P. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 12DIV-C-3 5
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 121 of 142P. 2



## •*> >

u l

O 

# w UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK . N C 2771 1 SE P I O IS9 9 

# A

- ? o -3 7 "E-c-3 5

OFFIC E O F A R OUALIT

Y PLANNIN G AN O STANDARD

S Mr . Henr y V . Nicke l Hunto n & William s 1900 K Street, N.W . Suit e 120 0 Washington , D.C . 20004-110 9 Dea r Mr . Nickel : Thi s i s i n regar

d t o th e memorandu

m date d Apri l 29,1999 , whic h wa s entitle d "Achievin g Ne w Source Emissio n Reduction s from Existin g Electri c Generatin g Uni t— Proposed Progra

m o f th e Utilit y Ai r Regulator y Group. " Th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) appreciates th e tim e an d effor ttha tyo u an d you r colleague s spenti n thinkin g throug h th e issue s and*i

n developin g a

n altemativ e proposa

l for EP A t o consider . We loo k forwar

d t o meetin g wit

h yo u an d th e othe r representative s o f th e coal-fire d utilit y secto r o n Septembe r 1 4 i n Durha m t o continu e our discussions . A tthi s meeting , w e inten d to focu s ou

r discussion s o n you r view s a s t o th e environmenta l benefi to f

you r proposa

l s o tha tw e ca n better evaluat

e it . T o ensur

e tha tw e us e th e tim e productively , th e enclosur e list s som e clarifyin g question s to hel p frame our discussio n nex tweek . Th e response s wil l b e evaluated an

d considere d a s w e finalize th e requirement s o f th e NS Rprogram . I f yo u hav e an

y question s concernin g th e enclose d requests , pleas e contactKare n Blanchar d a t(919 ) 541-550 3 o r Denni s Crumple r a t(919 ) 541-0871 . Sincerely , 

# /W( A JohfrS . 

## DymexSeit z V Directo r Officefo f Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g an d Standards Enclosure cc : JohnPau l Bil l Becke r Bil l O'Sulliva n

Interne t Addres s (URL ) • http://www.tpa.go v R»evrlaHA3arvrf»h U . Print* * «ilt n U«riiM.niD»>(U . —n . &

. A»t-I_.

.P. 3
! )

V



### Question s Concernin g th e Apri l 2 8 UAR G Proposal
Introduction 1

. Pleas e provid e mor

e informatio n relate dt o th e statemen t i n you r introductio n that M 

### [t]h e CA A modificatio n rul e ha s ha

dlittl e impac t

o n thes e units.* * 2

. Pleas e identif

y th e EP A analysi s referencedi n your introduction

. Wa s th e context o f tha t analysi s relativ e t o th e aci d rai n provision s unde r Titl e IV ? Wa s an

y referenc e made t o ho w EP A believe d NS Rmigh

t appl y t o existin g utilit

y boiler s durin g thei r

65-yea r projecte d life ? I s it

UARG' s belie f

tha t NS Ri s neve

r triggere d(e.g. , n o modification s ar e undertaken ) durin g aunit' s projecte doperationa l life ? 3

. " A s you ar

e aware , th e Office o f

Enforcemen

t andComplianc e Assuranc e ha s bee n investigatin g severa

l electri c utilitie s fo

r complianc e wit

h NS Rrequirements

. I f

tha t investigatio n show s tha

t electri c utilitie s hav e bee

n triggerin g NS Rthroug h the modification provisio n i

n th e past , ho w woul dtha

t chang e th e underlyin g presumptio n fo r you r proposal ? Would aseparat e electri c utilit

y approach stil l b e necessary ? 4

. Pleas e explai n wh

y your NS Rproposa

l would no t

begi n unti l afte

r other , unrelate d program s ar

e implemented ? Ho w d o SIP call s impac t NS Rfo r other industria l sector s unde r th e current

system ? Proposa l Ite m1

. Continuatio n o f

Existin g NS RProgra

m 5

. I n questio n 1 .b. , pleas e explai n ho w th e curren t systemha s "discourage defficiency and reliabilit y improvemen

