EnergyProposed Air PollutionEnvironmentTransport Rule•Reducing Air Pollution•ProtectingPublic HealthU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Air and RadiationJuly 262010Human HealthJuly26,2010(March 28, 2011 abbreviated version)OverviewI. Summaryof thepurpose ofproposed Transport Rulepp pp pII. How the proposed rule worksIII. Benefits and costs of proposed Transport Rule2www.epa.gov/airtransportTransport of Air Pollution• Air pollution can travelhundreds of miles and causemultiple health and environmental problems on regionalor national scalesornationalscales.• The proposal reduces emissions contributing to fineparticle (PM2.5) and ozone nonattainment that oftentravel across state lines:S lf di id (SO) d it id (NO)•Sulfurdioxide(SO2)andnitrogen oxides(NOx)contribute to PM2.5transport• NOxcontributes to ozone transport•Many areas are still violating the 1997 ozone and theManyareasarestillviolatingthe1997ozoneandthe1997 and 2006 fine particulate health-based air qualitystandards.•Attainingnational ambient airqualitystandards willqyrequire some combination of emission reductions from:• Sources located further from the nonattainmentarea, and• Sources located in or near nonattainment areas.P ll ti i itt d b l t t k3•Pollutionis emittedby power plants, cars,trucks,and other industrial facilities.Why Is EPA Doing this Rule?•In 2012, EPA projects that:• Some communities will still notmeet the airqualitystandards.Counties with Monitors Projectedto Have Ozone and/or PM2.5 AirQuality Problems in 2012 Withoutthe Proposed Transport Ruleq y• Many upwind states will stillcontribute significantly todownwind nonattainmentareas.•This proposal affects powerplants because their emissionreductions are most cost-reductionsaremostcosteffective.•Other actions by EPA and thestates must be taken before allareas will attain the current andfuture National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS).Counties with Violating PM and/or OzoneMonitors (55)Counties with PM and/or OzoneMaintenance Problems(28)4( )States covered by theTransport Rule (31 + DC)This analysis assumes that the Clean Air Interstate Rule is notineffect. It does reflect other federal and state requirements to reduceemissions contributing to ozone and fine particle pollution that werein place as of February 2009.Transport Rule Replaces CAIRThe proposal:• Responds to the Court ruling remanding the 2005 CAIRand the 2006 CAIR Federal Implementation Plans(FIPs).Addresses the December 2008 court decision•AddressestheDecember2008courtdecision.• The decision kept the requirements of CAIR in placetemporarily and directed EPA to issue a new rule addressingth i i f th Cl Ai A t i th t tthe provisions oftheCleanAirActconcerningthetransportof air pollution across state boundaries.• Achieves emissions reductions beyond those originallyrequired by CAIR through additional air pollutionreductions from power plants beginning in 2012.•See appendix for Transport Rule proposal/CAIR5SeeappendixforTransportRuleproposal/CAIRcomparison.Proposal Would Reduce Emissionsin 31 States + DC• Proposal includes separate requirements for:• Annual SO2reductions• NOxreductions (2012)6• Ozone-season NOxreductions (2012)• Sets emissions budgets for each stateProposal Supports an OngoingCommitment to Assist States• Under the proposed action, EPA is making an ongoing commitment to help statesimplement the"good neighbor"provision of the Clean Air Act which prohibits eachimplementthegoodneighborprovisionoftheCleanAirAct,whichprohibitseachstate from significantly contributingto air quality problems in another state.• This rule proposes a procedure for determining each upwind state's controlresponsibility that EPA can apply to any revised air quality standard. Each time airll ti t d d (NAAQS) h d if i t t t ll ti t t t ib tpollution standards(NAAQS)are changed,ifinterstate pollutiontransportcontributesto the air quality problem, EPA will evaluate whether new emission reductions will berequired from upwind states.•The Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans to eliminate significant interstateTheCleanAirActrequiresstatestosubmitplanstoeliminatesignificantinterstatepollution transport before they submit plans to meet ambient air quality standards. Bydetermining the amount of emissions that upwind states must eliminate in advance ofthe time that state pollution transportplans are due, EPA will promote timelyreductions in pollution transport. When downwind states design their plans to meetthe air quality standards, they will know how much upwind state control is required.theairqualitystandards,theywillknowhowmuchupwindstatecontrolisrequired.• This will enable the Clean Air Act to workas intended and will help downwind states toattain health-based standards sooner.7Key Elements of Proposed Transport Rule• EPA proposed one approach and took comment on twolt ti All th h ld th t talternatives.Allthree approaches wouldcoverthe same states–31 states and the District of Columbia, set a pollution limit (orbudget) for each state and obtain the reductions from power plants.1. EPA’s preferred approach-- allows intrastate trading and limitedinterstate trading among power plants but assures that eacht t ill t it ll ti t l bli tistate willmeetits pollution controlobligations.2. In the first alternative, trading is allowed only among powerplants within a state.3. In the second alternative, EPA specifies the allowable emissionlimit for each power plant and allows some averaging ofemission rates.8Key Elements of Proposed TransportRule (con’t)• To assure emissions reductions happen quickly, EPA proposedfederal implementation plans, or FIPs, for each of the states coveredby the rule.