En

Proposed Air Pollution

Environment Transport Rule

•Reducing Air Pollution

•Protecting Public Health 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

July 26 2010

Human H

July 26, 2010

(March 28, 2011 abbreviated version)
Overview

I. Summary pp pp p of the purpose of proposed TranspII. How the proposed rule worksIII. Benefits and costs of proposed Transport R

www.epa.gov/airtransport
Transport of Air Pollution

• Air pollution can travel hundreds of miles and cause 

multiple health and environmental problems on regional

or national scales or national scales.

• The proposal reduces emissions contributing to fine 

particle (PM2.5) and ozone nonattainment that often travel across state lines:

• S lf di id (SO S

ulfur dioxide (SO ) d it id (NO ) 2) an

d nitrogen oxides (NO

x) contribute to PM2.5 transport

• NO

x contributes to ozone transport

• Many areas are still violating the 1997 ozone and the Many areas are still violating the 1997 ozone and the

1997 and 2006 fine particulate health-based air quality standards.

•

Attainin

g qy national ambient air 

qualit

y standards will 

require some combination of emission reductions from:

• Sources located further from the nonattainment 

area, and

• Sources located in or near nonattainment areas.

P ll ti i itt d b l t t k

•

P

oll

ution is emitt

e

d

by power plants, cars, truc

ks, 

and other industrial facilities. 
Why Is EPA Doing this Rule

•In 2012, EPA proje

• Some communi

meet the air 

qua

Counties with Monitors Projected to Have Ozone and/or PM2.5 Air Quality Problems in 2012 Without the Proposed Transport Rule

q 

• Many upwind st

contribute signifdownwind nonaareas.

•This proposal affe

plants because threductions are moreductions are moeffective.

•Other actions by E

states must be takareas will attain thfuture National AmQuality Standards 

Counties with Violating PM and/or Ozone Monitors (55)

Counties with PM and/or Ozone Maintenance Problems (28)

( )

States covered by the Transport Rule (31 + DC) 

This analysis assumes that the Clean Air Interstate effect. It does reflect other federal and state requiremissions contributing to ozone and fine particle poin place as of February 2009. 
Transport Rule Replaces CA

The proposal:• Responds to the Court ruling remanding the 200

and the 2006 CAIR Federal Implementation Plan

• Addresses the December 2008 court decision Addresses the December 2008 court decision. 

• The decision kept the requirements of CAIR in plac

temporarily and directed EPA to issue a new rule a

th i i f th Cl Ai A t i th the provisions o

f the Clean Air 

A

c

t concerning the 

of air pollution across state boundaries.

• Achieves emissions reductions beyond those ori

required by CAIR through additional air pollution reductions from power plants beginning in 2012.

• See appendix for Transport Rule proposal/CAIR

See appendix for Transport Rule proposal/CAIR

comparison.
Proposal Would Reduce Emiss

in 31 States + DC

• Proposal includes separate requirements for:

• Annual SO

2 reductions

• NOx reductions (2012)

• Ozone-season NOx reductions (2012) 

• Sets emissions budgets for each state
Proposal Supports an Ongoi

Commitment to Assist State

• Under the proposed action, EPA is making an ongoing commitment to he

implement the implement the "good neighbor good neighbor" provision of the Clean Air Act which proh

provision of the Clean Air Act, which proh

state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another stat

• This rule proposes a procedure for determining each upwind state's cont

responsibility that EPA can apply to any revised air quality standard. Ea

poll ti t d d (NAAQS) h d if i t t t ll ti t 

ll

ution stan

dar

ds (NAAQS) are c

hange

d, if interstate poll

ution transpor

to the air quality problem, EPA will evaluate whether new emission reducrequired from upwind states.

• The Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans to eliminate significant 

The Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans to eliminate significant 

pollution transport before they submit plans to meet ambient air quality s

determining the amount of emissions that upwind states must eliminate ithe time that state pollution transport plans are due, EPA will promote timreductions in pollution transport. When downwind states design their plathe air quality standards, they will know how much upwind state control is the air quality standards, they will know how much upwind state control is 

• This will enable the Clean Air Act to work as intended and will help down

attain health-based standards sooner.
Key Elements of Proposed Transpo

• EPA proposed one approach and took comment on two 

alt ti All th h ld th 

lternatives. All three approac

hes would cover the sam

31 states and the District of Columbia, set a pollution limbudget) for each state and obtain the reductions from p1. EPA’s preferred approach -- allows intrastate trading 

interstate trading among power plants but assures t

st t ill t it ll ti t l bli ti t

a

te will mee

t its poll

ution con

trol obligations.

2. In the first alternative, trading is allowed only among 

plants within a state. 

