State Initiatives for Reducing Power Plant Pollution

1
State Initiatives for Reducing Power Plant
Pollution

• Martha H. Keating
• Clean Air Task Force
• NC DAQ Mercury and CO2 Workshop
• Raleigh, NC
• April 20, 2004

2
States are Taking Control of Mercury

• Wait and see what EPA is going to do not good
  enough for 14 states.
• Some are moving ahead with mercury-specific state
  regulation.
• Others have co-benefit pollutant approach
  developed by state environmental departments.
• Legislative actions on the table in other states.
• Voluntary program
• Regulation by permit

3
Final and Proposed Mercury-Specific Rules

• CT - 2003 Final rule
• WI - 2003 Proposed rule
• MA - 2003 Proposed rule
• NJ - 2004 Proposed rule

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
Co-Control Approach

• Taking advantage of NOx and SOx co-control
  mercury reduction without even trying.
• North Carolina - 2002 Clean Smokestacks Bill
  (estimated 65 Hg co-benefit). May recommend Hg
  specific controls in 2005.
• New Hampshire - 2002 Clean Power Act. Mercury cap
  will be recommended to legislature by DES in 2004.

7
Legislative Activity

• DE - bill introduced to cut Hg by 90 - also
  covers NOx and SOx - similar to NC.
• IL EPA to recommend limits in Spring 2004.
• MI DEQ working with task force to develop a
  mercury reduction plan in 2004.

8
Still Trying

• MN - Voluntary plan passed by legislature in 1999
  recommending that utilities voluntarily reduce Hg
  emissions. A 2001 progress report showed no
  emissions have been reduced.
• MD - bill (similar to NC) introduced in 2003 but
  withdrawn.
• OH - legislation introduced in 2002 but didnt
  make it out of committee. Will be re-introduced.
• NY - Several bills introduced in past legislative
  sessions have not made it out of committee.

9
New Source Permits

• Since coal-fired utility units are now on the
  source category list (although EPA is trying to
  delist them), they are subject to CAA section
  112(g) (Modifications) and 112(j) (the permit
  hammer).
• New or modified sources are subject to
  case-by-case MACT determination.
• Most states are only looking at co-benefits of
  criteria pollutant controls as MACT. Virtually
  all of these are being challenged in court.
• Iowa has stepped up and negotiated a permit
  requirement for a new coal-fired facility that
  will achieve at least an 83 reduction in Hg
  emissions through the use of activated carbon
  injection. Plant will come on-line in 2007.

10
Keys to Success

• Buy-in from affected companies.
• Identification of and compromise on make or
  break issues.
• Examples
• Connecticut
• Wisconsin
• Massachusetts and New Jersey