Clean Smokestacks Act North Carolina Mercury and CO2 Workshop April 19 - 21, 2004 Brock Nicholson, P.E. Deputy Director N.C. Division of Air Quality.

“Clean Smokestacks Act”North Carolina Mercury and CO2

Workshop

April 19 - 21, 2004

Brock Nicholson, P.E.

Deputy Director

N.C. Division of Air Quality

Topics to be Covered Today

Overview of Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA)

Requirements for Mercury and CO2 in CSA

Origin of Mercury and CO2 Requirements in CSA

Expectations for Annual Reports to Legislature

Expectations for Final Recommendations to Legislature

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”

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

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.

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

Requirements for Mercury in CSA

Section 12 of CSA Significant Co-benefits Expected from SO2 and NOx

Control DAQ Shall Study Issue of Monitoring and Control

Programs for Mercury from Coal-Fired power plants DAQ Shall Evaluate Available Controls and Estimate the

Costs and Benefits Annual Reports to Legislature and Environmental

Management Commission on on Interim Findings and Recommendations– September 1, 2003 and 2004.

Final Findings and Recommendation on Further Controls - September 1, 2005

Costs of Additional Controls for Mercury Not Recoverable under the Provisions of the Current CSA

Requirements for CO2 in CSA

Section 13 of CSA DAQ Shall Study Issues Related to Standards and

Plans to Control Emissions of CO2 from Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other stationary Sources

DAQ Shall Evaluate Available Control Technologies and Estimate the Benefits and Costs of CO2 Control

Annual Reports to Legislature and Environmental Management Commission on Interim Findings and Recommendations– September 1, 2003 and 2004.

Final Findings and Recommendations - September 1, 2005

Costs of Additional Controls for CO2 Not Recoverable under the Provisions of the Current CSA

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

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 Section 126 Petition

References

Text of Act: http://www.ncleg.net/html2001/bills/AllVersions/Senate/S1078vc.html

[email protected]

919-715-0587