Multi-Pollutant Regulatory Analysis:CAIR/CAMR/CAVR(The Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Clean AirMercury Rule, and the Clean Air Visibility Rule)U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air and RadiationOctober 20052Table of ContentsSection #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 Power Sector,Fuels, and Electricity PricesSection #6:Additional Analyses ofKey Provisions and Modeling AssumptionsSection #7:Appendix and Notes3Section #1Multi-Pollutant Background4IntroductionThis technical support package ispart of a comprehensiveU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)analysis of various multi-pollutantproposals. The analysisis based on air quality, health benefits, andpower sector modeling and provides projections for each proposalfor the years 2010, 2015, and 2020.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 Administration’s request,S.485 in 108th)5.Clear Skies Manager’sMark (of S.131 in 109th)6.Clean Air Interstate Rule, Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the CleanAir Visibility RuleThese approaches to reducing emissions from the power sector generallyhave several things in common:•Improvement in human health;•Adoption of a market-based cap and trade program;•Substantial reduction inthe number of PM2.5and ozone nonattainment areas;•Installation of additionalpollution controlson power plants;•Alteration of existing regulations;•Reduction inemissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg).5Methodology for Evaluating Impacts of the Proposals•When analyzing the costs and benefits of a particular legislative or regulatory scenario, EPAcompares the scenariobeinganalyzed to a “baseline”. The costs and benefits are typically presented as incrementalto this baseline (e.g., the annualcost of the program in 2010 isthe additional cost utilities will incur in 2010 beyond thecosts in the 2010 baseline).•Without using a baseline, many costs andbenefits could be quantified only incomparison to current conditions (e.g., theannual cost of the program in2010 would be the projected cost in2010 compared to the costs they incur currently).Comparingcosts to current conditions would combine the compliance costs of the scenario being analyzed with increasedcosts due to growth inelectricity demand or changes in other circumstances. The baseline helps toaccount for suchvariables, providing another method for comparing various alternatives. The baseline isnot intendedto bea projectionofwhat will happen in the absence of new legislation or to serve as a projectionof futureimplementation of the Clean Air Act.•The projected costs and benefits of different scenarios can be compared to eachother whenall scenarios are analyzedusing the same baseline.•For the economic modeling ofthe utility industry, the baseline includes Title IV, the NOxSIP Call, New Source Review(NSR) settlements, and State-specific rules,regulations, and/or agreements in Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts,Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin that werefinalized bymid-2004.•For air quality modeling, the baseline alsoincludes the Tier II, Heavy Duty Diesel, and Non-RoadDiesel Rules.•The baseline does not include control programs that have not beenadopted (e.g., yet-tobedeveloped regulations andnecessary local controlsto implementthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)and meetrelevant NAAQSattainmentdeadlines).Short-Term Feasibility Constraint andProvisions not Directly Modeled•In the short-term, modeling of the power sector incorporates a feasibility constraint on the amount of pollution controls thatcan be installed to meet the capsset forth in the proposal. This constraint is largely based upon the short-termshortageofboilermaker labor that iscritical forinstalling SO2and NOxcontrols. Post 2010, there isno feasibility constraint asadditional boilermakers enterthe workforce. EPA has alsoconducted analysis of the proposals if nosuch constraintexists, the results of which can be found in Section #6. While EPA believes that there are significantlimitations regardingthe amount of activated carbon injection (ACI) for mercury control ornew generation* that can by built by 2010, theselimitations have not been factored into the power sector modeling and results need to bereviewedwith this inmind.*Formore discussion,see page 44.6Description of Modeling ToolsThe Integrated Planning Model (IPM)–IPM is an electric generation costmodel that is used for power sector and environmental applications.–IPM finds the least-cost solutiontomeeting electricity demandsubject to environmental, transmission, reserve margin,and other system operating constraints for any specified region and time period.–IPM provides both a broad and detailed analysis of controloptions for major emissions fromthe power sector, such aspower generation adjustments, pollution control actions, air emissions changes (national, regional/state, and local), majorfuel use changes,and economicimpacts(costs,wholesaleelectricityprices,closures,allowance values,etc.).Retail ElectricityPricingModel–The Retail Electricity Pricing Model provides a forecast of average retail electricity prices for 13 regions inthe contiguousU.S.; it considers areas of the country that (1) will have competitivepricing of power generationand (2)are likelytopriceretailpower on a cost-of-service basis.Air QualityModeling (CMAQ and CAMx)–The Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model is a photochemical air quality model thatsimulates the transportand fate of multiplepollutants across large geographicareas. CMAQ was appliedto model the impacts on PM2.5of annualSO2and NOxemissions reductions.–The Comprehensive Air quality Model with extensions (CAMx) simulates the formation and fate of photochemical oxidantsincluding ozone over multiplespatial scales. CAMxisapplied forselectedsummer episodes in theeastern U.S. to modelthe ozone impacts associated with NOxemissions reductions.Benefits Modeling (BENMap)–BENMapestimatesexpected healthimprovementsacrossthe population (avoided premature mortality,hospital visits,heart attacks, asthma attacks, etc.) using results from the air quality modeling.BENMapcan also be usedto calculate themonetary value of those health improvements.7Uncertainty in Projections of Costs and TechnologicalFeasibilityThere are a number of factorsthat can lead to uncertaintyin cost estimates including:•Differences in assumptions about key variablessuch as natural gas prices orelectricitydemand –EPA has addressed this uncertaintyby performing sensitivity analyses on bothnatural gas pricesand electric demand.•Uncertainty about availability, cost,and performance of controltechnologies.•If technology is not available to meet emission constraints (such as the first phaseunit-specific mercury constraints under the Clean Air Planning Act (Carper, S.843),orthe first phase CO2caps ormercury requirements underthe Clean Power Act(Jeffords, S.150)), costs could be significantly higher forthose bills.