t projects. " Som

e example s woul db e helpful

. a . Ho w woul d th e propose dpotential-to-potential , hourl y tes t no t discourag e th

e sam e projects ? Wha

t ar e th e project s tha

t suc h ates t woul db e applie dto ? b

. Unde

r you r propose d test , change s undertake n t o increas e th e tota

l hourl y availabilit y o f aunit and , thus, increas e th e actua l emission s fro

mtha t unit woul d not b e subjec t t o NSR

. Wha

t i s th e purpos e o f

thes e type s o f

projects ? Wh

y shouldn' t facilitie s tha

t move u p o n th e dispatch order

an dthereb y increas e actua

l emission s b e subject

t o NSR ?

c . I f EP A wer e t o adop t apotential-to-potentia

l test , i n thos e situation s wher e th e affecte d source s increas e actua

l emissions , ho w shoul dth e increas e b e factored into ai r qualit y management ? ShouldEP A als o requir

e State s t o us e potentia

l emission s i

n SIP planning ? 

# 2 .P. 4

d . If , a s yo u stat

e i n you r introduction , th e modificatio n provisio n o f NS R"ha s ha d littl e impact " o n utilit

y units , wha

tconfusio n ha s complicate d an d delaye d permittin g proceedings ?

e . I n ite m 1 .c , pleas e provid e th e statutor y basi s fo r treatin g modification s tha t increas e C O emission s differently under NSR . Proposa l Ite m 2 . N o Nettin g for Ne w Unit s 6 . Unde r ite m 2 . nettin g woul d b e disallowed . a . Ho w man

y source s hav e actuall y netted outo f revie w i n th e las t1 0 years ? I s ther e any recor d o f ne touts prior t o th e 199 2 WEPC O rule ? b . Ho w muc

h nettin g ha s occurre

d a texistin g electri c utilitie s fo r th e additio n o f ne w units ?

c . I n an y o f th e nettin g action s mentione d above , ho w wer e nettin g credits * generated ? d . In th e absenc e o f

th e restriction , ho w many woul d b e expecte d t o us e nettin g i n th e future ? Proposa l Ite m 3 . Subjec

tExistin g Unit s t o NS Rlevel s o f control ove r time , bu

tcoordinat

e wit h othe r regulator

y existin g source control program, ; 7 . I n Ite m 3.a. , yo u propos e tha

tNS Rg o into effec ti n 2010 , whic h woul d serv e a s a backsto p i n cas e th e anticipated NO x SI P Call , th e Aci d Rai n Progra m an d Regional Haze rule s d o notg o forward . a . W e note tha

tall o f thes e program

s hav e differentstatutor

y foundation s an

d goal s from th e NS Rprogram . Wh y shoul d th e NS Rprogra m b e pu to n hol d until thos e programs hav e bee n implemented ? b . Wha

thappen s i n th e interi

m whil e th e dispositio n o f thes e programs i s bein g decided ? Woul d thi s mea n tha temission s coul d actuall y increas e industr y wide ? 8 . Yo u stat

e i n ite m 3.b. , tha

tunde r the age-base d syste m a uni tenterin g th e progra

m (upo n reachin g a

n ag e o f 55 ) beginnin g in 2010 , woul d b e require d t o achiev e ne w sourc e control level s a

ttha tunito r other unit

s throug h trading o r averagin g systems . 

# 3P. 5

a . Doe s thi s mean tha tal l contro l woul d b e a s a resul to f shuttin g dow n unit s a s oppose d t o puttin g control s o n existin g units ? Wil l control s b e place d o n som e o f thes e units i n th e nea

r ter m a s a resul to f

othe r regulator

y programs an

d i f s o t o whatextent ? b . Wha

twoul d b e th e basi s o f

th e tradin g o r averagin g currency ?

c . On e coul d speculat e tha ta s a resul to f

thi s system , emissions coul d actuall y increas e a

ton e source , whil e tw o othe r source s migh thav e shutdown . Ho w woul d you r proposa

l addres s th e statutor

y requiremen

to f considerin g loca l impacts suc h a s incremen tconsumption , NAAQ S violation s o r Clas s I area impacts ? d . I n th e absenc e o f

