Mercury and CO2 Emissions from the Power Generation Sector

1
Mercury and CO2 Emissionsfrom the Power
Generation Sector
By C.V. Mathai, Ph. D. Manager for Environmental
Policy Arizona Public Service Company Phoenix,
Arizona A Presentation at the DENR/DAQ
Mercury/CO2 Workshop Raleigh, North
Carolina April 20, 2004
2
Overview

• Introduction
• Mercury Emissions and Proposed Regulation
• Global Climate Change
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
  Change (UNFCCC)
• Kyoto Protocol
• Multi-Pollutant Legislation
• Summary and Conclusions

3
Electricity and Fuel Diversity

• Power generation is a major contributor to
  national air pollutant emissions
• SO2 63
• NOx 22
• Hg 37
• CO2 40
• A diverse fuel mix is critical to ensure
  electrical reliability, minimize price
  volatility, and strengthen national security

Fuel Oil
Hydro/
3
Other

Renewables
11

Gas
16

Coal
51

Nuclear
20
Current Generation Mix
(Numbers exceed 100 due to rounding.) Source
Form EIA-759 and Form EIA-860B
4
(No Transcript)
5
Contributions to Global Anthropogenic Emissions
of Mercury (t/yr)
Oceania 53
Rest of North America 71
United States 155 (utilities 48)
Africa 271
South Central America 194
Europe 560
Asia 1232
Global total 2536 T/y Source EPRI
6
(No Transcript)
7
Is there a mercury management floor? Mercury
entering the U.S. from other countries
Percent of mercury deposition that originates
outside of the U.S.
PORTION OF THE U.S. WHERE LESS THAN 20 OF THE
MERCURY ORIGINATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
PORTIONS OF THE U.S. WHERE MORE THAN 60 OF THE
MERCURY ORIGINATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
EPRI TEAM regional model, global chemical model
8
Chlorine and Mercury Emissions

• Mercury emissions from power plants occur in
  three forms Elemental, Oxidized, and
  Particle-bound
• Chlorine concentration in coal has a significant
  impact on the type of Hg emissions
• Lower the Cl level, higher the elemental Hg
  fraction
• higher the Cl level, higher the oxidized and
  particulate Hg fractions
• Oxidized and particulate Hg fractions are easily
  controllable in conventional pollution control
  devices, but not elemental Hg
• PM and SO2 controls are not efficient to remove
  elemental Hg, i.e., little Co-benefits

9
(No Transcript)
10
Mercury Removal with PAC Upstream of Fabric
Filters and ESPs
11
PAC Performance with ESPs Bituminous versus PRB
12
(No Transcript)
13
Mercury MACT

• 1990 CAA required EPA to Report to Congress on
  the need to regulate Hg emissions from power
  generation sources (Report submitted in 1998)
• In 1999, EPA assembled the ICR database
• In Dec 2000, EPA made a regulatory finding that
  controlling utility Hg emissions was necessary
  and appropriate triggering the CAA Maximum
  Achievable Control Technology (MACT) provision
• For existing sources, MACT is defined as the
  average emission limitation achieved by the best
  performing 12
• For new sources, MACT is the best of the best
• EPA proposed three options to regulate Hg
  emissions from coal-fired power plants Rule to
  become final by Dec 2004

14
EPAs Proposed Mercury Rule

• EPA proposed three approaches to control mercury
  from coal-fired power plants
• Traditional, plant-by-plant MACT controls,
  achieving 29 reduction by Dec. 2007 (via CAA
  Section 112 MACT)
• A two-phased cap-and-trade program, reducing Hg
  emissions by 69 by 2018, administered by the EPA
  (via CAA Section 112(n)(1)(A))
• A similar cap-and trade program, but administered
  by the States and SIPs (via CAA Section 111)
• Public comments are due by April 30, and EPA to
  finalize the Rule by Dec. 15, 2004

15
Global Climate Change

• In 1988, the United Nations Environmental Program
  and the World Meteorological Organization
  established the Intergovernmental Panel on
  Climate Change (IPCC)
• Based on the IPCCs 1990 First Assessment Report,
  world leaders adopted the United Nations
  Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
  at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in
  1992
• UNFCCCs Objective is .... stabilization of
  greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
  at a level that would prevent dangerous
  anthropogenic interference with the Climate
  system
• The UNFCCC has been ratified by a large number of
  countries, including the U.S., and is in effect
  as of 1994
• Conferences of Parties (COPs) to the UNFCCC has
  been held annually since 1995

16
UNFCCC Commitments

• Annex I Parties commit themselves ...
• The policies and measures will aim to return
  emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases,
  individually or jointly, to their 1990 levels
• ... adopt national policies and take measures on
  the mitigation of climate change by limiting its
  anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases...
• These Parties may implement such policies and
  measures jointly with other Parties and may
  assist other Parties in contributing to the
  achievement of the objective of the convention

