%

Coal with ACI

0.4%

Combined Cycle Gas

21.9%

Coal with Advanced 

NOx and SO2 Control

21.1%

Coal with Advanced 

NOx or SO2 Control 

Only

15.9%

*

* *
Average Emission Rates 

Avera

ge Emission Rates in lbs/MMBtu under CAIR/

All Fossil Generation Pulv

SO2 

CAIR

SO2 

NonCAIR NOx CAIR NOx Non- CAIR SO2 CAIR SO2 Non- CAIR 

2010 0.50 0.29

0.36 0.220.28 0.19

0.14 0.24 0.59 0.45 

2015 0.11 0.18 0.46 

0.36 

0.360.34

2020 0.10 0.16 

Note: For the

e

mission rates presented here, States categorized here as part of C

AIR are the States 

require

ments and do not include New Jerse

y and Delaw

are or other ozone-season only States.
Projected Total Generation Mix

Projected Generation Mix in 2010, 2015, and 202

CAIR/CA

MR/CAVR

2,1

9

4 

81

2 1,0

7

2

79

9

811

29

0

29

4

2,1

6

0

56

61

71

67

0

1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

TWh

Coal Oil/N

atural Gas

N

u

clear Hydr

o 

2010 2015 
Impact on Electricity Prices and Fuel Price

Projected Retail Electricity Prices ($1999)

6.1

6.6

6.0

6.3

6.5 6.5 6.6

6.3

23456789

2000 2010 2015 2020

cents/KWh

CAIR/

CAMR/CAVR Baseline

Average Delivered Coal 

3.25 

1.05 

3.20 

1.05 

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

2010 

$/MMBtu

CAIR/CAMR/

C

AVR - Na

Baseline - Natural Gas 
Coal Production for Electricity Generation Projected) with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

131 

475

526

589 568 568

131 

475

526

589 568 568

131 

475

526

589 568 568

West

Interior

Coal Pro

d

uction f

or the Pow

er Sector

Notes: Coal pro

ducti

on proj

ections are EP

EIA.

2000 Actual

2003 Actual

2010 CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

2015 CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

2020 CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

Coal Production f

or P

ower

G

e

n

eratio

n in 1990, 2000, and 2003 a

n

d

Project

e

d with CAIR/CAM

R/CAV

R i

n 2010, 2015, and 2020

875 905 936

1,061 1,071 1,123

0

20

0

40

0

60

0

80

0

10001200

1990 2000 2003 201

0 2015 2020

Million Tons
Units Repowering or Uneconomic to MainCAIR/CAMR/CAVR

• “Repowering”

converts coal units to com

bined cycle natural gas (CC) or IG

combined cycle natural gas.

• The IPM model determines if generating units are uneconomic based on th

units and new capacity to meet electric demand, and whether they are nee(reliability) requirements.

• In practice, units projected as uneconomic to maintain may be “mothballed

fuel prices, actually retired, or kept in service to ensure transmission reliabgrid. Our modeling is unable to distinguish between these potential outcom

• The uneconomic coal units would be highly unlikely to retire if not for the re

cycle capacity in many areas.

Capacity Re-Powering or Uneconomi

Maintain Due to CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

G

C

oal RePowering

0

Uneconomic Pulverized Coal 4Oil/Gas Re-Powering to CC 0Uneconomic Oil/Gas Steam -0

*Negative value indicates less uneconomic oil/gas steam than 

without CAIR/CAMR/C

AVR. Some plants that w

baseline (reference case) n

ow are economic

ally viable.
Section #6

Additional Analyses of Key P

and Modeling Assumpt
Effects of Assumptions for Natural Gas PrElectricity Growth

Projected Annual Costs of CAIR/CA

MR/C

A

V

R

$2.7

$6.1

$4.4

$6.4

$5.1

$3.1

$-

$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9

$10

2010 2015 2020

Billion ($ 1999)

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EPA's assumptions CAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EIA's assumptions for Growth and Gas

• The net present value of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is $47.8 

billion* under EPA’s assumptions and $51.2 billion* under EIA’s assumptions.