•If there are technical innovations (including new technologies or improvements inexisting technologies), this could lead to lower costs. Thisisparticularly true in thelonger term.•Unquantified costs of regulation vs. legislation.•State-by-State plan development process under CAIR, CAMR, and CAVR andsource-specific determinations under CAVRresults in additional unquantifiedcosts.These costs are borne by both State regulatorsand interested parties, such as thepower sectorand environmental groups,that participate in this process.•Uncertainty of litigation under regulationcan delay pollution control decision-making,increasing costs in later “rush to compliance”.8Uncertainty in Projections of BenefitsThere are a number of factors that can lead to uncertainty in the benefits estimatedincluding*:•Gaps in scientific knowledge that preventus from quantifying certain types ofbenefits.•Variability in estimated pollution concentrations and response relationships,introduced through differences in studydesign and statistical modeling.•Errors in measurement and projection forimportant variables in analysis such aspopulation growth rates,changes in emissions and pollutant concentrations derivedfrom airquality modeling.In addition, if emission reductionsoccur more slowly than projected, benefitswould be less.•If litigation results in delaying CAIR,CAMR, orCAVR, benefitswould be less.Litigation could result in otherchanges to timing orcontrol levels that would impactbenefits.•If emission controls cannot be installed quickly enough, orif allowance costs exceedprojected prices so that safety valves are triggered, benefits could be less.*For a more complete discussion of uncertaintiesrelated to benefits estimates for fine particles (PM2.5) and Ozone, see“RegulatoryImpact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule”, EPA-452/R-/05-002,March 2005,U.S. EPA9Section #2Provisions of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR10CAIR/CAMR/CAVR –OverviewGeneral:–CAIR and CAMR set an emission reduction requirementfor each affected State.–Implemented under existing EPA authorities under Sections110, 111, 169A, and 169B of theClean Air Act.–Retains the basic framework of Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA).–Retains existing Title IV and NOxSIP Call requirements until new requirements take effect.Allowance System:For CAIR and CAMR, creates EPA administered cap and trade programs for SO2,NOx(annual and seasonal), and Hgthat States can opt tojoin to meet the requirements of the rules. TheCAIR annual programs cover 23 States and DC, the CAIR ozone season NOxprogram covers 25 Statesand DC; and the CAMRmercury program covers 50 States and DC.*CAIRAnnual SO2and NOxStatesnot covered byCAIRCAIROzone SeasonNOxCAIRAnnual SO2and NOxand Ozone seasonNOxOpt-ins (CAIR):Under CAIR, fossil fuel-fired boilers,and turbines thatare not otherwise subject to the newSO2and NOxtrading programs (e.g., that are notselling power to the grid)may opt into these programsif certain requirements aremet.Unitscan choose toopt in for one orboth pollutants.BART (CAVR):Sources outside of the CAIR cap andtrade program may be subject to installing BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) to addressimpacts on visibility.CAIR Coverage*EPAhasproposed to include New Jersey and DelawareintheannualSO2and annualNOxprograms,which wouldincrease the total number of Statesaffected bytheCAIRannualprogramsto25 StatesandDC.11CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule) SO2ProgramApplicability:Coversnewandexistingfossil fuel-fired electricity generating boilers,turbines, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants witha generatorhaving anameplate capacity >25 MW, in 23 States and DC.•Exempts cogeneration units that sell lessthan 1/3 of their potential generatingcapacity.Caps and Timing:Annual SO2emissions foraffected unitsare capped at 3.6 million tonsstarting in 2010 and 2.5 million tons starting in 2015.Allowance Allocations:Retains existing Title IV allowance allocations. Caps areachieved by changing the retirement ratio at which sources in CAIR states mustretireTitle IV allowances –2allowances foreach ton of SO2forthe years 2010 –2014, and2.86 allowances forevery ton of SO2forthe years 2015 and beyond.Interaction with Title IV Bank:Banked pre-2010 Title IV SO2allowances can beused at a 1:1 ratio.12CAIRNOxProgramApplicability:Coversnewandexistingfossil fuel-fired electricity generating boilers,turbines, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants witha generatorhaving anameplate capacity >25 MW.The annual program covers 23States and DC, and theozone season program covers 25 States and DC.•Exempts cogeneration units that sell less than 1/3 of their potential generating capacity.Caps and Timing:CAIRhas two trading programs forNOx:•Annual: 1.5 million tons in2009; 1.3 million tons in 2015.•Ozone Season: 0.6 million tons in2009; 0.5 million tons in 2015.Allowance Allocations: States can choose how to allocate allowances; EPA providesan example allocation approach that relies on historic heat input, adjusted forfuel type,forexisting units. Fornew units, allowances are allocatedfrom a new source set-aside(5% from 2010-2014; 3% in 2015and thereafter)until a baseline (based on generation)is established.NOxCompliance Supplement Pool:Makes an additional 200,000* vintage 2009 annualNOxallowances available to States, to be used to provide credit forearly emissionreductions, orto provideassistance with compliance.•Reductions underFederal orState regulations,orthose attributable to fuel-switching,do not qualify as early reductions.*Includes portionof compliancesupplement pool designatedforNewJerseyand Delaware, equalto about 1,500tons.13CAMR(Clean Air Mercury Rule) Mercury ProgramApplicability:Coversnewandexistingcoal-fired electricity generating boilers andintegrated gasification combined cycle plants with a generatorhaving a nameplate capacity >25 MW, in 50 States and DC.•Exempts cogeneration units that sell lessthan 1/3 of their potential generatingcapacity.Caps and Timing:Annual mercury emissions foraffected units are capped at 38 tonsstarting in 2010 and 15tons starting in 2018.Allowance Allocations:States can choose how to allocateallowances. Forexisting units,EPA provides an example allocation approach thatrelies on historic heat input, adjusted forcoal type. Fornew units, allowances are allocated from a newsource set-aside (5% from2010-2014; 3% in 2015 and thereafter)until a baseline (based on generation) isestablished.New Source Performance Standards:New coal-fired power units constructed afterJanuary 30, 2004 will have tomeet new source performancestandards in addition to beingsubject to the caps.14CAVR (Clean Air Visibility Rule)Applicability:Majorsources in 26 categories emitting more than 250 tons pollutants thatimpair visibility annually, and were built between 1962 and 1977.Requirements:Amends 1999 Regional Haze Rule toprovide BART guidelines fordetermining if a source is “reasonably anticipated to cause orcontribute to haze”andtherefore subject to BART. States mustdeterminewhich facilities must install BARTcontrolsand submit State Implementation Plans (SIP) byDecember 2007.