NS Rapplicabilit

y prior t o 2010 , whati s th e estimate d increas e o r decreas e i n generatin g capacit y o r capacit

y utilizatio n o f

coal-fire d utilitie s betwee n no w an

d 2010 ? Wha

tdoe s thi s increas e o r decreas e correspon d t o i n emission s estimates .
e.» Why were emission s from 1996 , rathe r tha n 199 7 o r 1998 , use d t o demonstrat e tha tth e emission s reduction s usin g th e age-base d approac h woul d b e linear ? Woul d th e reduction s stil l b e linea r usin g more recentdata ? f . Th e proposa

l talk s abou

tunits "entering " th e age-base d program . Fo r instance , th e las tunit

s woul d "enter " th e progra m i n 2030 . Woul d tha

tmea n control s woul d hav e t o b e installe d prior t o 203 0 o r onl y tha tth e facility woul d hav e t o star tth e proces s fo

r addin g th e control s i n 203 0 an d no tstar toperatin g th e control s fo r severa

l more years ? 9 . Yo u stat

e i n Ite m 3.c , tha

tth e glid e pat

h optio n i s necessary fo r companie s tha twoul d otherwis e hav e man

y same-age d unit

s brough tinto th e syste m a

ton e time . Wha

twoul d preventthes e companie s from controllin g som e units earlie r tha n thei r 55-yea r ag e t o avoi d thi s problem unde

r th e age-base d option ? 10 . Wit

h respectt o Item 3.d. , what"reasonabl e exemptions " woul d yo u wantgive n t o smal l unit s an d lo w capacit

y facto r units ?

a . Ho w woul d yo u defin e thos e type s o f units ? b . Are there facilitie s tha tutiliz e a sufficien tnumber o f thes e units tha

twhe n aggregate d together , they woul d constitute emission s greater tha n a majo r source ?


# 4 -P. 6

ts ?
11 . Wit

h respectto Ite

m 3.e. , wh y wouldn' tyo u includ e PM , CO , ozon e o r lead i n you r age based or glid e pat

h proposal ? 12 . Wit

h respec tt o Ite

m 31. , a s yo u kno w BAC T an d LAE Rcannotb e les s stringenttha n a n applicabl e NSPS . Moreover , ne w technologie s ar e evolvin g fo r NO x control . Wh y woul d UAR G us e 1998' s NSPS , th e minimu m leve l o f

control required under th e Act , a s BAC T an d LAE Rfor th e nex t3 0 years ?

a. Woul d yo u conside r another mechanis m fo r settin g BACT/LAE Rtha tstil l give s a utilit y som e certainty ? b . Coul d UAR G suppor ta presumptiv e BACT/LAE Rproces s tha ti s update

d every fe w years ? 11 . Wit

h respectt o Ite

m 3.g. , wha

tkind o f emission s trading schem e woul d wor k unde r you r proposal ? A ca

p an d trad e assumin g complianc e with th e age-base d or glid e path ? Ho w woul d ne w units o r facilitie s participate ? a/ ' Doe s th e UAR G analysi s includ e peakin g units a s wel l a s based-loade d units , i.e. , bo w much activ e coal-fire d generatin g capacit y wil l b e retired an

d replace d b y gas-fire d turbine s before 2010 ? I s th e industr y thinkin g o f

usin g thes e shut-down an d replacementproject

s a s th e sourc e o f

currenc y fo r th e trading , bankin g an d averagin g alluded t o i n ite m 3.g ? b . Woul d th e typ e o f control strateg

y fo r units tha

texperienc e a majo r modificatio n (howeve r iti s defined ) b e th e sam e a s tha tpropose d fo r units tha

tag e ou tstarting i n 2010 ?