3. In the second alternative, EPA specifies the allowab

limit for each power plant and allows some averaginemission rates. 
Key Elements of Proposed Tran

Rule (con’t)

• To assure emissions reductions happen quickly, EPA prop

federal implementation plans, or FIPs, for each of the stateby the rule. 

– A state may choose to develop a state plan to achieve 

required reductions, replacing its federal plan, and mawhich types of sources to control.

• Proposal defines upwind state obligations to reduce pollut

significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment areas 

– the ma

g , nitude of a state’s contribution,

– the cost of controlling pollution from various sources, a– the air quality impacts of reductions.
Four Separate Control Regio

• Proposal includes separate 

requirements for:

• NO

x reductions (2012)

• Ozone-season NO

x reductions 

(2012)

• Sets emissions budgets for each Sets emissions budgets for each

state

• P li l d t i t Proposal inclu

des separate requirements 

for:

• Annual SO

2 reductions

• Phase I () () 2012) and Phase II (2014)

• Two Control Groups

• Group 1 – 2012 cap lowers in 

2014

G 2 2012 l

•

Group 

2

– 2012 cap only

• Sets emissions budgets for each state
How the Proposal Responds 

the Court Remand

• The methodology used to measure each state’s significa

contribution to another state:

– emphasizes air quality (as well as cost considerations) and uses s

d t d i f ti d d

ata an

d information, an

d

– gives independent meaning to the phrase “interfere with maintena

110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act.

• The state budgets for SO The state budgets for SO

2, annual NO annual NO

X, and ozone seas

and ozone seas

directly linked to the measurement of each state’s significcontribution and interference with maintenance.

• The proposed remedy includes provisions to assure that 

necessary reductions occur in each individual state. 

• The compliance deadlines are coordinated with the attain

The compliance deadlines are coordinated with the attain

deadlines for the relevant NAAQS.

• EPA 

pro

posed to allow within-state tradin

g and limited in

p p

g

trading to ensure that, in each state, the emissions that scontribute to downwind air quality problems will be elimin
Compliance

• To meet the proposed rule, EPA anticipates po

would:

– Operate already installed control equipmen

frequently, 

– Use lower sulfur coal, or– Install pollution control equipment such as l

burners Selective Catalytic Reduction or sburners, Selective Catalytic Reduction, or s

(Flue Gas Desulfurization).

• CAIR remains in place until this rule is finalized
NOX and SO2 Emissions Affect the He

Millions of Americans and Our Enviro

• NOX contributes to the formation of PM2.5 and ground-leve• SO2 contributes to the formation of PM contributes to the formation of PM2.5.

• PM2.5 has been linked to premature death, serious illnesse

as chronic bronchitis and heart attacks, and respiratory pro

• Ozone has been linked to premature mortality lung damag

Ozone has been linked to premature mortality, lung damag

respiratory symptoms, aggravation of asthma and other reconditions.

• Sulfur deposition acidifies surface waters and damages fo

Sulfur deposition acidifies surface waters, and damages fo

ecosystems and soils.

• Nitrogen deposition acidifies surface waters, damages fore

ecosystems and soils and contributes to coastal eutrophicecosystems and soils, and contributes to coastal eutrophic

• SO2 and NOX impair visibility, including at national parks a

wilderness areas. 
Significant NOX and SO2 Reductio

from Transport Rule Proposal

• By 2014, EPA modeling projects that implementation of the Tra

as proposed, combined with other state and EPA actions, woul2005 emissions from electric generating units in the covered st2005 emissions from electric generating units in the covered st

– 6.3 million tons of SO2 per year

– 1.4 million tons of NOX per year

• 300,000 tons of NOX during ozone season (included in NOX e

• These reductions represent a 71% reduction in SO2 and a 52% 

NOX emissions from power plants from 2005 levels in the cover

emissions from power plants from 2005 levels in the cove

• In the states and DC covered by the proposed Transport Rule, 

emissions would be capped at 2.5 million tons per year annuallemi i ld b d t 1 4 illi t ( 

issions would be capped at 1.4 million tons per year (ozone 

emissions will be capped at 600,000 tons per year).
Benefits Outweigh Costs

• EPA estimates the annual benefits from the prop

rule range between $120 rule range between $120

-$290 billion (2006 $) i

$290 billion (2006 $) i

– Most of these benefits are public health-related.– $3.6 billion are attributable to visibility improvements in area

national parks and wilderness areas.

– Oth ti d b fit i l d d ti i Other nonmonetize

d

benefits inclu

de re

ductions in mercury 

contamination, acid rain, eutrophication of estuaries and coand acidification of forest soils.

• EPA estimates annual com

pliance costs at $2.8 

2014.

• Modest costs mean small effects on electricity 

generation. 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.