•BART presumptive requirementsforunits >200 MWat plants >750MW:– SO2: 95% control or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu.– NOx: In NOxSIP Call area, extend use of controls to year-round; outside NOxSIP Callarea, use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR),or 0.2 –0.45 lbs/MMBtu, depending on coal and boiler type.Timing:Compliance with BART must be achieved within 5 years of SIPapproval, such thatcontrols are likely to be installed by late 2013 orearly 2014.Interaction with CAIR:EPA determined that CAIR is “betterthan BART”forStates in theCAIR region. States that adopt the CAIR cap and trade programsforSO2and NOxmaysubstitute CAIR controls forcontrols that would be required underBART.15Caps and Timing for the Electric Power Sector underCAIR/CAMR/CAVR2004: The NOxSIP Call(summertime NOxcap in 19 EasternStates + D.C.)20042009: CAIR NOxAnnual Phase I (1.5 millionton annual cap withtrading program in 23States + DC)20082010: CAMR Hg Phase I (38 ton annualcap with a nationaltradingprogram)2012201620202010: CAIR SO2Phase I (3.6 milliontonannual cap with tradingprogram in 23 States+ DC)2015: CAIR NOxAnnual Phase II (1.3million ton annual cap assigned withtrading program in 23 States + DC)2018: CAMR Hg Phase II(15 ton annual capwitha national tradingprogram)2015: CAIR SO2Phase II (2.5 million tonannual cap with tradingprogram in 23 States+ DC)2009: CAIR NOxOzone Season Phase I (0.6million ton annual cap withtrading programin 25 States + DC)2013/2014: Installationof BART controls2015: CAIR NOxOzone Season Phase II(0.5 million ton annual cap withtradingprogram in 25 States + DC)16Section #3Air Quality Improvements17Nonattainment under the Clean Air Act•Section 107(d) of the CAArequires the EPA Administrator to designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, orunclassifiable within2years afterpromulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.•Section 171 requiresthatwithin 3 yearsofdesignation,areasdesignated nonattainmentmust submita StateImplementation Plan (SIP) containing measures sufficient to provide for attainment of the NAAQS.•Attainment deadlinesare defined by the statuteand are triggered by effective date of designations.•In 1997, new NAAQS were established for both ozoneand fine particles. Because ofcourt challenges, the schedulefordesignations,SIP submittal,and attainmentwasdelayed.•The current schedule for attainment is as follows:PollutantEffectiveDateofDesignationsSIP SubmittalDeadlineAttainmentDeadlineOzoneJune 15, 2004June 15, 2007Subpart 1areas:2009(maximumpossibleextension 2014)*Subpart 2areas:Marginal2007Moderate2010Serious 2013Severe (15)2019Severe(17)2021Extreme2024(noareas in thisclassification)PM2.5April5,2005April5,2008Allareas: 2010(maximumpossibleextension2015)*•The CAA requires that States reach attainment by these deadlines.The analyses contained inthis presentationreflectonly the impact of regional and national measures on air qualityand attainment status. In many cases, it may benecessary for States to adopt additional local controls to meet the NAAQS.*UnderSubpart 1 areasmayrequest 2 one-yearextensions.18Number of Areas1Projected to Meet or Exceed the PM2.5and 8-Hour Ozone StandardswithCAIR/CAMR/CAVR and SomeCurrentRules2Absent Additional LocalControlsPM2.5DesignatedNonattainment Areas(Basedon2001-2003 AmbientData)2010 withCAIR2015 withCAIR2020 withCAIR# of Nonattainment Areas39211716# of Areas Projected toCome into Attainment182223116115104# of Areas Projected toCome into Attainment101122126# of Nonattainment Areas2020 withCAIR2015 withCAIR2010 withCAIRDesignatedNonattainment Areas(Basedon2001-2003 AmbientData)8-Hour Ozone31Thistable providesinformation on nonattainment areas.Forinformationon nonattainmentcounties,seepages 47-51.2Current rulesinplacebythe timeIPMwasupdated in2004. Theseinclude Title IV, the NOxSIP Calland anumberof Stateregulations.Seehttp://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/section3powsysop.pdfformoredetails.3Ozone intheWestwasnot modeledaspartofthisanalysis.Future yearozonenonattainment inthe Westisbasedonmodelingthat wasperformedfortheNonroadEngineRule.19129 Areas Currently Designated as Nonattainment forPM2.5and/or 8-Hour OzoneLegendBoth PMand OzoneNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentAreaCount36390NonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentAreaCount36390LegendBoth PMand OzoneNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentAreaCount36390LegendBoth PMand OzoneNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentAreaCount36390NonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentAreaCount36390Forfurtherinformationondesignationsand related requirements,seehttp://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/glo/designations/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2092 Areas Projected to Meet the PM2.5and 8-Hour OzoneStandards in 2010withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Areas forecastto remaininnonattainment mayneedtoadoptadditionallocal orregional controlsto attainthe standardsbydatessetpursuant to theClean AirAct. Theseadditionallocalorregionalmeasuresarenot forecasthere,andthereforethisfigureoverstatesthe extentof expectednonattainment.*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.AreaCount6151692LegendBoth PM andOzoneNonattainmentPM OnlyNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentareas projectedtoattain21104 Areas Projected to Meet the PM2.5and 8-Hour OzoneStandards in 2015withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Areas forecastto remaininnonattainment mayneedtoadoptadditionallocal orregional controlsto attainthe standardsbydatessetpursuant to theClean AirAct. Theseadditionallocalorregionalmeasuresarenot forecasthere,andthereforethisfigureoverstatesthe extentof expectednonattainment.AreaCount3148104LegendBoth PM andOzone NonattainmentPM OnlyNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentareas projectedtoattain*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.22106 Areas Projected to Meet the PM2.5and 8-Hour OzoneStandards in 2020withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Areas forecastto remaininnonattainment mayneedtoadoptadditionallocal orregional controlsto attainthe standardsbydatessetpursuant to theClean AirAct. Theseadditionallocalorregionalmeasuresarenot forecasthere,andthereforethisfigureoverstatesthe extentof expectednonattainment.AreaCount3137106LegendBoth PM andOzoneNonattainmentPM OnlyNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentareas projectedtoattain*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.23Areas Projected to Exceed the PM2.5and 8-Hour OzoneStandards in 2010-2020withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Foramoredetailedlistingof projectednonattainmentareasand PM/Ozoneconcentrations, seeaccompanyingAirQualityTechnical SupportDocument.