# bP. 7


### A H . 2S . 159 3 6:17PM

HUNTO N

WILLIA M NO . 117 1 P . i2/ 7

•autfC * KkCiu *
•ow e uMiC . cm« » e<Mo«o« . T«A4.*M » 

### HUNTO N & WILLIAM S i»e e K STtm . K.W

. i V^WtyoTOir . 9.C . »OOO«-UD 0 TCbOWDM

S BOfc»S»-»0 0 r<C*<» I «O»T7».»*0 l •M O I MUX . tsaa«eM C

HtHJnrV.Nr m E*MAIL ' rfN)CKa«HUNTON£0 U FUJWO J nSJIJiOOO l D0tiaDlAL'302/95SlS6 1 

### Apri l 29,199 9

Mr . Joh n S . Seit z Director , Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g an

d Standard

s U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y MD-1 0 Research Triangl e Park, N C 2771 1

Dea r John : Enclose d i s a memorandu m outlinin g th e UAR G propose d altemativ e t o tb e curren tNS R progra m a s itapplie s t

o existin g electri c generatin g units . Thi s proposal , i n ou r view , woul d simplif y the NS Rprogra

m whil e a tth e sam e time Addressin

g concern s that

, under th e curren

t program , utilit

y unit s ma y perpetuall y extend thei r useful lif e withou teve r bein g subjectt o NSR relate d emissio n reductions . W e believ e thi s proposa l i s responsiv e t o th e principle s announce d b y tb e Agenc y prio

r t o th e "stakeholders " meetin g tha twa s hel d o n Februar

y 2 an d 3 an d provide s a basi s for seriou s discussion s with th e Agenc y an d stakeholders . I n puttin g thi s propose d alternative together , w e hav e tried t o b e responsiv e t o issue s an d concern s raised b y others . I D thi s regard , w e hav e ha d thre e meeting s with state regulators o n NS Ralternative s an d ar e encourage d b y thei r response . W e wil l hav e furthe r discussion s wit h 

### stat e regulator

s ova * th e nex ttw o week s an d expec tfurthe

r inpu ta tth e STAPPA meetin g o n th e 15 * an d 16 * o f Ma y i n Phoenix . I als o plan to tal k to Davi d Hawldn s durin g thi s perio d abou t UARG' s proposal . W e woul d lik e t o mee twith yo u an d you r staf

f i n Ma y afte

r gettin g STAPPA' s comments . Th e curren

tNS Rprogra

m i s incredibl y comple x an d i s characterize d b y misunderstandings b y all a s t o it s applicability . Th e EP A proposal s t o chang e th e NS Rprogram , i n ou r view , wil l aggravate , no talleviate , mi s situation , I f adopted , th e revise d rule s wil l lea d t o litigatio n an

d t o a chillin g efTec

to n program

s b y al l o f industr y t o improv e th e efficienc y an d reliabilit y o f existin g facilities . W c need to take thi s opportunit y to develo p a

n alternative t o a progra m tha tall believ e i s "broken. " I hop e yo u wil l agree tha tUARG' s proposal provide s a 

# U>P. 8


### AH.'-3 . i35 9 6:17P M HUNTO N WILLIAM K0



### - 117 1 ?

### " 3/ 7

basi s fo r beginnin g discussion s an d for delayin g actio n o n finalizing th e Agency' s NS R proposals . Thes e discussion s shoul d includ e all industr y an d shoul d cove r th e propose d progra m fo r th e utilit y industr y as wel l a s changes tailored t o th e need s o f

th e manufacturing sector . We loo k forward to discussin g thi s proposa l with yo u an

d othe r stakeholders . Sincerel y yours .

Enclosure
cc : (w/encJosurt) Mr . Rober tPerciasep e Mr . To m Curra

n Lydi a Wcgman , Esq . Mr . Bil l Harnet

t Mr . Davi d Solomo n Bruc e C . Buckhcit , Esq . Gregor y B . Foote , Esq .

