560
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
On July 6, 2011 EPA issued its final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) issued, requiring requires 27 states to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. <ref> [http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ Cross State Air Pollution Rule”] EPA, July 11, 2011. </ref> EPA said the regulations would prevent as many as 34,000 premature deaths along with 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma every year.<ref>John M. Broder [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/science/earth/08epa.html?partner=rss&emc=rss EPA issues tougher rules for power plants] New York Times, July 7, 2011. </ref> Electric utility reactions to the MACT / HAPs rule proposal were sharp. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said the regulations would cost 1.3 million jobs =Industrial Boilers and raise electric costs by 28 percent. <ref> [http://cleancoalusa.org/press-and-media/press-releases/epa-finalizes-expensive-new-regulation EPA finalizes expensive new regulation] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, press release, July 7, 2011. </ref> The Electric Reliability Council of Texas said: "We fear that many of the coal plants in ERCOT will be forced to limit or shut down operations in order to maintain compliance with the new rule." More time would be needed for compliance, they said. <ref> [http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/354 CEO statement regarding EPA cross-state rule] ERCOT News release, July 19, 2011. </ref> ===Industrial Boiler MACT Rule===
==Interstate air pollution and the [[Transport Rule]]==
Air pollution often travels from its source in one state to another state. In many metropolitan areas, people live in one state and work or shop in another; air pollution from cars and trucks may spread throughout the interstate area. The 1990 Clean Air Act provides for interstate commissions on air pollution control, which are to develop regional strategies for cleaning up air pollution. The 1990 Clean Air Act includes other provisions to reduce interstate air pollution.<ref name="rvp"/>
In 2010, the EPA announced new air pollution standards for power plants in 31 states and the District of Columbia, know as the [[Transport Rule]]. The rules aim to limit pollution that drifts from upwind states into neighboring downwind states. Ohio coal plants, for example, are a cause of air pollution in Maryland.<ref>Tennille Tracy, [http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201007091554dowjonesdjonline000509&title=wave-of-epa-regulations-could-overshadow-new-pollution-rule#ixzz0tIHgdRHY "Wave Of EPA Regulations Could Overshadow New Pollution Rule"] NASDAG, July 9, 2010.</ref> Acting under federal court order, the Obama administration proposed the new air-quality rules on July 6, 2010, for coal-burning power plants. The pollutants being singled out in the new rule making — sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — react in the atmosphere to form fine [[Particulates and coal|particulates]] and ground-level [[ozone]] (smog). They are easily carried by the wind and affect states and cities far downwind from the plants where they are produced.<ref>[http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/actions.html#jul10 "Proposed Transport Rule Would Reduce Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particle Pollution,"] EPA Fact Sheet, accessed July 8, 2010</ref>
The proposed regulation would apply to power plants in 31 states east of the Rockies, with the exception of the Dakotas, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, replacing the EPA's 2005 [[Clean Air Interstate Rule]] (CAIR) and cutting sulfur-dioxide emissions by an additional 1 million tons and nitrogen-oxide emissions by 100,000 tons, as well as limiting inter-state trading of pollution allowances.<ref name="jb">John Broder, [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/science/earth/07epa.html?_r=1 "New Rules Issued on Coal Air Pollution"] New York Times, July 6, 2010.</ref> CAIR, passed under [[George W. Bush]], would have allowed emissions sources in different states to trade with each other, but a D.C. Circuit Court (in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896) found the provision was not harmonious with the Clean Air Act, as the [[EPA]] should know the outcome of its rules in advance, at least at the state level. The transport rule responded to the ruling by largely eliminating interstate trading, although intra-state trading is still allowed.<ref>Nathan Richardson, [http://www.rff.org/wv/archive/2010/07/07/death-of-cap-and-trade.aspx "Death of Cap and Trade?"] Weathervane, July 7, 2010.</ref>