*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.The following areas are projected to be in nonattainment:**•2010•PM:Atlanta,GA, Birmingham,AL, Charleston, WV, Chattanooga, TN-GA, Chicago-Gary-Lake County,IL-IN, CincinnatiHamilton,OHKY-IN, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,OH, Columbus,OH,Detroit-Ann Arbor,MI, FloydCounty,GA, Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH,Indianapolis,IN, Knoxville,TN,Libby, MT,LosAngeles-South Coast AirBasin, CA,Louisville,KY-IN,Macon,GA,Pittsburg-LibertyClairton, PA, SanJoaquinValley,CA, St. Louis,MO-IL,Steubenville-Weirton,OH-WV•Ozone:Atlanta,GA, Baltimore,MD,Buffalo-NiagaraFalls, NY,Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty, IL-IN,Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,OH, DallasFortWorth, TX, Detroit-AnnArbor,MI, Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX, Kent and Queen Anne'sCounties,MD,KernCounty,CA, LosAngelesSouthCoast AirBasin,CA, LosAngeles-SanBernardinoCounties(WMojave),CA, Milwaukee-Racine, WI, NewYork-NewJersey-LongIsland,NY-NJCT, Philadelphia-Wilmington-AtlanticCity, PA-NJ-MD-DE, Providence(All RI),RI, RiversideCounty, CA,SacramentoMetro,CA,San Joaquin Valley, CA, Sheboygan, WI,Ventura County, CA, Washington, DC-MD-VA•2015•PM:Atlanta, GA,Birmingham, AL,Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty, IL-IN,CincinnatiHamilton,OH-KY-IN, Chicago-Gary-Lake County,IL-IN,Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,OH, DetroitAnnArbor,MI, Floyd County,GA, Huntington-Ashland,WV-KY-OH, Indianapolis, IN, Knoxville,TN,Libby, MT,LosAngeles-SouthCoast AirBasin, CA,Louisville,KY-IN,Pittsburg-LibertyClairton,PA, SanJoaquin Valley, CA, St. Louis,MO-IL, Steubenville-Weirton,OH-WV•Ozone:Baltimore,MD, Chicago-Gary-Lake County,IL-IN,Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX, LosAngelesSouthCoast AirBasin,CA,LosAngeles-SanBernardino Counties(WMojave),CA, MilwaukeeRacine, WI,NewYork-NewJersey-LongIsland, NY-NJ-CT,Philadelphia-Wilmington-AtlanticCity, PANJ-MD-DE, Riverside County, CA, SanJoaquinValley, CA,VenturaCounty, CA•2020•PM:Atlanta, GA,Birmingham, AL,Chicago-Gary-LakeCounty, IL-IN,CincinnatiHamilton,OH-KY-IN, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,OH,DetroitAnn Arbor,MI, FloydCounty,GA, Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH, Indianapolis, IN,Knoxville, TN,Libby, MT,LosAngelesSouth CoastAir Basin, CA, Pittsburg-Liberty-Clairton,PA,SanJoaquinValley, CA, St.Louis,MO-IL, Steubenville-Weirton,OH-WV•Ozone:Baltimore,MD, Chicago-Gary-Lake County,IL-IN,Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX, LosAngelesSouthCoast AirBasin,CA,LosAngeles-SanBernardino Counties(WMojave),CA, MilwaukeeRacine, WI,NewYork-NewJersey-LongIsland, NY-NJ-CT,Philadelphia-Wilmington-AtlanticCity, PANJ-MD-DE, San JoaquinValley, CA,VenturaCounty, CA24Section #4Health and Environmental BenefitsAnnual Human Health Benefits of Reducing PM2.5and Ozoneunder CAIR/CAMR/CAVR•Reductions in fine particles (PM2.5) and ozone under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR improve public health byreducing the incidenceof various respiratory and cardiovascularhealth effects. The number of cases ofvarious health effects estimated tobe avoided each year under CAIR/CAMR/CAVRare presented in thetable below.Health Effect Avoided2010EstimatedReduction(Incidence)2015EstimatedReduction(Incidence)2020EstimatedReduction(Incidence)Premature mortality*13,00018,00022,000Chronic bronchitis6,9009,00011,000Non-fatal heart attacks17,00023,00029,000Hospitaladmissions/ERvisits19,00027,00032,000Acute bronchitis16,00020,00024,000Lower respiratory symptoms 190,000240,000290,000Upper respiratory symptoms140,000190,000220,000Asthma exacerbations240,000300,000360,000Minor restricted activitydays8,300,00011,000,00012,000,000Work loss days1,300,0001,700,0002,000,000School absence days180,000550,000430,00025*These estimatesinclude preliminaryestimates of prematuremortalityassociatedwithexposureto ozoneof190,560,and 500for2010,2015,and 2020,respectively.EPAiscurrentlyinthe process ofexamining avarietyofozonequantificationmethodsthatwouldconveythe uncertaintyassociated withthese potentialadditional benefits.In addition,wenotethatintherecentCAIRRegulatoryImpactAnalysis,therangeofuncertaintyreflecting the statistical errorintheunderlying epidemiologicalfunction betweenthe5thand 95thpercentile is roughlyafactoroffour.26Annual Monetary Health Benefits of Reducing PM2.5andOzone under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR•The improvements in health that would be achieved eachyear under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR wouldresult in substantial monetary benefits.•The projected annual quantified healthbenefits of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR would be:•$62 to 73 billion in 2010•$91 to 106 billion in 2015•$120 to 140billion in 2020•The monetized benefitsestimated for CAIR/CAMR/CAVR are from reductions inozone and fineparticle concentrations resulting fromlower SO2and NOxemissions. EPA isnot estimating thebenefits from the Hg or CO2reductions that also occur.•Fine particle concentration reductions provide the vast majorityof the monetized benefits. From pastanalysis that has been done of SO2and NOxreductions, it is clearthat each ton of SO2reduction thatoccurs to lower fine particle emissions provides more benefits than the NOxreductions that occur tolower fine particles in the same area. Therefore, we believe that the totalmonetized benefits of a tonof SO2reduction are significantly higher than a ton of NOxreduction.*Alldollarvaluesinthisanalysisarerecordedin$1999.Therangeinbenefitsestimatesreflectsthe useof a3 percent anda7 percent discountrate.Thereare other elementsof uncertainty asdescribed on pages8 and 25.Inrecent RIAs, theuncertaintyanalysis has suggestedadistribution oftotalbenefitsinwhichthe95thpercentileis nearly twicethe meanandthe5thpercentileisapproximatelyone-fourth the mean-theoverallrange fromthe5thto the95thpercentileforthetotal benefitsrepresentsapproximately one orderofmagnitude.Notably, because any ofthese errorsarethesame inall the multipollutant analyses,the overlapping oftheuncertainty ranges between benefitsestimatesdoesnotinferthereisno differenceinthebenefitsofthe proposals.27Additional Unquantified Benefits under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR•Additional health, environmental benefits, andchanges in risk that would result fromCAIR/CAMR/CAVR have not been quantified here. These would include:–Improvements in visibility innational parks and recreational areas–Improvements in visibility in residential areas–Decreases in sulfurdeposition (resulting inreduced acidificationof surface watersand damage to forestecosystems and soils)–Decreases in nitrogen deposition (resulting in reduced acidification of surfacewaters, damage to forestecosystemsand soils, and coastal eutrophication)–Exposure to mercury through eating fish containing mercury–Decreases in ozone-related damage to agriculture28Section #5Pollution Control Additions andImpacts on the Power Sector, Fuels,and Electricity Prices29Projected Emissions from Electric Generating UnitsCO2Emissions fromElectric GeneratorswithCAIR/CAMR/CAVR040080012001600200024002800320020002005201020152020