^ 

# lP. 9



## m . 29.199 9 6:17P M BUNIO

N WILLIA M K0



## - 11? 1 P 

## "' 4/ 7 

## • *
Apri l 28,199 9 

# MEMORANDU M

Achievin g Ne w Score * Emissio n Reduction s fro m Existin g Electri c Generatin g Hait i - 

### Propwr i PragnT n tfflt

VJfflt y Ai rRrtHlitor r Grou

p Thi s pape r outline s a progra m fo r electri c generatin g units ma taddresse s tw o objectives . First , simplificatio n an

d clarificatio n o f

m e Clean Ai r Ac tpCAA" ) ne w sourc e revie w fWSR" ) progra m fo r m e electri c generatin g industr y i s neede d b y bot

h pennittin g authoritie s aa d regulated industry . Tb e curren tprogra m i s undul y comple x and confusin g and , a s recentl y interprete d b y EPA , is discouragin g desire d improvement s i n uni tefficienc y an

d reliability . Second , i n spit e o f

recentCA A programs directed a texistin g source s (eg, , th e Titl e I V aci d rai n program , th e revise d ozon e an d particulat

e matter NAAQS , th e regiona l haz e program , an d the regional SIP call) , ther e i s continue d interes ti o ensurin g ma tne w sourc e level s o f

contro l ar e achieve d a

texistin g electri c generatin g units . NS Rlevel s o f emissio n reduction s ca n b e achieve d mor e efficientl y an d cost-effectivel y i f

addressed directl y throug h a progra

m designe d fo r the electri c generatin g industry , a s oppose d t o attemptin g to forc e thi s resul to n a n a d ho c basi s throug

h revision s t o tb e NS R"modification* ' rale. Existin g electri c generatin g station s consis to f numerous , comple x an

d integrate d systems . Thes e source s ar e designe d to hav e a lon g life . Fo r example , i n analyse s underlyin g th e 199 0 CA A Amendments , EP A assumed tha

tutilit y boiler s woul d las tfo r u p t o 6 5 years . Becaus e th e industr

y ha s traditionally ha

d a statutor

y obligatio n t o provid e a safe , reliabl e an d efficien tsuppl y o f

electricity , existin g generatin g unit s ir e routinel y kep ti n goo d workin g order throug h repair , replacementan

d maintenance activity . A s a result , existin g electri c generatin g station s hav e bee n regulate d primarily unde r th e CA A stat

e implementatio n pla n ("SIP" ) progra m ana\ mor

e recently , unde

r th e CA A Titl e I V aci d rain program . Th e CA A modificatio n rule ha s had littl e impac to n thes e units . Th e progra

m outline d below , therefore , represent s a significan tdepartur

e from ho w existin g electri c generatin g unit s hav e bee n regulated under u^ e CAA , a s wel l a s a significantl y mor e stringen texistin g sourc e progra

m tha n th e progra

m describe d b y industr

y a tth e Februar

y 2 - 3,199 9 EP

A stakeholde r meeting . Unde r thi s program , NS Rrequirement s woul d continu e t o apply t o ne w an d modifie d sources , an

d existin g electri c generatin g units woul d als o b e require d t o achieve , individuall y o rthroug h emission s trading o r averaging , NS Rlevel s o f emissio n reductions ove r time, o n a schedul e ma twoul d begi n i n 201 0 after th e othe r existin g sourc e CA A control programs note d abov e hav e bee n defined . Thi s woul d assure tha timplementatio n o f

thi s ne w pTO£T?

m fc r existin g electri c generatin g unit s coul d b e coordinate d with thes e othe r programs . Th e parameter s o f thi s progra

m ar e outline d below .

$P.1 0



### A ? * 19.199 9 6:17P M HUNTO N WILLIA M K0J17 1 l 5/ 7

2 . Continu e th e existin g NS Rprogram , wit h a simplifle d 

### ipplicibllit y tettfo r piodififi d mitt .

• . Copfino f

ippHeibnttyBftigwifmre * rtopfrtmgpt i - Ne w sourc e review requirements , includin g BAC T o r LAER , woul d continu e t o appl y to se w m d modifie d electri c generatin g units . NSP S woul d continu e t o appl y to al l new , reconstructe d an