17
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

• In 1997 COP-3 agreed on a protocol establishing
  legally-binding differentiated emission limits
  for 38 industrialized countries reducing their
  annual average GHG emissions by about 5.2 below
  its 1990 level, during 2008-2012 United States
  share is 7 below 1990 emissions
• The Protocol incorporates several compliance
  flexibility measures -- five-year emission
  budgets, banking, inclusion of sinks, six
  greenhouse gases, international emission trading,
  joint implementation, and a Clean Development
  Mechanism
• It marks a major first step towards the objective
  of the UNFCCC, i.e., to stabilize atmospheric
  concentrations of greenhouse gases at a safe
  level
• The Protocol does not call for any emission
  limits for developing countries

18
U.S. Actions on Climate Change

• In 2001 U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol
  Bush Administration is embarking on a voluntary
  program to cut carbon intensity (GHG
  emissions/GDP)
• There is momentum building to initiate some form
  of domestic action on carbon, independent of the
  Kyoto Protocol process
• A number of States have initiated programs to
  reduce GHG emissions
• Proposals to reduce CO2 emissions from power
  generation sources are pending before the
  Congress
• McCain/Lieberman Bill failed in the Senate by 43
  to 55

19
Multi-Pollutant Legislation

• Several proposals are pending before Congress
  calling for a coordinated, market-based approach
  to reduce multiple pollutant emissions from the
  power generation sector
• Clear Skies Act (Bush Bill)
• Clean Air Planning Act (Carper Bill)
• Clean Power Act (Jeffords Bill)

20
The Alternative under the Clean Air Act is a
Complex Set of Requirements Covering the Power
Sector
NSR Permits for new sources modifications that
increase emissions
Note Dotted lines indicate a range of possible
dates. 1 The D.C. Circuit Court has delayed the
May 1, 2003 EGU compliance date for the section
126 final rule 2 Further action on ozone would
be considered based on the 2007 assessment. 3
The SIP-submittal and attainment dates are keyed
off the date of designation for example, if PM
or ozone are designated in 2004, the first
attainment date is 2009 EPA is required to
update the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for boilers and turbines every 8 years
8-hr Ozone Attain- ment Demon- stration SIPs
due
1-hr Severe Area Attainment Date
Designate areas for 8-hr Ozone NAAQS
Assess Effectiveness of Regional Ozone Strategies
Marg-inal 8-hr Ozone NAAQS Attain-ment Date
Moderate 8-hr Ozone NAAQS Attainment Date
Ozone
1-hr Serious Area Attainment Date
NOx SIP Call Red-uc-tions
Possible Regional NOx Reductions ? (SIP call II) 2
NOx SIPs Due
Section 126 NOx Controls 1
OTC NOx Trading
Serious 8-hr Ozone NAAQS attainment Date
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
99
01
02
03
11
14
00
Compliance for BART Sources
Compliance for BART sources under the Trading
Program
Mercury Determination
Proposed Utility MACT
Final Utility MACT
Compliance with Utility MACT
Second Regional Haze SIPs due
New Fine PM NAAQS Implementation Plans
Designate Areas for Fine PM NAAQS
Latest attainment date for Fine PM NAAQS 3
Phase II Acid Rain Compliance
Interstate Transport Rule to Address SO2/ NOx
Emissions for Fine PM NAAQS and Regional Haze
Regional Haze SIPs due
In developing the timeline of current CAA
requirements, it was necessary for EPA to make
assumptions about rulemakings that have not been
completed or, in some case, not even started.
EPAs rulemakings will be conducted through the
usual notice-and-comment process, and the
conclusions may vary from these assumptions.
Acid Rain, PM2.5, Haze, Toxics
21
Multi-Pollutant Control Legislative
ProposalsProposed Emissions Caps (Tons / Year)
Source EIA AEO 2003 Reference Case Forecast,
S.485, S.366, S.843
22
Power Sector Emission Reductions
23
Summary and Conclusions

• Mercury is a global air pollutant and U.S. Power
  Plants emissions contribute only about 2 of the
  total man-made Hg emissions
• Recent studies show that 60 or more of the Hg
  deposition in the U.S., except for some areas in
  the East, originate outside the U.S.
• Activated Carbon Injection can effectively
  control mercury at coal-fired power plants
• EPA has proposed three approaches to control Hg
  emissions from coal-fired power plants -- A MACT
  program and two cap-and-trade programs a final
  Rule is expected by Dec 2004

24
Summary and Conclusions (Contd.)

• Global CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2
  concentrations are steadily increasing and there
  is increasing public support for climate-related
  action
• The Kyoto Protocol appears to be dead global
  agreement for action on climate is likely only if
  the U.S. provides leadership
• Current pollutant-by-pollutant, source-by-source
  Clean Air Act regulatory program is complex,
  costly, and inefficient
• An integrated emission reduction strategy, like
  the proposed Clear Skies Act, is necessary to
  make cost-effective and timely emission
  reductions to achieve improved air quality and to
  ensure affordable and reliable electric power
  supply