Mill io n S h o r t T o n s CO 2Projected COEmissionsfromthe PowerSectorReferenceCaseCOEmissions fromthePowerSector22HgEmissions fromElectricGenerators withCAIR/CAMR/CAVR051015202530354045505520002005201020152020

To nsProjected HgEmissions fromthePower SectorHgEmissions atUnits >25MWHgCapReferenceCase Hg Emissions fromthePowerSectorSO2Emissions from ElectricGeneratorswithCAIR/CAMR/CAVR02468101220002005201020152020

Mill io n T o n sProjected SOEmissionsfromthe Power SectorProjected SOEmissionsatUnits >25 MWCAIRSOCapSOEmissionsatUnits>25MWinCAIRStatesReference Case SOEmissions fromthePowerSector22222Annual NOxEmissions fromElectric GeneratorswithCAIR/CAMR/CAVR012345620002005201020152020

M illion TonsProjected NOx Emissions fromthe PowerSectorProjected NOx Emissions atUnits >25MWCAIRNOxCapNOx Emissions atUnits >25MWinCAIRStatesReferenceCaseNOx Emissions fromthePower SectorNote:The CAIRregionalSO2capsare3.6milliontonsin 2010and 2.5milliontonsin2015,andthe annualregional NOxcapsare1.5milliontonsin2009 and1.3million tonsin2015.Referencecaseisbasedon baseline,asdescribed onpage 5.30$2.7$4.4$6.1$-$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9$10201020152020

B illi on ($ 1999)Projected Annual Costs of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR•The net present value of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is $47.8 billion*.•The present value of the capital investment in pollution controlsfor CAIR/CAMR/CAVR is estimated to be approximately $19.8billion*.•The present value of the capital investment in pollution controlsand new capacity for power production for CAIR/CAMR/CAVRis estimated to be approximately $23.0 billion*.*Present valuecalculations are incrementalto thebaselinefor the years2007-2025andare recorded in1999dollars. Thediscount rate usedisbetween 5%and7%.31Projected Allowance Prices under CAIR/CAMR/CAVRProjected AllowancePrice ofSO2,2010-2020 ($1999)$616$892$1,15702004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000201020152020

$/tonProjectedAllowancePrice ofMercury,2010-2020($1999)$2,440$1,881$1,45002004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,600201020152020

$/ o unceProjected Allowance PriceofAnnualNOx,2010-2020($1999)$1,206$1,481$1,32102004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800201020152020

$/to n32Projected Coal Capacity with Further Emissions Controls•There is currently around 305 GWof coal-fired capacity. Thatnumber is projected to increaseto about 321 GW of coal-firedcapacity by 2020 with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR.•In 2020 with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, 84% of all coal-fired capacityis projected to have one or moreof the following installed:selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx, flue gasdesulfurization (scrubbers)forSO2,and/or activated carboninjection (ACI)* for mercury. The existing and/or NOxSIP CallSCRs will go from seasonal to annual control.•The graphics show cumulativecapacity with existing controls,controls projected to beretrofitted underthe NOxSIP Call,NSR settlements, State-enacted programs, CAA Title IV, andcontrols projected to be retrofitted with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR.*There are no constraintsonthefeasibilityofACIformercurycontrolinIPMand results need tobe reviewedwiththisinmind.Projected Coal-Fired Capacitywith SCR(GW)111.3118.7121.222.715.237.337.0050100150200250201020152020Existingor NOx SIP Call/ StateRetrofitNewPulverizedCoal and IGCCCapacityRetrofit for CAIR/CAMR/CAVRProjected Coal-Fired Capacitywith ACI (GW)1.92.410.9050100150200250201020152020Retrofit for CAIR/CAMR/CAVRProjectedCoal-FiredCapacitywith Scrubbers (GW)110.3115.9117.022.736.072.390.8050100150200250201020152020Existing or CAATitle IV/StateRetrofitNewPulverized Coal and IGCCCapacityRetrofitfor CAIR/CAMR/CAVR33Projected Generation Mix (TWh)•In 2003, coal-fired generationtotaled 1,970billion kWhs.That number is projected to increase to 2,358 billion kWhsby 2020under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR.•In 2020 under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, 85% of all coal-firedgeneration is projected to come from units that have oneor more of the following installed: SCR for NOx, scrubbersfor SO2,and/or ACI for mercury.•The graphics show percent ofelectricity generated fromcoal, by control type installed, and other types ofgeneration.*“Other”categoryincludes nuclear,hydroelectric, andrenewable energygeneration.Projected GenerationMix in 2010CoalwithAdvancedNOxorSO2ControlOnly17.3%Oil/Gas SteamandTurbines2.6%Other29.0%CoalwithoutAdvancedNOxorSO2Control17.8%Coal withACI0.4%Combined CycleGas16.8%CoalwithAdvancedNOxand SO2Control16.1%Projected GenerationMix in 2020CoalwithAdvancedNOxorSO2ControlOnly14.2%Oil/Gas SteamandTurbines2.0%Other25.1%CoalwithoutAdvancedNOxorSO2Control8.6%CoalwithACI1.7%Combined Cycle Gas24.2%CoalwithAdvancedNOxand SO2Control24.2%ProjectedGenerationMix in2015Oil/Gas SteamandTurbines1.9%Other27.4%CoalwithoutAdvancedNOxorSO2Control11.4%CoalwithACI0.4%CombinedCycleGas21.9%Coal withAdvancedNOxandSO2Control21.1%CoalwithAdvancedNOxor SO2ControlOnly15.9%***34Average Emission RatesAverage Emission Rates in lbs/MMBtuunder CAIR/CAMR/CAVRAll Fossil GenerationPulverized CoalSO2CAIRSO2NonCAIRNOxCAIRNOxNon-CAIRSO2CAIRSO2Non-CAIRNOxCAIRNOxNon-CAIR20100.500.290.360.220.190.280.140.240.590.450.160.360.460.2720150.110.180.270.360.360.340.130.1220200.100.16Note:Fortheemissionratespresented here, Statescategorized hereaspart of CAIRarethe Statescoveredbythe annualCAIRrequirementsand do notincludeNewJerseyandDelaware orotherozone-seasononlyStates.35Projected Total Generation MixProjected Generation Mix in 2010, 2015, and 2020 withCAIR/CAMR/CAVR2,1942,3588121,0721,2727998118092902942922,16056616171675401,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

TWhCoalOil/Natural GasNuclearHydroRenewablesOther20102020201536Impact on Electricity Prices and Fuel PricesProjected RetailElectricityPrices($1999)6.16.66.06.36.56.56.66.3234567892000201020152020

cen ts/ K W hCAIR/CAMR/CAVRBaselineAverageDelivered Coaland HenryHub NaturalGasPrices($1999)3.253.303.251.050.980.933.203.253.161.051.010.960.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5201020152020

$/MM Bt uCAIR/CAMR/CAVR - NaturalGasCAIR/CAMR/CAVR- CoalBaseline- NaturalGasBaseline- Coal37Coal Production for Electricity Generation (Historical andProjected) with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR299275303310330131135169194225475526589568568299275303310330131135169194225475526589568568299275303310330299275303310330131135169194225475526589568568WestInteriorAppalachiaCoal Production for the Power SectorNotes:Coal production projections areEPA estimates from IPM.Historicaldata isfromEIA.