d modifie d electri c generatin g units . b . narff v "w^ f

r,rpiwutffi f «tien » tett„ Th e WEPC o rul e woul d b e revised . Tn e ter m 'teajo r modification " woul d b e clarified t o provid e ma tphysica l o r operationa

l change s mus tincreas e (h e maximu m achievabl e emissio n rat e (measure d i n kg/hr ) before an d afte r a chang e i n orde

r to trigge r NSR . Thi s clarificatio n woul d remov e uncertaint y tha thas discourage d efficienc y and reliability improvementprojects , an d woul d siditss confusio n tha tha s complicate d an

d delaye d permitproceedings . c . ftpeHal C O revie w procedure s - Wit h th e exceptio n o f

CO , al l criteri a pollutants (includin g particulat e matter ) woul d b e subjectt o thi s simplifie d modificatio n test . C O woul d b e evaluated as par to f th e "environmentall y beneficial " tes tapplie d to NO , control project s (i.e. , tiie type s o f

projects tha

t typicall y rais e C O issues) , Becaus e C O release s from elevate d poin tsource s d o no thav e a significan tambien tair qualit

y impact, C O emissio n increase s woul d no totherwis e b e subjectto th e modificatio n program . 2 . N o pettin g ou to f contro l requirement s fo r eTectritgeneratin g unit s - T o ensur e mor e widespread us e o f

ne w sourc e controls , ne w electri c generatin g units coul d no t"ne tou r o f control technolog y requirements . A s under curren tlaw , a uni tcoul d continu e to ne t outo f ai r qualit y analysi s requirements , includin g ambien tai r qualit y modeling . 3 . Subjec texistin g electri c generatin g unit s t o ne w sourc e level s o f eminio n contro l ove r time , i n a manne r coordinate d with th e ImplemeDtatJon o f othe r existin g sourc e contro l pro f

mm-.
a . Prpgrar a itar tdat e - Th e electri c generatin g industr y i s currently plannin g t o implemen ta number o f

ne w contro l programs for existin g source s ove r th e nex t decade , includin g th e revise d NAAQ S for ozon e an d PMjj , th e regiona l haz e program , th e regiona l NO , SI P call , an d Phas e I I o f

th e Titl e I V »ci d rain program . I n order t o allo w fo r coordinatio n wit h thes e othe r programs , th e existin g sourc e contro l progra

m woul d begi n i n 2010 . T o th e extentan y o f thes e othe r CA A existin g sourc e programs d o no tg o forward , th e progra m outline d her e woul d serv e a s a "backstop, " ensurin g level s o f emissio n reductio n tha

tg o a s far o r furthe r tha n wha tmigh tb e require

d unde r thes e other prograxna

. b . J2xdL5$$lkah}liXy mecbanTsnu - Ther e woul d b e tw o option s fo r complyin g witb thi s backsto p progra m - th e "ag

e based " optio n an

d th e "glid e path " option . Companie s woul d b e require d t o op tinto on e o r th e other b y th e yea r 2010 . 

# 1P.1 1



### V A P I 29 . 199 9 6:1BP M BUNTO N WILLIA M N a ll7 1 l 6/ ?

Unde r th e ag e baae

d option , progra

m applicabilit

y woul d b e triggere d o n a nmt-by-uni tbasi s starting i n th e yea r 2010 , whe n a uni tha s bee n operated fo r 5 5 years . Unit s entering th e progra m woul d b e required to achiev e ne w aourc e contro l level s a

tma tunito r a tothe r unit

s throug h trading o r averagin g systems. I n prio r CA A analyses , EPA ha s consistentl y assume d boile r lif e u p to 6 5 years , an d industry Iteejbr e originall y suggeste d 6 5 year s a s atrigge r ag e i n EPA' s Februar y 2d - 3 d stakeholde r meeting . A 5 5 yea r lif e t s th e jhcrtc H boile r lif e use d b y EPA m analyse s undertake n i n connectio n wit h m e 199 0 Amendments an d with subsequentrulemaking s under thos e amendments . O f thos e unit