Gina McCarthy, head of the E.P.A.’s air and radiation office, said the new rules would reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by hundreds of thousands of tons a year and bring $120 billion in annual health benefits. Those benefits, Ms. McCarthy said, include preventing 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 1.9 million missed school and work days. Additionally, the rule would substantially reduce unhealthy smog. The cost of compliance to utilities and other operators of power plants would be $2.8 billion a year, according to E.P.A. estimates.<ref name="jb"/>
The proposed regulation will require utilities operating coal-burning plants to install [[scrubbers]] and other technology to reduce emissions of the pollutants. Some companies may decide to retire older plants rather than invest in new control measures because other new rules under the Clean Air Act are expected in the coming years. The new rules do not address power plant emissions of [[carbon dioxide]] and five other pollutants that contribute to [[global warming]].<ref name="jb"/>
===2010 report finds EPA underestimating benefits of Transport Rule===
A 2010 report suggests the EPA is underestimating the net savings from SO2 and NOx regulations because it focuses almost exclusively on [[health costs of coal plants|direct health costs]], which does not capture the full impact of the pollution on the economy, such as "higher labor and health insurance costs, lost jobs, lost state and local tax revenue, and higher gasoline prices." The report, [http://www.cleanair.org/DownwindPollutionHiddenCostStudy.pdf "Expensive Neighbors: The Hidden Cost of Harmful Pollution to Downwind Employers and Businesses"] by electricity industry expert Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti finds that power plants without SO2 and NOx scrubbers are imposing an estimated $6 billion in annual costs on downwind businesses.<ref name=dr>David Roberts, [http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-09-new-report-shows-dirty-coal-doing-even-more-damage "New report shows dirty coal doing even more damage than you thought "] Grist, Dec. 9, 2010.</ref>
Specifically, the report finds that, due to unscrubbed coal plants, between 2005 and 2012:<ref name=dr/>
*Businesses will lose $47 billion in costs;
*Over 360,000 jobs will be lost;
*State and local governments will lose almost $9.3 billion in tax revenue;
*Families and businesses in polluted areas will pay $26.0 billion more for reformulated gasoline as a result of ongoing pollution.
When these costs are added to health costs to individuals, the benefits of the EPA's upcoming Clean Air Transport Rule, which would put tighter limits on ozone pollution, "exceed compliance costs by about 100 times." Cicchetti concludes: "There are people who will argue that the benefits of a greener environment are fine when the country is at full employment. But when the country is suffering unemployment, when states are having trouble balancing budgets and businesses are having trouble keeping employees, we can't afford the investments and efforts to make the air cleaner. By drilling down to the employment and businesses effects, showing that those benefits outweigh the additional costs, I've tried to show that we should do it sooner rather than later, that it will reduce the costs of employment in affected areas and stimulate jobs. Now is a better time to get on with the task of making the air better and healthier."<ref name=dr/>
SW: adjust CATR location to follow HAP MACT rules
== Mercury and other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) regulation ==
===Electric generating unitsand the MACT rule===
On December 20, 2000, the EPA determined pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1)(A) that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) under CAA section 112 and added such units to the CAA section 112(c) list of sources that must be regulated under CAA section 112(d). (December 2000 Finding; 65 FR 79,825.) Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires national emission standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). The emission standards must reflect application of the maximum-achievable control technology (MACT). On March 29, 2005, EPA issued a final rule, in which it found that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired EGUs under section 112, and it removed such units from the CAA section 112(c) list of sources (“2005 Action”).<ref>EPA, [http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposal.pdf "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units"] Proposed Rule, March 16, 2011.</ref>
On March 16, 2011, EPA announced its [http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposal.pdf proposed emissions standards] to limit mercury, acid gases and other toxic pollution from power plants, to prevent an estimated 91 percent of the mercury in coal from being released to the air. The proposed rule covered national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) under Clean Air Act section 112(d), and proposed revised new source performance standards (NSPS) for fossil fuel-fired EGUs under CAA section 111(b).The EPA estimated that there are approximately 1,350 units affected by the action, including 1,200 existing coal-fired units.<ref name=fs>[http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf "Fact Sheet: Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards"] EPA, accessed March 2011.</ref>