– A state may choose to develop a state plan to achieve therequired reductions, replacing its federal plan, and may choosewhich types of sources to control.• Proposal defines upwind state obligations to reduce pollutionsignificantly contributing to downwind nonattainment areas based on:–the magnitude of a state’s contribution,,– the cost of controlling pollution from various sources, and– the air quality impacts of reductions.9Four Separate Control Regions• Proposal includes separaterequirements for:• NOxreductions (2012)• Ozone-season NOxreductions(2012)•Sets emissions budgets for eachSetsemissionsbudgetsforeachstateP li l d t i t•Proposalincludes separate requirementsfor:• Annual SO2reductions• Phase I(2012)and Phase II(2014)) ()• Two Control Groups• Group 1 – 2012 cap lowers in2014G 22012 l10•Group2–2012cap only• Sets emissions budgets for each stateHow the Proposal Responds tothe Court Remand• The methodology used to measure each state’s significantcontribution to another state:– emphasizes air quality (as well as costconsiderations) and uses state-specificd t d i f ti ddata andinformation, and– gives independent meaning to the phrase “interfere with maintenance” in section110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act.•The state budgets for SOannual NOand ozone season NOareThestatebudgetsforSO2,annualNOX,andozoneseasonNOXdirectly linked to the measurement of each state’s significantcontribution and interference with maintenance.• The proposed remedy includes provisions to assure that allnecessary reductions occur in each individual state.•The compliance deadlines are coordinated with the attainmentThecompliancedeadlinesarecoordinatedwiththeattainmentdeadlines for the relevant NAAQS.• EPAproposed to allow within-state tradingand limited interstate11p pgtrading to ensure that, in each state, the emissions that significantlycontribute to downwind air quality problems will be eliminated.Compliance• To meet the proposed rule, EPA anticipates power plantswould:– Operate already installed control equipment morefrequently,– Use lower sulfur coal, or– Install pollution control equipment such as low NOXburners Selective Catalytic Reduction or scrubbersburners,SelectiveCatalyticReduction,orscrubbers(Flue Gas Desulfurization).• CAIR remains in place until this rule is finalized.12NOXand SO2Emissions Affect the Health ofMillions of Americans and Our Environment• NOXcontributes to the formation of PM2.5and ground-level ozone.•SOcontributes to the formation of PM2contributestotheformationofPM2.5.• PM2.5has been linked to premature death, serious illnesses suchas chronic bronchitis and heart attacks, and respiratory problems.Ozone has been linked to premature mortality lung damage•Ozonehasbeenlinkedtoprematuremortality,lungdamage,respiratory symptoms, aggravation of asthma and other respiratoryconditions.Sulfur deposition acidifies surface waters and damages forest•Sulfurdepositionacidifiessurfacewaters,anddamagesforestecosystems and soils.• Nitrogen deposition acidifies surface waters, damages forestecosystems and soils and contributes to coastal eutrophicationecosystemsandsoils,andcontributestocoastaleutrophication.• SO2and NOXimpair visibility, including at national parks andwilderness areas.13Significant NOXand SO2Reductionsfrom Transport Rule Proposal• By 2014, EPA modeling projects that implementation of the Transport Rule,as proposed, combined with other state and EPA actions, would reduce2005 emissions from electric generating units in the covered states by:2005emissionsfromelectricgeneratingunitsinthecoveredstatesby:– 6.3 million tons of SO2per year– 1.4 million tons of NOXper year• 300,000 tons of NOXduring ozone season (included in NOXestimate above)• These reductions represent a 71% reduction in SO2and a 52% reduction inNOemissions from power plants from 2005 levels in the covered statesXemissionsfrompowerplantsfrom2005levelsinthecoveredstates.• In the states and DC covered by the proposed Transport Rule, in 2014, SO2emissions would be capped at 2.5 million tons per year annually and NOXi i ld b d t 1 4 illi t ( NOemissions wouldbe cappedat1.4milliontons per year(ozone seasonNOXemissions will be capped at 600,000 tons per year).14Benefits Outweigh Costs• EPA estimates the annual benefits from the proposedrule range between $120-$290 billion (2006 $) in 2014rulerangebetween$120$290billion(2006$)in2014.– Most of these benefits are public health-related.– $3.6 billion are attributable to visibility improvements in areas such asnational parks and wilderness areas.Oth ti d b fit i l d d ti i–Other nonmonetizedbenefitsinclude reductionsin mercurycontamination, acid rain, eutrophication of estuaries and coastal waters,and acidification of forest soils.• EPA estimates annual compliance costs at $2.8 billion in2014.• Modest costs mean small effects on electricitygeneration. EPA estimates that in 2014:–Electricity prices increase less than 2 percent.– Natural gas prices increase less than 1 percent.– Coal use is reduced by less than 1 percent.15