2000 A c tu al 2003 A c tu al 2010 C A I R /C A M R/C A V R 2015 C A I R /C A M R/C A V R 2020 C A I R /C A M R/C A V RCoalProductionforPowerGenerationin1990,2000,and2003 andProjectedwithCAIR/CAMR/CAVRin2010,2015,and20208759059361,0611,0711,123020040060080010001200199020002003201020152020

M i ll ion To ns38Units Repowering or Uneconomic to Maintain Due toCAIR/CAMR/CAVR•“Repowering”converts coal unitstocombined cycle natural gas (CC)or IGCC and oil/gas units tocombined cycle natural gas.•The IPM model determines if generating units are uneconomic based on the relative costs to otherunits and new capacity tomeet electric demand, and whether theyare needed to meetreserve margin(reliability) requirements.•In practice, units projected as uneconomic to maintainmay be “mothballed”untilthere is a change infuel prices, actually retired, or kept in service to ensuretransmission reliabilityincertain parts of thegrid. Our modeling is unable to distinguish betweenthese potential outcomes.•The uneconomic coal units would behighly unlikely to retire if not for the recentoverbuild of combinedcycle capacity in many areas.Capacity Re-Powering or Uneconomic toMaintain Due to CAIR/CAMR/CAVRGWCoal RePowering0.0Uneconomic Pulverized Coal4.7Oil/Gas Re-Powering to CC0.0Uneconomic Oil/GasSteam-0.8**Negativevalue indicateslessuneconomicoil/gassteam thanwithoutCAIR/CAMR/CAVR.Someplantsthatwould havebeen profitable inthebaseline(referencecase)now areeconomicallyviable.39Section #6Additional Analyses of Key Provisionsand Modeling Assumptions40Effects of Assumptions for Natural Gas Prices andElectricity GrowthProjectedAnnual Costs ofCAIR/CAMR/CAVR$2.7$6.1$4.4$6.4$5.1$3.1$-$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9$10201020152020

B i l l i on ( $ 199 9)CAIR/CAMR/CAVRusingEPA's assumptionsCAIR/CAMR/CAVRusing EIA's assumptions for Growth andGas•Thenetpresentvalue ofCAIR/CAMR/CAVRis$47.8billion* underEPA’sassumptionsand $51.2billion*under EIA’s assumptions.•Thepresent value ofthe capitalinvestmentinpollutioncontrolsand newcapacityforpowerproductionforCAIR/CAMR/CAVRisestimatedtobe approximately$23.0 billion* underEPA’s assumptions and$24.4billion* underEIA’sassumptions.•Projected annual costs are higherwhenthe model isrunwith EIA’s natural gas and electricity growth assumptions.Assumptions lead to buildingmuchcleanernew coal-firedcapacity that leads to lower overall cost by 2020.•Coal-fired generation increases because of new capacitythat is built to meet thehigherdemand.•Natural gas prices are9%-13% higher with EIAassumptions, depending on theyear, and annual electricitygrowth is about 1.55% under EPA assumptions and 1.83%under EIA assumptions.*Presentvalue calculationsareincrementaltothebaselinefortheyears 2007-2025 andare recordedin1999 dollars.ProjectedGenerationMixin2010,2015,and2020UsingEPAand EIAAssumptionsforGrowthandGas2,1602,2142,1942,6072,3583,0148129281,0728961,27290579979981181180980929029229429429229462616261565954546767717101,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000 CA I R / C AM R/CA VR using E P A

' s as sum p t i on s

CA I R / C AM R/CA VR us i n g E I A's assum p t i ons fo r G r owt h an d Gas CA I R / C AM R/CA VR using E P A

' s as sum p t i on s

CA I R / C AM R/CA VR us i n g E I A's assum p t i ons fo r G r owt h an d Gas CA I R / C AM R/CA VR using E P A

' s as sum p t i on s

CA I R / C AM R/CA VR us i n g E I A's assum p t i ons fo r G r owt h an d Gas201020152020

TWhCoalOil/NaturalGasNuclearHydroRenewablesOtherHenryHub NaturalGas Prices under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR3.253.303.253.553.743.580.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5201020152020

$/ MM B t u ( $ 19 99)Natural Gas usingEPA's assumptionsNatural Gas usingEIA's assumptions for Growth andGas41Effects of Assumptions for Natural Gas Prices andElectricity Growth on Allowance PricesProjected Allowance PriceofSO2, 2010-2020($1999)$1,322$1,157$892$616$1,019$78605001,0001,5002,0002,500201020152020

$/ t o nCAIR/CAMR/CAVR using EPAassumptionsCAIR/CAMR/CAVRusing EIA's assumptions forGrowth andGasProjectedAllowancePriceofMercury,2010-2020 ($1999)$2,440$1,881$1,450$1,701$2,206$2,86102004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,6002,8003,0003,200201020152020

$/ounc eCAIR/CAMR/CAVR usingEPA's assumptions forGrowthand GasCAIR/CAMR/CAVRusing EIA's assumptions for GrowthandGasProjected Allowance PriceofAnnualNOx, 2010-2020($1999)$1,206$1,481$1,321$1,837$1,660$1,16705001,0001,5002,000201020152020

$/ tonCAIR/CAMR/CAVRusing EPA'sassumptionsCAIR/CAMR/CAVRusing EIA's assumptions forGrowthand Gas42Effects of Demand ResponseProjectedAnnual Costs ofCAIR/CAMR/CAVR$2.7$6.1$4.4$5.3$3.9$2.3$-$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8$9$10201020152020

B i l l i on ( $ 199 9)CAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/o Demand ResponseSensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/DemandResponseSensitivity•Thenetpresentvalue ofCAIR/CAMR/CAVRis$47.8 billion*withoutDemand ResponseSensitivityand $40.9 billion*with DemandResponse Sensitivity.•Thepresent value ofthe capitalinvestmentinpollution controlsand newcapacityforpowerproduction forCAIR/CAVR/CAMR is estimatedtobe approximately$23.0 billion*withoutDemand Response Sensitivityand $19.5 billion*withDemandResponseSensitivity.•EPA performed sensitivity analysis on the impact of higherprices on energy consumption (demand response).Demand response is characterized as the reducedconsumption of a good as theprice of that good rises.This relationshipwas directly included inEPA's powersector model as a sensitivity.•Projected annualcosts decrease when the model is runwith Demand Response Sensitivity. Assumptions lead toreduced energy use andreduced overall cost.•Both coal and gas-fired generation decreaseslightlybecause of reduced demand.*Presentvalue calculationsareincrementaltothebaselinefortheyears 2007-2025 andare recordedin1999 dollars.Projected Total PowerGenerationCosts with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR$88.2$115.4$100.4$114.6$99.9$87.8$-$25$50$75$100$125201020152020

B i l l i on ( $ 199 9)CAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/oDemand ResponseSensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/Demand ResponseSensitivityProjectedGenerationMixin2010,2015, and2020withand withoutDemand ResponseSensitivity2,1602,1492,1942,1882,3582,3518128071,0721,0651,2721,25979979981181180980929029029429529229361616161565654546767717101,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000 C A IR /C A M R / C A VR w / o Demand Resp onse S e ns iti v ity C A IR /C A M R / C A VR w/ De ma n d Resp onse S e ns iti v ity C A IR /C A M R / C A VR w / o Demand Resp onse S e ns iti v ity C A IR /C A M R / C A VR w/ De ma n d Resp onse S e ns iti v ity C A IR /C A M R / C A VR w / o Demand Resp onse S e ns iti v ity C A IR /C A M R / C A VR w/ De ma n d Resp onse S e ns iti v ity201020152020

