# Clean Air Act Implementation

Updates including 

# Recent Court Decisions

David B. Conroy Air Programs Branch EPA Region 1 NECA Conference on Environmental Issues July 24, 2014

# Overview of Presentation


#  CPP 

#  CAIR/CSAPR  MATS 

#  GHG Permitting  NAAQS Implementation  

# Ozone  

# PM 2.5  

# SO 2 2

### On June 2, 2014, as part of the President’s Climate Action Plan EPA proposed a commonsense plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants. The proposed plan will:  By 2030, reduce nationwide carbon dioxide (CO 2

### ) emissions, from the power sector by approximately 30% 

### from 2005 levels.  

### Require a reasonable emission reduction glidepath starting in 2020. 

###  Cut hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful particulate 

### matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as a co - benefit.  Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030. 

# Proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP)

3

## This Proposal Deals With the Largest

Source of GHG Emissions in the U.S.

4

# Reducing Carbon Pollution



# from Power Plants President’s Directive to EPA: 

# Develop carbon pollution standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for: 1. New power plants  Proposed: January 8, 2014 

## 2. Modified and reconstructed power plants  Proposal: June 2014  Final : June 2015 

## 3. Existing power plants  Proposed Guidelines: June 2014  Final Guidelines: June 2015  State Plans due: June 2016 5

###  Section 111 establishes a mechanism for controlling air pollution from stationary sources  

### Applies to sources for which the Administrator finds “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may 

### reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”  

### Can apply to new, existing, modified and reconstructed sources.


###  New sources under section 111(b)  

### Federal standards for new, modified and reconstructed sources


###  Existing sources under section 111(d)  

### State programs for existing sources that are equivalent to 

### federal guidelines



## EPA’s Regulatory Approach Clean Air Act Section 111

6

## Key Factors in BSER Determination
 Feasibility System of emission reductions must be technically feasible
 Costs Costs of the system are reasonable
 Size of reductions EPA may consider the amount of emission reductions the system would generate


###  Technology Designed to promote the implementation and further development of technology 

# Best System of Emissions Reduction (BSER) under CAA Section 111(b)

7

### CAA S ection 111(d) requires EPA to develop guidelines for states to address existing sources not addressed elsewhere in the CAA
 

### Section 111(d) – Federal Guidelines for States  The Administrator shall “prescribe regulations . . . under which each State shall submit to the 

### Administrator a plan which establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant for which air quality criteria have not been issued . . . but to which a standard of performance 

### under this section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance.” 

## Clean Air Act Section 111(d) – Existing Sources

8

## Clean Air Act Section 111(d) for EGUs



## Best System of Emission Reduction

• Previous EPA rules under this section of the Clean Air Act have considered “add -on” control technologies – like scrubbers -- that are technically feasible to deploy at virtually any facility. • In contrast, there are a wide variety of ways to reduce carbon pollution that are commercially available, technically feasible, and cost effective. 

### • The opportunities vary from state to state, depending on how electricity is generated, energy infrastructure, and other factors. • In this proposal, EPA took an approach that viewed the Clean Air Act factors in determining Best System of Emission Reduction in light of the interconnected nature of power generation. 9

# EPA Establishes a Goal



# for Every State

 EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities are already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector.  Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, calculated with state and regional specific information.  The result of the equation is the state goal.  Each state goal is a rate – a statewide number for the future carbon intensity of covered existing fossil -fuel -fired power plants in a state expressed in lbs/MWhr . 

###  The state goal rate is calculated to account for the mix of power sources in each state and the application of the “building blocks” that make up the best system of emission reduction. 