• The present value of the capital investment in pollution 

controls and new capacity for power production forCAIR/CAMR/CAVR is estimated to be approximately$23.0 billion* under EPA’s assumptions and $24.4 billion* under EIA’s assumptions.

• Proje

cted annual c

o

sts 

with EIA’s natural gas aAssumpti

o

ns lead to bu

cap

acity that lea

ds to l

o

• Coal-fired generation in

that is b

uilt to meet the 

• Natural gas prices are 9

assumptions, dependingrowth is about 1.55% under EIA assumptions

*Present value calculations are incremental to t

Projected Generation Mix in 2010, 2015, and 2020 Using EPA and EI

A

Assumptions for Growth and Gas

2,160 2,214 2,194 2,607 2,358 3,014

812 928 1,072

896 1,272

905 799 799 811

811 809

809

290 292 294

294 292

294 62 61 62

61

56 59

54

54 67

67 71 71

0

1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

using EPA's

assumptions

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

using EIA's

assumptions for

Growth and Gas

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

using EPA's

assumptions

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

using EIA's

assumptions for

Growth and Gas

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

using EPA's

assumptions

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

using EIA's

assumptions for

Growth and Gas

2010 2015 2020

TWh

Coal Oil/Natural Gas Nuclear Hydro Rene

wables Other

Henry Hub Natural G

3.25 

3.55

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

2010 

$/MMBtu ($ 1999)

Natural Gas uNatural Gas u
Effects of Assumptions for Natural Gas PrElectricity Growth on Allowance Prices

Projected Allowance Price of S

O2, 2010-2020 ($1999)

$1,322$1,157

$892

$616

$1,019

$786

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,500

2010 2015 2020

$/ton

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EPA assumptions CAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EIA's assumptions for Growth and Gas

Projected Allowance 

$1,450

$1,701

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,6002,8003,0003,200

2010 

$/ounce

CAIR/CAMR/CCAIR/CAMR/C

Projected Allowance Price of Annual NOx, 2010-2020 ($1999)

$1,206

$1,481 $1,321

$1,837

$1,660

$1,167

0

500

1,0001,5002,000

2010 2015 2020

$/ton

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EPA's assumptionsCAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EIA's assumptions for Growth and Gas
Effects of Demand Response

Projected Annual Costs of CAIR/CA

MR/C

A

V

R

$2.7

$6.1

$4.4

$5.3

$3.9

$2.3

$-

$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9

$10

2010 2015 2020

Billion ($ 1999)

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/o Demand Response Sensitivity CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/ Demand Response Sensitivity

• The net present value of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is

$47.8 billion* without Demand Response Sensitivity and $40.9 billion* with Demand Response Sensitivity.

• The present value of the capital investment in

pollution controls and new capacity for powerproduction for CAIR/CAVR/CAMR is estimated to be approximately $23.0 billion* without Demand Response Sensitivity and $19.5 billion* with Demand Response Sensitivity.

• EPA performed sensiti

v

prices on energy consuDemand response is chconsumption of a good This relationshi

p w

as d

sector model as a sens

• Projected a

n

n

u

al costs 

with Demand R

esponse 

reduced energy use an

• Both coal and gas-fired 

because of reduced de

*Present value calculations are incremental to t

Projected Total Po

wer Generation Costs with CAIR/CA

MR/CAVR

$88.2

$115.4

$100.4

$114.6

$99.9

$87.8

$-

$25$50$75

$100$125

2010 2015 2020

Billion ($ 1999)

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/o Demand Response Sensitivity CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/ Demand Response Sensitivity

Projected Generation Mix 

Demand 

2,160 2,149 

812 807 

799 799

290 290 

56 56

71 71

0

1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

w/o Demand

Response

Sensitivity

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR

w/ Demand

Response

Sensitivity

2010 

TWh

Coal Oil/Natural Gas 
Effects of Demand Response on Allowanc

Projected Allowance Price of SO2, 2010-2020 ($1999)

