Mike Eggl

Seeing Clearly, Fighting Fairly

EPA’s Role in Regulating Clean Air Across the States

Mike EgglSVP, external relations and communications

Seeing Clearly, Fighting FairlySeeing Clearly, Fighting Fairly

• Clean Air Act / Regional Haze background

• States impacted

• Legislative response

• Communications efforts

– ND case study

Final EPA Nonattainment Designations

Environmental Regulatory Timeline for Coal Units

Ozone

PM2.5

‘08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17

Beginning CAIR Phase I Seasonal NOx Cap

HAPs MACT proposed

rule

Beginning CAIR Phase II Seasonal NOx Cap

Revised Ozone NAAQS

Begin CAIR

Phase I Annual

SO2 Cap

Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual

SO2 & NOx Caps

Next PM-2.5

NAAQS Revision

Next Ozone NAAQS Revision

SO2 Primary NAAQS

SO2/NO2 Secondary

NAAQS

NO2

Primary NAAQS

SO2 /NO2

New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations

CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated

Hg/HAPS

A PM-2.5SIPs due (‘06)

Proposed CAIR Replacement

Rule Expected

HAPS MACT final rule expected

CAIR Vacated

HAPS MACT Compliance 3 yrs

after final rule

CAIR Remanded

CAIR

Begin CAIR

Phase I Annual

NOx Cap

PM-2.5 SIPs due (‘97)

316(b) proposedrule expected

316(b) final ruleexpected

316(b) Compliance3-4 yrs after final rule

Effluent Guidelines

proposed ruleexpected

Water

Effluent GuidelinesFinal rule expected Effluent Guidelines

Compliance 3-5 yrs after final rule

Begin Compliance Requirements

under Final CCB Rule (ground water monitoring, double monitors, closure,

dry ash conversion)

Ash

Proposed Rule for CCBs

Management

Final Rule for CCBs Mgmt

Final CAIR Replacement

Rule Expected

Compliance with CAIR

Replacement Rule

CO2

CO2 Regulation

Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS

Clean Air Act Section 169A 1977

Visibility Protection

Federal Class I Areas

National goal:

The prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.

No visibility impairments by

2064

EPA Regional Haze Regulations 1999

Requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs)

1. Establish goals – reasonable progress – eliminate visibility impairment (2064)

2. Measures to make reasonable progress including: best available retrofit technology (BART) large sources built between 1962 and 1977

North DakotaLeland Olds Station (LOS)• Basin submitted BART for LOS in August, 2006 (supplemented 2007-2010).

• State of North Dakota submitted Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA in March, 2010.

• EPA notifies North Dakota of its intent to propose partial Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for BART controls on some units November 29, 2010.

ND

EPA ImpactsEPA Impacts• Regional Haze / Best Available Retrofit

Technology (BART)

– Improving Visibility in Class 1 areas (i.e. Theodore National Park)

– Reducing Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitric Oxide (NOx)

– Main disagreement - SCRs

– Timeline = Current to 2018

– Costs = Up to $700 million

• Regional Haze / Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

– Improving Visibility in Class 1 areas (i.e. Theodore National Park)

– Reducing Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitric Oxide (NOx)

– Main disagreement - SCRs

– Timeline = Current to 2018

– Costs = Up to $700 million

WildEarth Guardians vs. EPA Consent Decree:

• EPA obligated to issue regional haze proposal for North Dakota SIP by:

March 15, 2011

May 13, 2011

July 21, 2011

?

• Final Action – June 21, 2011

January 26, 2012?

States vs. the Feds

• 40 state plans submitted

• Refused: NM and OK

• Pending: ND

• Pending: WY (?)

• Approved: SD

• Voluntary FIP: MT (2006)

Response:

• Legal

• Public Relations

• Congressional

Legislation

Funding - States

• Wyoming – Increased Governor’s discretionary funding that could be used for EPA lawsuits

• North Dakota – $1 million added to the Department of Health’s budget

EPA legislation Federal

• Senator Inhofe – Introduces discussion draft of Clean Air Act revisions on Regional Haze

• Discourages EPA micromanaging state efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA), while ensuring EPA considers the economic impacts of these State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

Senator Hoeven

Senator Inhofe

Letter to the EditorLetter to the Editor

Publications:

Bismarck TribuneFargo Forum

Grand Forks HeraldMinot Daily News

Dickinson PressValley City TimesJamestown SunBeulah Beacon

Hazen Star

Minnesota SenatorsMinnesota Senators

Letter to the EditorJuly 17, 2011

Letter to the EditorJuly 17, 2011

62 Op-ed Signees

Communicationsefforts

Communicationsefforts

• Partners for Affordable Energy branded effort

• Print, TV, radio

• Earned media

• Social media engagement

• Employee push

• Letter to the editor

• Organizational support

• Partners for Affordable Energy branded effort

• Print, TV, radio

• Earned media

• Social media engagement

• Employee push

• Letter to the editor

• Organizational support

www.stopEPAnd.com•

TV spotTV spot

www.stopEPAnd.com

Facebook: “Like” www.stopEPAnd.com

Questions?