###  States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal. 10

### Building Block Value Allocated in Goal -Setting Formula 1. Make fossil fuel -fired power plants more efficient Average heat rate improvement of 6% for coal steam electric generation units (EGUs)
2. Use lower- emitting power sources more Dispatch to existing and under- construction natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units to up to 70% capacity factor 3. Use more zero/lowemitting energy sources Dispatch to new clean generation, including new nuclear generation under construction, moderate deployment of new renewable generation, and continued use of existing nuclear generation 4. Use electricity more efficiently Increase demand -side energy efficiency to 1.5% annually 11

# State performance goals

( lbs/MWh ) State 2012 Fossil

Emission Rate 1 Interim Goal (2020 - 2029 average)2 Final Goal (2030

and thereafter) 2 Connecticut 844 597 540 Maine 873 393 378 Massachusetts 1,001 655 576 New Hampshire 1,119 546 486 Rhode Island 918 822 782
12 1 From Goal Computation Technical Support Document, Appendix 5 – 2012 Emissions Rate and Building Block Application, 2 From Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60 – State Rate-Based CO2 Emission Performance Goals, Proposed

# Flexibilities Available To States

 Timing:  Up to 15 -year window in which to plan for and achieve reductions in carbon pollution.  U p to two or three years to submit final plans.  Form of goal: States can use either a rate - based or mass based goal.  Single or multi -state plans: States can collaborate and develop plans on a multi -state basis.  Selection of measures :  States will choose how to meet the goal through whatever collection of measures reflects its particular circumstances and policy objectives.  State measures may impact and, in fact may be explicitly designed to reduce, CO 2 emissions from utilities on a regional basis.  EPA would support building off existing reduction programs. 13

# States Have Flexibility Carbon emissions from affected power

plants in an example state

Timing of Power Plant Emission Reductions As an example, states could do less in the early years, and more in the

later years, as long as on average it meets the goal

14

# Benefits and Costs

 Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would help reduce CO 2 

### emissions 

### from the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels.  Also by 2030, reduce by over 25% pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog. 

###  These reductions will lead to public health and climate benefits 

### worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030.  Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030.  Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated annual 

### costs of meeting the standards.  Estimated at $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030. 

###  Proposal protects children and other vulnerable Americans from the health threats posed by a range of pollutants. 

###  Move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations.  Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth. 15

# Next Steps

 The proposed rule, as well as information about how to comment and supporting technical information, are available online at: www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

 EPA will hold 4 public hearings the week of July 28 th 

## in Denver , Atlanta , Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

 There will be a 120 -day public comment period on the proposal, closing October 16, 2014.

 Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA- HQ - OAR -2013-0602 . 160

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Generation (GWh)

Year

ISO New England Electricity Generation Mix by Fuel Type, 2000- 2012

Coal & Oil Natural Gas Nuclear Renewables & Hydro Total Generation (GWh) 

# New England Generation Mix

17 Data Sources: ISO New England Energy Sources, 2000-2013

http://www.iso-ne.com/nwsiss/grid_mkts/enrgy_srcs/22% 12%

-20%

-71%

-93% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New England Economic Growth and ISO New England System

Emissions, 1999 -2012

New England GDP Total Generation CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions 

### Emissions, Generation and Economic Growth

18 Data Sources: 2012 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysishttp://www.rggi.org/market/tracking/allowance -allocation Northeast states implement RGGI :  2014 emissions cap: 91 million short tons  2015 – 2020 emissions caps: annual 2.5% reductions  2020 emissions cap: 78 million short tons  Auction proceeds invested in the region (EE, RE, direct bill assistance, GHG abatement, etc .) Working with the RGGI states:  EPA’s 111(d) proposal allows for states to demonstrate mass - based equivalency to the proposed rate - based goals and solicits comment on conversion methods  EPA’s 111(d) proposal allows states to submit multi -state plans 

# Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

19

# Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

 Clean Air Act requires states to address emissions that “contribute significantly” to nonattainment or “interfere with maintenance” of NAAQS in downwind states.

 March 2005 - EPA issued Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) covering 27 eastern states and DC. CAIR uses cap & trade program to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants to meet 1997 annual and 24- hour fine particle (PM 2.5) and 1997 8 - hour ozone NAAQS.  CAIR was projected, at full implementation, to reduce power plant SO 2 emissions in affected states to just 2.5 million tons, 73 % below 2003 emissions levels .  For NOx, CAIR will reduce power plant NOx emissions by 2 million tons, achieving a regional emissions level of 1.3 million tons, a 61% reduction from 2003 levels .  States were required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to EPA demonstrating compliance with their applicable SO 2 and NOx EGU budgets. 20