$1,147

$616

$892

$1,157

$682 $884

0

500

1,0001,5002,0002,500

2010 2015 2020

$/ton

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/o Demand Response SensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/ Demand Response Sensitivity

Projected Allowanc

$1,450

$1,446

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,600

2010 

$/ounce

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/o Deman

Projected Allo

wance Price of Annual NOx, 2010-2020 ($1999)

$1,481 $1,321

$1,206

$1,305

$1,500

$1,210

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000

2010 2015 2020

$/ton

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/o Demand Response SensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/ Demand Response Sensitivity
Feasibility of Installing Equipment NecessFirst Phase Compliance Deadlines of CAI

• While EPA believes there are constraints to the amount of emission control e

that can be built by 2010, the reductions required under CAI

R/CAMR/CAVR 

controls and new generation/repowering that are feasible and within the cons

requirements of CAI

R/CAMR/CAVR were designed to take into account this 

• 2010 costs, gas prices, and electricity prices are unaffected by the feasibility • EPA’s analysis assumed constraints on installation of SCR and scrubbers. T

constraints on ACI, new combined cycle gas required to meet requirements o

• EPA believes that the reductions required under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR do not a

install the necessary controls by 2010 due to project management, engineeri

associated with the 2010 constraint.

2010 Ne

w Combined Cycl

and Coal Repo

1.5 1.6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Combined Cycle Gas 

GW

Baseline 

2010 Projected Incremental Coal-fired Capacity with SCR, Scrubbers, 

and A

CI (GW)

36.0 1.9

15.2

0

50

100150200250

SCR Scrubbers ACI

*“Renewables” include wind, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas.
Section #7

Appendix and Notes
Supplemental Materials –

State Emissio

Electricity Prices with CAIR/CAMR/CAV

State Projections for CAIR/CA

MR/CAVR

Fossil-Fuel Fired Power Generation E

missions with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR1 

Hg (tons)2 

SO2 NOx 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020 

Alabama STV 458.6 155.1 303.9 260.2 217.5 29.0 22.6 22.7 65.5 49.1 50.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 

Arizona RM 69.4 82.6 60.2 60.3 41.5 35.3 29.1 29.5 79.9 65.8 66.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 Arkansas STV 73.0 41.7 82.4 22.8 22.8 14.4 14.2 14.4 31.7 31.9 32.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 California CALI 0.2 9.6 5.1 5.1 5.1 8.6 9.8 10.8 19.9 22.0 24.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Colorado RM 73.1 71.9 91.8 57.5 57.5 30.1 26.4 27.0 68.4 60.4 61.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 Connecticut NE 8.1 4.9 3.9 3.9 5.6 3.2 2.9 2.6 7.2 6.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delaware MAAC 37.4 10.3 42.6 27.6 27.6 3.6 4.2 4.1 8.5 9.5 9.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 District of Columbia* MAAC 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Florida FRCC 475.3 252.6 199.3 167.2 154.2 32.9 29.1 26.8 68.7 61.4 57.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 

Georgia STV 540.7 104.4 433.4 240.8 157.1 47.4 30.5 31.5 105.6 66.8 66.1 1.7 1.3 1.1 

Idaho PNW 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Illinois MAIN 365.3 145.9 242.9 245.3 241.8 29.1 29.2 30.1 66.2 65.3 66.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 

Indiana ECAR 804.8 261.5 453.6 376.7 341.0 53.4 34.8 33.1 123.9 81.8 77.4 1.7 1.3 1.1 

Iowa MAPP 131.8 76.4 153.0 163.5 165.3 20.1 21.7 23.1 49.3 51.7 53.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 

Kansas SPP 141.0 94.1 80.1 58.5 58.5 40.0 17.8 18.1 90.2 39.8 40.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 

Kentucky ECAR 529.7 185.4 370.9 264.1 224.5 43.4 33.0 28.7 101.9 76.8 66.1 1.0 0.6 0.5 

Louisiana STV 104.9 68.7 62.0 62.0 62.0 15.9 14.6 14.5 34.8 32.5 32.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 