TWhCoalOil/NaturalGasNuclearHydroRenewablesOther43Effects of Demand Response on Allowance PricesProjectedAllowance Priceof SO2, 2010-2020($1999)$1,147$616$892$1,157$682$88405001,0001,5002,0002,500201020152020

$/t o nCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/oDemandResponseSensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/DemandResponseSensitivityProjectedAllowance Price ofMercury,2010-2020 ($1999)$2,440$1,881$1,450$2,433$1,876$1,44602004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,600201020152020

$/o unceCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/o Demand ResponseSensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVR w/Demand ResponseProjected Allowance Price of AnnualNOx, 2010-2020 ($1999)$1,321$1,481$1,206$1,305$1,500$1,21002004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000201020152020

$/ to nCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/oDemandResponseSensitivityCAIR/CAMR/CAVRw/DemandResponseSensitivity44Feasibility of Installing Equipment Necessary to Meet theFirst Phase Compliance Deadlines of CAIR/CAMR/CAVR•While EPA believes thereare constraints to the amount of emission controlequipment and new generationthat can be built by 2010,the reductions required under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR lead tothe installation of pollutioncontrols and new generation/repowering that arefeasible and withinthe constraint. The emission reductionrequirements of CAIR/CAMR/CAVRweredesigned to take into account this short-termfeasibility constraint.•2010 costs, gas prices, and electricity pricesare unaffected bythefeasibility constraint.•EPA’s analysis assumed constraintson installation of SCR and scrubbers. The analysis did not considerconstraints on ACI, new combined cycle gas required to meet requirements of variouscaps, and renewables.•EPA believes that the reductions required under CAIR/CAMR/CAVR do not affect the ability of sources toinstall the necessary controls by2010 due to project management, engineering, and laboruncertaintiesassociated with the 2010 constraint.2010NewCombinedCycle GasCapacity,NewRenewableCapacity,and CoalRepoweringtoCombinedCycleGas0.00.90.00.91.51.600.511.522.53Combined CycleGasRenewablesRepowering(Coalto CC)