A parallel issue with regard to HAPs regulation through maximum-achievable control technology (MACT) involves specific industry groups, such as industrial, institutional, and commercial boilers. On Feb. 26, 2004, National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), commonly referred to as the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule, was finalized by the EPA. However, on June 8, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision to vacate the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule, and the EPA was required to rewrite it.<ref name=dw>Don Wolf, [http://hpac.com/bse/understanding-industrial-boiler-mact-0610/index.html "Understanding the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule"] HPAC Engineering, June 3, 2011.</ref>
The EPA estimates that there are more than 13,500 boilers and process heaters that will be subject to the Industrial Boiler Rule. The rule is expected to have the most significant impact on facilities that utilize coal- or biomass-burning boilers (solid-fuel-fired boilers), which would have to reduce emissions of [[mercury]] as well as [[particulate matter]], [[carbon monoxide]], and [[dioxin]]. The EPA estimates there are approximately 600 coal-fired boilers and 400 biomass-fired boilers that will be affected by the rule.<ref name=dw/>
==Interstate air pollution and the [[Transport Rule]]==
Air pollution often travels from its source in one state to another state. In many metropolitan areas, people live in one state and work or shop in another; air pollution from cars and trucks may spread throughout the interstate area. The 1990 Clean Air Act provides for interstate commissions on air pollution control, which are to develop regional strategies for cleaning up air pollution. The 1990 Clean Air Act includes other provisions to reduce interstate air pollution.<ref name="rvp"/>
In 2010, the EPA announced new air pollution standards for power plants in 31 states and the District of Columbia, know as the [[Transport Rule]]. The rules aim to limit pollution that drifts from upwind states into neighboring downwind states. Ohio coal plants, for example, are a cause of air pollution in Maryland.<ref>Tennille Tracy, [http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201007091554dowjonesdjonline000509&title=wave-of-epa-regulations-could-overshadow-new-pollution-rule#ixzz0tIHgdRHY "Wave Of EPA Regulations Could Overshadow New Pollution Rule"] NASDAG, July 9, 2010.</ref> Acting under federal court order, the Obama administration proposed the new air-quality rules on July 6, 2010, for coal-burning power plants. The pollutants being singled out in the new rule making — sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — react in the atmosphere to form fine [[Particulates and coal|particulates]] and ground-level [[ozone]] (smog). They are easily carried by the wind and affect states and cities far downwind from the plants where they are produced.<ref>[http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/actions.html#jul10 "Proposed Transport Rule Would Reduce Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particle Pollution,"] EPA Fact Sheet, accessed July 8, 2010</ref>
The proposed regulation would apply to power plants in 31 states east of the Rockies, with the exception of the Dakotas, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, replacing the EPA's 2005 [[Clean Air Interstate Rule]] (CAIR) and cutting sulfur-dioxide emissions by an additional 1 million tons and nitrogen-oxide emissions by 100,000 tons, as well as limiting inter-state trading of pollution allowances.<ref name="jb">John Broder, [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/science/earth/07epa.html?_r=1 "New Rules Issued on Coal Air Pollution"] New York Times, July 6, 2010.</ref> CAIR, passed under [[George W. Bush]], would have allowed emissions sources in different states to trade with each other, but a D.C. Circuit Court (in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896) found the provision was not harmonious with the Clean Air Act, as the [[EPA]] should know the outcome of its rules in advance, at least at the state level. The transport rule responded to the ruling by largely eliminating interstate trading, although intra-state trading is still allowed.<ref>Nathan Richardson, [http://www.rff.org/wv/archive/2010/07/07/death-of-cap-and-trade.aspx "Death of Cap and Trade?"] Weathervane, July 7, 2010.</ref>