Maine NE 4.8 1.9 5.3 5.3 6.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maryland MAAC 269.0 68.4 57.4 42.8 26.5 6.5 6.1 6.8 13.8 12.8 14.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Massachusetts NE 85.6 24.4 17.1 17.4 20.8 8.4 8.3 8.3 19.0 19.1 19.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Michigan ECAR 350.8 118.8 389.9 393.0 392.2 37.6 39.0 39.9 91.1 92.4 95.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 

Minnesota MAPP 111.5 89.6 84.3 84.7 85.8 16.5 17.5 17.9 38.9 40.1 40.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 

Mississippi STV 80.8 46.6 85.6 85.6 29.8 13.9 3.9 4.3 30.7 7.9 8.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 Missouri3 MAIN 257.0 144.8 264.3 266.4 244.9 29.5 30.5 32.1 68.4 69.9 72.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 

Montana RM 20.4 36.9 22.5 22.5 25.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 38.4 38.4 38.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Nebraska MAPP 67.7 49.6 72.3 36.8 36.8 21.9 19.0 19.1 49.3 42.8 42.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 Nevada RM 51.5 42.1 29.1 27.4 27.4 18.3 13.7 13.4 43.9 30.6 30.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 New Hampshire NE 54.7 8.9 7.2 7.4 10.8 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.8 2.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 

New Jersey MAAC 50.7 23.5 47.6 32.5 32.5 5.6 6.1 6.3 12.4 13.2 13.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 New Mexico RM 50.8 77.2 52.9 52.9 52.9 32.7 31.8 32.0 73.5 71.5 71.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 New York NY 253.8 65.7 99.0 48.8 49.9 16.9 10.4 10.2 38.5 23.4 23.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 

North Carolina STV 462.0 132.7 261.5 124.6 89.0 25.6 22.3 24.1 61.1 50.8 54.6 1.3 0.9 0.8 

North Dakota MAPP 139.8 75.3 109.3 85.0 84.4 29.4 17.6 17.7 66.7 39.8 39.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 

Ohio ECAR 1,175.9 355.2 357.1 271.7 224.8 39.9 39.9 39.1 94.5 93.3 90.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 

Oklahoma SPP 109.8 86.5 117.6 46.7 44.6 36.5 27.8 27.9 78.4 57.9 58.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 

Oregon PNW 13.1 10.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.8 4.7 4.7 13.2 10.6 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pennsylvania4 MAAC 967.2 174.3 247.1 141.4 119.1 37.9 32.2 32.5 88.9 74.3 74.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 

Rhode Island NE 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Carolina STV 204.0 77.4 145.1 105.4 90.8 15.9 15.3 17.1 37.6 36.4 39.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 

South Dakota MAPP 12.3 16.0 12.1 4.1 4.2 6.4 0.8 0.8 14.5 1.7 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 Tennessee STV 337.8 133.7 215.8 191.5 93.3 15.9 12.0 12.2 37.3 27.3 27.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 

Texas ERCOT 577.7 211.1 400.5 373.0 258.0 85.5 81.1 80.4 167.8 157.8 156.4 3.2 3.2 2.6 

Utah RM 34.6 69.6 53.1 53.1 37.6 26.9 23.6 23.6 60.8 53.4 53.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Vermont NE 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Virginia STV 215.7 69.3 141.7 94.6 68.7 18.5 17.0 17.7 43.9 40.0 41.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 

Washington PNW 8.3 20.7 11.1 11.1 12.2 11.5 6.6 6.8 26.0 15.0 15.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

West Virginia ECAR 539.9 203.1 204.2 111.0 103.0 25.8 17.4 17.7 61.7 39.5 40.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 

Wisconsin MAIN 192.8 82.0 160.0 150.6 153.5 22.5 17.6 18.7 53.5 40.8 43.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 

