19
North Carolina’s “Clean Smokestacks Act” NGA Conference on State Best Practices April 29-30, 2004 Brock Nicholson, P.E. Deputy Director N.C. Division of Air
North Carolina’s “Clean Smokestacks Act”
NGA Conference on State Best Practices
April 29-30, 2004
Brock Nicholson, P.E.
Deputy Director
N.C. Division of Air Quality
Why Was CSA Proposed and Enacted?
Public Health Concerns Significant Visibility Degradation, Especially
in the Mountains Economic Well Being, both Currently and for
the Future Dedication of Individuals Opportunity Was Right “Alignment of the Stars”
Clean Smokestacks Act Results from Broad Stakeholder Effort
Utility Companies Legislative Sponsors Environmental Community Division of Air Quality / Dept. of Environment
and Natural Resources Governor’s Office State Utilities Commission Attorney Generals Office Business and Industrial Community Utility Rate Payers
Daily SO4 Aerosol & its Change on July 15, 1995 for a 10% Reduction of 2010 Strategy A2 SO2 Emissions
KY WV VA
TN2010-A2 NC
AL GA SC
+0.15
+0.05
- 0.05
- 0.15
- 0.25
- 0.35
- 0.45
- 0.55g/m3
(Class 5 day)
SAMI Observations: SO2 Sensitivity Maps
State to State Comparison: In general, the largest change in SO4
aerosol or SO4 deposition in a SAMI state is due to SO2 emissions changes in that state
Each SAMI state contributes to change in SO4 aerosol or SO4 deposition in neighboring SAMI states.
Sip
sey,
AL
Co
hu
tta,
GA
Joyc
e K
ilm
er,
NC
Lo
ok
Ro
ck,
(Sm
oki
es),
TN
Sh
inin
gR
ock
, N
C
Lin
vill
eG
org
e, N
C
Jam
es R
iver
F
ace,
VA
Sh
enan
ho
ah,
VA
Ott
er C
reek
, V
A
Do
lly
So
ds,
WV
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
Annual SO4 Aerosol Response to 10% Reduction in SO2 Emissions from 2010 A2 strategy
SO4
Aer
osol
Sen
sitiv
ity (%
)
OtherFL&MSNEMWCNWVVATNSCNCKYGAAL
Creation of Clean Smokestack Act
In 1st Year:• Environmental Group Efforts• NOx SIP Rule• Legislative Sponsors Ownership• Real Reductions in NC• Concern with Mercury and CO2• Deal on Pollutant Caps• Cost Recovery• SAMI Finding• Support by Utility Companies
In 2nd Year:• Leadership by Governor• Creativeness by Utilities Commission and Companies• Handling of “Credits”• Support of Industry Customers• Alignment of Stars
North Carolina Clean Smoke Stacks Act, What does it Require?
NOx & SO2 Caps on Emissions• Tons / year
• Caps per Company - They decide on Controls
Phased Compliance; 1 Jan ’07, ‘09, ‘13 Actual Reductions in NC; About 75 % Unique Cost Recovery Feature Recommendations on Hg & CO2; Sep ‘05 Reduction Credits Held by the State
Utility Company Plans
Initial Plans Submitted 20 + SO2 Scrubbers 36 SCR / SNCR Units Most with Combustion Controls NOx Controls in Place Starting in 2001 SO2 Scrubbers Scheduled to be in
Starting in 2005
Emissions Reductions Under Clean Smokestacks Bill
0
5 0000
1 00000
1 5 0000
2 00000
2 5 0000
3 00000
3 5 0000
4 00000
4 5 0000
5 00000
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
1998 2007 2009 1998 2009 2013
NOx(tons/year)
SO2
(tons/year)
245,000
60,000 56,000
489,000
250,000
130,000
Origin of Mercury and CO2 Provisions in CSA
Concern Over Public Health and Environment Desire for Comprehensive Approach for Utilities Concern Over State of Knowledge, Technical Issues
and Costs Expectations of Significant “Co-Benefits” of Mercury
Reduction from Control of SO2 and NOx In Light of Concerns, Agreed on SO2 and NOx Caps
at Outset with Requirement to make Recommendations to Legislature on Issue of Further Controls for Mercury and CO2 Controls by a Future Date Certain
SO2 and NOx reductions are Actual in NC
Question: Will Clean Smokestacks SOx/NOx Control Co-Benefit be Enough?
“White Paper” on State of Knowledge/Science on Expected Co-Benefit of Controls, - September 2003
Workshop April 2004 - September 2004 Report Understand What Control Options Exist;
Benefits and costs Update Knowledge/Make Recommendations
to Legislature on Whether Additional Controls are Necessary – September 2005
If so how much and by when?
So, What Does this Mean WRT Mercury
WRT Carbon Dioxide
Report on State of Knowledge – September 2003
Comprehensive Review• Full Range of Options Possible for Reducing CO2• Consider Costs• What is Being Done Elsewhere?• What is being proposed?
Workshop April 2004 - September 2004 Report Update Knowledge, Present Range of Options
for consideration, Make Recommendations to Legislature on Reducing CO2 – September 2005
North Carolina’s Efforts to Encourage Emissions Reduction in
Other States 2002 - 2003
• Governor Easley Sends Letter to other Governors
• Attorney General’s Letter to other Attorneys General in Region
• Southern Air Principle States’ Recommendations and Governors’ Letter to President Bush
• SAMI Recommendation on Multi-pollutant Strategies• Meetings with other states
• DAQ modeling analysis, e.g. 8-hour Ozone; Assess Impacts on North Carolina
• DAQ, Letters to Other States in Eastern US
2003 - 2004 AG sends Letters to 13 States
2004 NC Files Section 126 Petition with EPA
What Is Next?
April Status Reports on Compliance Progress
2nd Report to Legislature on Implementation by Utilities
A Lot of Work by Utilities 2nd Report to legislature on Hg and
CO2 - September 1, 2004
References
Text of Act: http://www.ncleg.net/html2001/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S1078vc.html
919-715-0587