s ma treac h ag e 5 5 durin g th e cours e o f fh e "ag e based " program , th e las tunitwil l este r th e progra m i n 203 0 (i.e. , thos e unit s tha tbega n operatio n i n 1975) . Tb e number o f unit s tha twoul d este r th e progra

m i s eac h yea r i s clos e to hnear , a s ar c th e tos s o f

emission s (base d o n 199 6 emissio n levels ) tha

tcom e int o th e progra

m i s each year . I n 2030 , al l remainin g unit s unde r 5 5 year s o f

ag e (i.e. , unit s beginnin g operatio n i n 197 6 an d after) woul d ente r tb e progra

m a tm e sam e time. Mos to f thes e younger , large r unit s ar e th e units tha twil l b e overcontrolle d to offse temission s from olde r units unde r thi s program , to mee tTitl e TV requirements , o r to compl y with othe r ambientdrive s tradin g programs . A s a result , mos to f thes e unit

s wil l have , lon g befor e 2030 , bee n controlle d to se w sourc e level s eithe r throug h th e NS Rprogra

m itsel f o r throug h Titl e I an

d I V emissio n reductio n programs . Unde r th e glid e pad) option , a utility compan y woul d elec tt o hav e al l o f it s fossi l fuel-fin d unit

s subjecte d to thi s progra

m i s 2010 , an

d tiie system-wid e averag e emissio n rat

e fo r thos e units woul d then b e reduce d proportionatel y ove r th e Lif e o f th e progra

m (e.g. , 5 percen treductio n pe r year ) i n orde r to reach overal l ne w sourc e control level s b y th e progra m en d dat

e o f 2030 . Amon g othe r reasons , thi s optio n i s neede d to provid e flexibilit y fo r companie s tha tmigh totherwis e hav e multipl e retrofit

s lumpe d togethe r m a shor ttime frame under tb e age-base d option . c . progra m tqr

f daf t- A H units woul d b e brough tint o th e ag e base d progra m b y 203 0 (a s compared to th e 204 0 dat e originall y suggeste d b y industry) . Similarly , al l reduction s unde

r th e "glid e path*'optio n woul d hav e t o b e complete d b y 203 0 an d thos e reduction s woul d b e equivalen tto th e "ag e based* * progra m reductions . d . Soore e applicabilit y - Thi s progra m woul d appl y t o fossi l fuel-fire d stea m electri c generatin g units . Consideratio n shoul d b e give n t o reasonabl e exemptions , fo r example , fo r smal l units an d lo w capacity facto r units .
e . Pollutan tapplicabilit y - Th e backsto p progra m woul d appl y t o SO aan d NO, . Particulat e matter ("PM" ) woul d continu e to b e subjectt o th e NS Rprogra m and othe r existin g source programs as discusse d above . Furthermore , th e backsto p progra m woul d addres s emission s o f fine P M throug h it s contro l requirement s fo r SOjandNOg . ..*•»• -

&> 

# \oP.1 2 

### kfl 29.199 9 6: 1 BP

M HUNTO

N WILLIAM K0



### - 117 1 l W

f . Presumptiv e eg w umret contro l lpve b - JJ

Q orde r for thi s progra

m to work , i ti s critical tha

tth e applicabl e ne w source contro l level s b e ttt

i s advance . Ne w aourcc contro

l level s for thi s backstop progra m sheu M b e a ^ a

tcurren tNSP S level s (e.g. , 0.1 5 Ib/MMBr u for NO , en

d 0. 6 Ib/MMBt

u for SO,) . Thes e control level s woul d appl

y throughou

t(he year (a s oppose d to, for example , onl y during tb e ozon e season) , g . flerfbnrr v wifcenaiiliflf i - Achievin g ne w source level s o f control a texistin g unit s ca n involv e numerous technological challenge s so tpresente d i n th e cas e o f ne w units . Iti s therefor

e importan

ttha tthi s progra

m includ e emissio n Siding , bankin g an

d averaging provision s to ensur e tha tNS Rlevel s o f

emissio n reductio n ca n b e achieve d on a

n industry-wid e basis , an

d m amanner tha

ti s cost-effective .



# . u