Wyoming RM 81.2 83.4 73.3 74.2 59.7 35.9 23.5 23.5 81.2 53.1 53.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 Nationwide 10,595.1 4,165.0 6,339.3 4,987.2 4,277.5 1,073.6 885.3 892.0 2,432.5 1,981.8 1,988.7 32.1 28.7 25.5 

Notes:

1 Includes all fossil-fuel fired sources.2 The mercury emissions here do not include those of Municipal Solid Waste or Geothermal power generation.3 Missouri is located in two IPM Regions, MAIN and SPP. Since the majority share of Missouri's power generation occurs in the MAIN region, electricity price impacts are taken from MAIN data.4 Pennsylvania is located in two IPM Regions, MAAC and ECAR. Since the majority share of Pennsylvania's power generation occurs in the MAAC region, electricity prices impacts are taken from MAAC data.

* District of Columbia emissions are less that 1,000 tons.** mill = one-tenth of a cent

2003 Power 

Sector E

missions

(thousand tons)

IPM

Region

CAIR/CAMR/CAVR 

SO2 (thousand tons) Annual NOx (thousand tons) Ozone Season NOx 

(thousand tons)
Number of Counties Projected to Meet or Eand 8-Hour Ozone Standards with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e C

urrent Rul

e

s1 Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

PM2.5

1999 – 2003 Average 

Design Values 

Exceed NAAQS

2010 with 

CAIR

# of Nonattainment Counties 115 39 # of Counties Projected to come into Attainment 76 

# of Counties Projected to come into Attainment 244 

# of Nonattainment Counties 292 48 

2010 with 

CAIR

1999 – 2003 Average 

Design Values Exceed 

NAAQS

8-Hour Ozone2

*The increase in PM2.5 non

attainment counties fro

m 2015 to 2020 is primarily due to growth in industrial and 

directly emitt

e

d PM2.5.

1 Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules. 2 Ozone in th

e West was not modeled

as part of this analysis. Futur

e year ozone nonattainment in the West i

for the Nonroad Engine Rule. The count of counties currently excee

ding the 

NAAQS in the West is based on 
341 Counties with Average Measured ConExceeding the Annual PM2.5 and 8-Hour O

County Count

6649

226

Leg

end

Both PM and Ozone NonattainmentOzone Only NonattainmentPM Only Nonattainment

*Based on the

a

verage 

of design values for the three periods 199

9-2001, 2000-2002, and 2001-2003; exce

pt for o

based on 199

9-2001 design values.

F

or further inform

ation on designations and related require

ments, se

e

http://www.epa.gov/

air/oaqps/glo/desi

gnations/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/

p

mdesignations/
264 Counties Projected to Meet the PM2.5 

Ozone Standards in 2010 

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**Counties forecasadditional local or dates set pursuant re

gional measures 

overstat

es the exte

Number of Counties

102938

264

Legend

Both PM and Ozone NonattainmentOzone Only NonattainmentPM Only

Nonattainment

Nonattainment counties projected to attain

Number of Counties

102938

264

Legend

Both PM and Ozone NonattainmentOzone Only NonattainmentPM Only

Nonattainment

Nonattainment counties projected to attain

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.
291 Counties Projected to Meet the PM2.5 

Ozone Standards in 2015 

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**Counties forecasadditional local or dates set pursuant re

gional measures 

overstat

es the exte

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.

Number of Counties

8

2418

291

Legend

Both PM and Ozone 

Nonattain

ment

Ozone Only Nonattain

ment

PM Only Nonattain

ment

Nonattain

ment counties projected to attain
293 Counties Projected to Meet the PM2.5 

Ozone Standards in 2020 

with CAIR/C

AMR/CAVR and Som

e

C

urrent Rul

e

s* Ab

s

ent Additional Lo

c

al Control

s

**Counties forecasadditional local or dates set pursuant re

gional measures 

overstat

es the exte

*Current rules include Title IV of C

AA, NOx SIP Call, and some e

xisting State rules.

Number of Counties

7

2714

293

Legend

Both PM and Ozone 

Nonattain

ment

Ozone Only Nonattain

ment

PM Only Nonattain

ment

Nonattain

ment counties projected to attain