# States Covered by CAIR

21

# CAIR Challenged in US Court of

Appeals for the DC Circuit

 July 11, 2008 – Court issues decision to vacate CAIR  Fall 2008 – Parties to the litigation submit requests for rehearing and other information including expected effects of a vacatur  Dec 23, 2008 – Court amends decision and remands CAIR without vacatur  

### Requires EPA to promulgate replacement rules to 

### CAIR, consistent with the Court's July 11, 2008 ruling  

### Leaves CAIR in effect until replacement rules are promulgated 22

# Cross State Air Pollution Rule

(CSAPR)

 July 2011 - EPA finalized CAIR replacement rule, the Cross- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).  CSAPR focused on attainment and maintenance of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS  CSAPR was intended to cover emissions in 2012 and beyond.  CSAPR implemented through a federal rule.  CSAPR established new allowances for all programs.  There is no carryover of Acid Rain Program, NOx SIP Call/NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP), or CAIR allowances .  By 2014, combined with other final state and EPA actions, the Cross - State Air Pollution Rule was projected to reduce power plant SO 2 emissions by 73 percent and NOx emissions by 54 percent from 2005 levels in the CSAPR region. 23

# States Covered by CSAPR

*This map includes states covered in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. • Cross - State Air Pollution Rule includes separate requirements for: • Annual SO 2 reductions • Annual NOx reductions • Ozone -season NOx reductions

24

# Litigation on CSAPR

 December 2011 - D.C. Circuit issued ruling to stay CSAPR pending judicial review.  March 2012 - EPA filed brief defending CSAPR and reasons rule should be upheld. 

###  August 2012 - D.C. Circuit issued decision to vacate CSAPR .  Orders EPA to “continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.” 

###  April 2014 - U.S. Supreme Court reversed D.C. Circuit opinion 

### vacating CSAPR.  June 26, 2014 – EPA filed motion with D.C. Circuit to lift stay of CSAPR and to allow it to go into effect beginning Jan 1  If the court adopts EPA’s suggestion, phase 1 of the rule would begin in 2015 and phase 2 would go into effect two years later, in 2017. 

###  While Court considers motion, CAIR remains in place.
More information at www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR 25

# CAIR and CSAPR

in New England

 Connecticut and Massachusetts were included in ozone season CAIR program, but are not in CSAPR, because air quality modeling shows they 

## no longer contribute significantly to nonattainment or maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM NAAQS or the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states. 

##  CAIR is in each of these state’s SIPs and relied on to meet various Clean Air Act obligations for programs such as Regional Haze and ozone.  If CSAPR is implemented, EPA will work with these 

## states to develop a replacement program to retain emission reductions achieved under CAIR . 26

# Mercury and Air Toxics

Standards (MATS)

• On Feb 16, 2012, EPA promulgated the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), the first national standards to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal - and oil -fired power plants • Standards will reduce emissions of:

• Metals, including mercury (Hg), arsenic, chromium, and nickel

• Acid gases, including hydrogen chloride ( HCl ) and hydrogen fluoride (HF)

• Particulate matter • Compliance required by April 14, 2015, with opportunity for 1 -year extension • On April 15, 2014, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the rule against challenges from industry groups More information at www.epa.gov/mats 27

# GHG Permitting Tailoring Rule



# Implementation Schedule 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

 Step 1 : Sources already subject to PSD “anyway” and GHG emissions = or > than (tpy CO 2 e): New source: NA PSD Modification: 75,000  Step 2 : Step 1 plus sources with GHG emissions = or > than (tpy CO2e): New source: 100,000 PSD Modification: 75,000  Step 3 : Maintains the thresholds from Step 1 and Step 2. Establishes additional PAL provisions to streamline the permitting process • 5 -year study: To examine GHG permitting for smaller sources • Step 4: Additional rulemaking based on 5 -year study Complete Study 1/2/11 begin permitting for “anyway” sources & modifications 2016

Rule issued 6/29/12

Due 2016 7/1/11 begin including sources that would be major for GHG only

28

# GHG Tailoring Rule Litigation

 On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals- D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's Endangerment Finding and greenhouse gas regulations issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and CAA permitting for stationary sources .  On Feb 24, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the matter of UARG v. EPA where the Court had granted certiorari on the following question:  Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.  June 23, 2014 : The Supreme Court issues its decision on permitting GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Decision states  “The Act neither compels nor permits EPA to adopt an interpretation of the Act requiring a source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse- gas emissions .”  “ EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with BACT for greenhouse gases.” Future guidance will be posted www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html 29

# NAAQS Reviews: Status Update

Ozone Lead Primary NO2 Primary

SO2 Secondary NO2 and SO2 PM CO Last Review Completed (final rule signed) Mar 2008 Oct 2008 Jan 2010 Jun 2010 Mar 2012 Dec 2012 Aug 2011 

##  The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) every 5 years to determine whether they should be retained or revised.