GWBaselineCAIR/CAMR/CAVR2010 ProjectedIncremental Coal-firedCapacitywith SCR, Scrubbers,and ACI (GW)36.01.915.2050100150200250SCRScrubbersACI*“Renewables”includewind,biomass,geothermal,andlandfillgas.*45Section #7Appendix and Notes46Supplemental Materials –State Emissions andElectricity Prices with CAIR/CAMR/CAVRStateProjectionsfor CAIR/CAMR/CAVRFossil-Fuel Fired Power Generation Emissions with CAIR/CAMR/CAVR1Average RetailElectricityPrices(mills/kWh, $1999)**HistoricalHg (tons)2CO2(million short tons)SO2NOx2010201520202010201520202010201520202010201520202010201520202000201020152020AlabamaSTV458.6155.1303.9260.2217.529.022.622.765.549.150.00.90.80.797.9105.2113.059.357.156.356.7ArizonaRM69.482.660.260.341.535.329.129.579.965.866.90.60.60.569.371.078.064.164.165.965.4ArkansasSTV73.041.782.422.822.814.414.214.431.731.932.00.90.50.539.440.340.759.357.156.356.7CaliforniaCALI0.29.65.15.15.18.69.810.819.922.024.10.10.10.154.775.389.694.797.399.199.7ColoradoRM73.171.991.857.557.530.126.427.068.460.461.10.30.20.241.743.545.064.164.165.965.4ConnecticutNE8.14.93.93.95.63.22.92.67.26.96.60.00.00.08.18.29.089.977.584.983.1DelawareMAAC37.410.342.627.627.63.64.24.18.59.59.40.10.10.18.19.18.880.461.372.172.9District ofColumbia*MAAC0.30.10.00.00.20.00.00.10.00.10.20.00.00.00.00.10.880.461.372.172.9FloridaFRCC475.3252.6199.3167.2154.232.929.126.868.761.457.90.60.50.4117.4130.7137.967.971.872.370.7GeorgiaSTV540.7104.4433.4240.8157.147.430.531.5105.666.866.11.71.31.1115.3117.7132.259.357.156.356.7IdahoPNW0.00.10.00.00.00.30.30.30.60.60.60.00.00.01.21.21.445.949.847.547.2IllinoisMAIN365.3145.9242.9245.3241.829.129.230.166.265.366.51.51.51.4114.9120.2121.261.254.160.562.3IndianaECAR804.8261.5453.6376.7341.053.434.833.1123.981.877.41.71.31.1149.5155.1160.157.453.958.758.0IowaMAPP131.876.4153.0163.5165.320.121.723.149.351.753.90.90.80.644.548.450.357.452.950.448.8KansasSPP141.094.180.158.558.540.017.818.190.239.840.31.00.90.945.945.847.859.354.657.957.6KentuckyECAR529.7185.4370.9264.1224.543.433.028.7101.976.866.11.00.60.5112.0113.5117.457.453.958.758.0LouisianaSTV104.968.762.062.062.015.914.614.534.832.532.40.40.30.332.538.438.759.357.156.356.7MaineNE4.81.95.35.36.00.80.81.01.71.82.20.00.00.02.83.14.789.977.584.983.1MarylandMAAC269.068.457.442.826.56.56.16.813.812.814.50.30.20.235.738.047.280.461.372.172.9MassachusettsNE85.624.417.117.420.88.48.38.319.019.119.20.20.20.228.528.830.589.977.584.983.1MichiganECAR350.8118.8389.9393.0392.237.639.039.991.192.495.21.31.21.292.495.9108.957.453.958.758.0MinnesotaMAPP111.589.684.384.785.816.517.517.938.940.140.90.70.70.738.739.840.657.452.950.448.8MississippiSTV80.846.685.685.629.813.93.94.330.77.98.60.20.20.123.527.531.959.357.156.356.7Missouri3MAIN257.0144.8264.3266.4244.929.530.532.168.469.972.01.61.51.185.987.489.661.254.160.562.3MontanaRM20.436.922.522.525.017.017.017.038.438.438.40.30.30.319.919.920.164.164.165.965.4NebraskaMAPP67.749.672.336.836.821.919.019.149.342.842.90.60.60.626.626.626.657.452.950.448.8NevadaRM51.542.129.127.427.418.313.713.443.930.630.30.20.30.330.032.033.464.164.165.965.4NewHampshireNE54.78.97.27.410.81.21.21.62.82.93.70.00.00.18.59.212.089.977.584.983.1NewJerseyMAAC50.723.547.632.532.55.66.16.312.413.213.60.20.20.222.023.123.680.461.372.172.9NewMexicoRM50.877.252.952.952.932.731.832.073.571.571.90.60.60.332.332.634.864.164.165.965.4NewYorkNY253.865.799.048.849.916.910.410.238.523.423.50.50.30.444.647.157.5104.383.389.288.7North CarolinaSTV462.0132.7261.5124.689.025.622.324.161.150.854.61.30.90.8101.2108.7125.059.357.156.356.7North DakotaMAPP139.875.3109.385.084.429.417.617.766.739.839.90.90.90.630.331.931.957.452.950.448.8OhioECAR1,175.9355.2357.1271.7224.839.939.939.194.593.390.51.31.21.2157.4167.5175.657.453.958.758.0OklahomaSPP109.886.5117.646.744.636.527.827.978.457.958.41.10.90.960.162.967.359.354.657.957.6OregonPNW13.110.610.010.010.05.84.74.713.210.610.80.00.00.015.512.313.445.949.847.547.2Pennsylvania4MAAC967.2174.3247.1141.4119.137.932.232.588.974.374.31.51.31.2126.2134.3136.880.461.372.172.9Rhode IslandNE0.00.30.00.00.40.20.20.20.50.50.50.00.00.02.02.01.989.977.584.983.1South CarolinaSTV204.077.4145.1105.490.815.915.317.137.636.439.00.40.30.347.249.662.359.357.156.356.7South DakotaMAPP12.316.012.14.14.26.40.80.814.51.71.80.10.10.03.83.83.857.452.950.448.8TennesseeSTV337.8133.7215.8191.593.315.912.012.237.327.327.60.60.60.358.460.361.159.357.156.356.7TexasERCOT577.7211.1400.5373.0258.085.581.180.4167.8157.8156.43.23.22.6239.8244.7262.865.159.164.963.4UtahRM34.669.653.153.137.626.923.623.660.853.453.40.20.20.233.933.933.864.164.165.965.4VermontNE0.00.30.00.00.70.00.00.10.00.00.20.00.00.00.00.10.789.977.584.983.1VirginiaSTV215.769.3141.794.668.718.517.017.743.940.041.20.50.40.343.949.461.059.357.156.356.7WashingtonPNW8.320.711.111.112.211.56.66.826.015.015.30.30.30.320.218.520.545.949.847.547.2WestVirginiaECAR539.9203.1204.2111.0103.025.817.417.761.739.540.30.70.60.6107.3110.6115.257.453.958.758.0WisconsinMAIN192.882.0160.0150.6153.522.517.618.753.540.843.01.21.21.156.458.766.161.254.160.562.3WyomingRM81.283.473.374.259.735.923.523.581.253.153.10.60.60.647.747.747.764.164.165.965.4Nationwide10,595.14,165.06,339.34,987.24,277.51,073.6885.3892.02,432.51,981.81,988.732.128.725.52,695.52,831.43,040.666.061.364.664.5Notes:1Includesall fossil-fuel firedsources.2The mercuryemissionshere do notincludethose ofMunicipalSolid Wasteor Geothermal power generation.3Missouri islocatedintwoIPMRegions,MAINand SPP.Sincethe majority share of Missouri'spower generation occursin theMAINregion,electricitypriceimpactsare taken fromMAINdata.4Pennsylvania islocated in twoIPMRegions,MAACand ECAR.Since themajorityshare ofPennsylvania'spowergenerationoccursinthe MAACregion, electricitypricesimpactsaretaken fromMAACdata.*DistrictofColumbiaemissionsare lessthat1,000 tons.**mill=one-tenth of a cent2003 PowerSectorEmissions(thousandtons)IPMRegionCAIR/CAMR/CAVRCAIR/CAMR/CAVRSO2(thousandtons)AnnualNOx(thousandtons)Ozone Season NOx(thousandtons)47Number of Counties Projected to Meet or Exceed the PM2.5and 8-Hour Ozone StandardswithCAIR/CAMR/CAVR and SomeCurrentRules1Absent Additional LocalControlsPM2.51999 –2003 AverageDesign ValuesExceedNAAQS2010 withCAIR2015 withCAIR2020 withCAIR# of Nonattainment Counties115393234*# of Counties Projected tocome into Attainment768381271266244# of Counties Projected tocome into Attainment212648292# of Nonattainment Counties2020 withCAIR2015 withCAIR2010 withCAIR1999 –2003 AverageDesign Values ExceedNAAQS8-Hour Ozone2*Theincrease inPM2.5nonattainmentcountiesfrom2015to 2020isprimarilyduetogrowthinindustrial andsmallEGUsourceemissionsof SO2anddirectly emittedPM2.5.1Current rulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.2Ozone intheWestwasnot modeledaspartofthisanalysis.Futureyearozonenonattainmentin the Westisbasedonmodelingthat wasperformedfortheNonroadEngineRule.The count ofcountiescurrently exceedingtheNAAQSintheWestisbased on1999-2001 designvalues.48341 Counties with Average Measured Concentrations*Exceeding the Annual PM2.5and 8-Hour Ozone NAAQSCountyCount6649226LegendBothPM and OzoneNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentPM OnlyNonattainment*Basedon theaverageofdesign values forthe threeperiods1999-2001, 2000-2002, and 2001-2003; exceptforozoneintheWestwhich isbased on 1999-2001 designvalues.Forfurtherinformationondesignationsand related requirements,seehttp://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/glo/designations/index.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/49264 Counties Projected to Meet the PM2.5and 8-HourOzone Standards in 2010withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Countiesforecastto remaininnonattainment mayneed toadoptadditionallocal orregional controlsto attainthe standardsbydatessetpursuant to theClean AirAct. Theseadditionallocalorregionalmeasuresarenot forecasthere,andthereforethisfigureoverstatesthe extentof expectednonattainment.Number ofCounties102938264LegendBoth PMand Ozone NonattainmentOzone OnlyNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentcounties projected toattainNumber ofCounties102938264LegendBoth PMand Ozone NonattainmentOzone OnlyNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentcounties projected toattain*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.50291 Counties Projected to Meet the PM2.5and 8-HourOzone Standards in 2015withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Countiesforecastto remaininnonattainment mayneed toadoptadditionallocal orregional controlsto attainthe standardsbydatessetpursuant to theClean AirAct. Theseadditionallocalorregionalmeasuresarenot forecasthere,andthereforethisfigureoverstatesthe extentof expectednonattainment.*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.NumberofCounties82418291LegendBothPMand OzoneNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentcountiesprojectedto attain51293 Counties Projected to Meet the PM2.5and 8-HourOzone Standards in 2020withCAIR/CAMR/CAVRandSomeCurrent Rules*Absent Additional LocalControls**Countiesforecastto remaininnonattainment mayneed toadoptadditionallocal orregional controlsto attainthe standardsbydatessetpursuant to theClean AirAct. Theseadditionallocalorregionalmeasuresarenot forecasthere,andthereforethisfigureoverstatesthe extentof expectednonattainment.*Currentrulesinclude Title IVof CAA,NOxSIPCall, andsome existingStaterules.NumberofCounties72714293LegendBothPMand OzoneNonattainmentOzoneOnlyNonattainmentPMOnlyNonattainmentNonattainmentcountiesprojectedto attain