Gina McCarthy, head of the E.P.A.’s air and radiation office, said the new rules would reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by hundreds of thousands of tons a year and bring $120 billion in annual health benefits. Those benefits, Ms. McCarthy said, include preventing 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 21,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 1.9 million missed school and work days. Additionally, the rule would substantially reduce unhealthy smog. The cost of compliance to utilities and other operators of power plants would be $2.8 billion a year, according to E.P.A. estimates.<ref name="jb"/><ref>John M. Broder [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/science/earth/08epa.html?partner=rss&emc=rss EPA issues tougher rules for power plants] New York Times, July 7, 2011. </ref>
The proposed regulation will require utilities operating coal-burning plants to install [[scrubbers]] and other technology to reduce emissions of the pollutants. Some companies may decide to retire older plants rather than invest in new control measures because other new rules under the Clean Air Act are expected in the coming years. The new rules do not address power plant emissions of [[carbon dioxide]] and five other pollutants that contribute to [[global warming]].<ref name="jb"/>
Electric utility reactions to the MACT / HAPs rule proposal were sharp. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said the regulations would cost 1.3 million jobs and raise electric costs by 28 percent. <ref> [http://cleancoalusa.org/press-and-media/press-releases/epa-finalizes-expensive-new-regulation EPA finalizes expensive new regulation] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, press release, July 7, 2011. </ref> The Electric Reliability Council of Texas said: "We fear that many of the coal plants in ERCOT will be forced to limit or shut down operations in order to maintain compliance with the new rule." More time would be needed for compliance, they said. <ref> [http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/354 CEO statement regarding EPA cross-state rule] ERCOT News release, July 19, 2011. </ref>
===2010 report finds EPA underestimating benefits of Transport Rule===
A 2010 report suggests the EPA is underestimating the net savings from SO2 and NOx regulations because it focuses almost exclusively on [[health costs of coal plants|direct health costs]], which does not capture the full impact of the pollution on the economy, such as "higher labor and health insurance costs, lost jobs, lost state and local tax revenue, and higher gasoline prices." The report, [http://www.cleanair.org/DownwindPollutionHiddenCostStudy.pdf "Expensive Neighbors: The Hidden Cost of Harmful Pollution to Downwind Employers and Businesses"] by electricity industry expert Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti finds that power plants without SO2 and NOx scrubbers are imposing an estimated $6 billion in annual costs on downwind businesses.<ref name=dr>David Roberts, [http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-09-new-report-shows-dirty-coal-doing-even-more-damage "New report shows dirty coal doing even more damage than you thought "] Grist, Dec. 9, 2010.</ref>
Specifically, the report finds that, due to unscrubbed coal plants, between 2005 and 2012:<ref name=dr/>
*Businesses will lose $47 billion in costs;
*Over 360,000 jobs will be lost;
*State and local governments will lose almost $9.3 billion in tax revenue;
*Families and businesses in polluted areas will pay $26.0 billion more for reformulated gasoline as a result of ongoing pollution.
When these costs are added to health costs to individuals, the benefits of the EPA's upcoming Clean Air Transport Rule, which would put tighter limits on ozone pollution, "exceed compliance costs by about 100 times." Cicchetti concludes: "There are people who will argue that the benefits of a greener environment are fine when the country is at full employment. But when the country is suffering unemployment, when states are having trouble balancing budgets and businesses are having trouble keeping employees, we can't afford the investments and efforts to make the air cleaner. By drilling down to the employment and businesses effects, showing that those benefits outweigh the additional costs, I've tried to show that we should do it sooner rather than later, that it will reduce the costs of employment in affected areas and stimulate jobs. Now is a better time to get on with the task of making the air better and healthier."<ref name=dr/>
==Leak detection and repair==
The Inhofe-Upton bill allows many Clean Air Act programs to continue, but takes away the agency’s authority to apply the landmark law to carbon dioxide. A deal negotiated with automakers to limit carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks would be allowed to stand through 2016, but no further greenhouse gas emissions rules for vehicles would be permitted. State programs to try to address global warming and carbon emissions would be allowed to continue.<ref name=jb/>
==Updated Clean Air Act regulations and jobs==