30

# 2008 Ozone NAAQS

Implementation

 Revised primary 8 - hr Ozone standard in 2008 (75 ppb)

 EPA designations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS effective on July 20, 2012

 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule  Proposed May 29, 2013 (78 FR 34178)  Anticipate final rule in late 2014  RACT plans due July 20, 2014  Attainment demonstrations due July 2015 (Moderate) or July 2016 (Serious and above)
31Morongo Tribe Pechanga Tribe

Final designation Classifications and Area Counts

- EPA has not designated as nonattainment any areas outside the Continental U.S.

- Map reflects classifications following requests for voluntary bump -up. 

### Nonattainment Areas for 2008 Ozone NAAQS by Classification (Effective July 20, 2012)

32

# Preliminary 2013 Ozone Design Values 3-Year average of the 4th 

## high concentration for 

## 2011, 2012, 2013

Unclassified /Attainment Nonattainment 76 - 84 ppb > 84 ppb 71 - 75 ppb < 71 ppb

Created by ME DEP

# Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT)
 The 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule will cover RACT obligations for moderate and above nonattainment areas, and areas in the 

### Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
 The 12 states and DC within the ozone transport region are required to submit a 

### RACT SIP addressing NOx and VOC emissions by July 20, 2014.
 EPA is recommending that states review 

### NOx emission limits for facilities with existing controls and update those limits where appropriate, consistent with past performance. 34

# Current Ozone NAAQS Review

 Received court ruling on April 29, 2014  

### Propose December 1, 2014  

### Final October 1, 2015


##  CASAC letter of June 26, 2014  

### Primary standard “there is adequate scientific evidence to recommend a range of levels for a revised primary ozone standard from 70 ppb to 60 ppb. . . our policy advice is to set the level of the standard lower than 70 ppb within a range down to 60 ppb, taking into account your judgment regarding the desired margin of safety to protect public health, and taking into account that lower levels will provide incrementally greater margins of safety.”
 

### Secondary standard: W126 within the range of 7 ppm - hrs to 15 ppm - hrs 35

# PM 2.5 

# NAAQS Implementation

 EPA revised the annual primary PM 2.5 NAAQS to 12 μ g/m 3 from the previous level of 15 μ g/m 3 on Dec 14, 2012.  EPA retained daily PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3 set in 2006. 

###  Status of Designations  State (and Tribal) recommendations were due to EPA by December 13, 2013  EPA received recommendations from 50 states, 2 territories, D.C. and 6 tribes  5 states (PA, OH, IL, IA and CA) recommended a total of 15 nonattainment areas (including 39 whole or partial counties) 

###  Next Steps  EPA intends to notify states/tribes of intended modifications to recommendations in “120 -day” letters by August 2014  Final designations expected in December 2014 3637

# 2010 SO2 

# NAAQS

Implementation

 Revised primary SO2 

### standard: June 2010 (75 ppb/1 - hr)

 Initial nonattainment area designations, based on violating 

### monitors, were effective October 4, 2013  29 areas in 16 states designated (In New England, only NH area)  Attainment plans due April 2015

38

# 2010 SO2 

# NAAQS

Implementation

 1 - hr SO 2 

### NAAQS Nonattainment SIP Elements Guidance  

### Objective is to provide assistance to areas developing their nonattainment area plans  

### Issued guidance on April 24, 2014



###  SO 2 

### Data Requirements Rule  

### Objective is to provide information to EPA in an orderly fashion to inform initial area designations for areas not 

### designated in 2013  

### Proposed on April 17, 2014  

### Final scheduled for late 2014
39

# QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS

40