Status of Regional Haze Plans WRAP Board Meeting Salt Lake City, UT February 19, 2008

Roundtable discussion to follow Status Report: Summary of emissions and visibility trends Program implementation to date Status of BART Determinations Progress and schedule for submitting Regional Haze plans Roundtable discussion to follow

Emissions Sources and Regions + Visibility Trends Emissions comparison by regions Trends at 4 sites 4 example sites for visibility trends – 3 Sisters Wild. in OR, Yellowstone NP in WY/ID/MT, Rocky Mtn NP in CO, Petrified Forest NP in AZ Emissions summarized across large regions – WRAP, CENRAP, Canada, Mexico, Pacific Shipping – modeling all sources and regions, have most confidence in WRAP region EI data from states, tribes, and Forum/Workgroup projects Issues to discuss: What pollutants are causing worst days’ haze and what is the trend? – see notes for each site What sources are contributing to the haze at these sites – how are they projected to change 02 to 18? Thoughts to consider: Contribution from WRAP region smaller than other regions for some pollutants Contributing emissions sources and regions are a diverse mix for states to assess in terms of controllable vs. uncontrollable and natural vs. anthropogenic

CAMD data from CEMs NOx emissions down ~50k tons, ~10% from 02 to 06 SO2 emissions down ~125k tons, ~30% from 02 to 06

SO2 emissions used in WRAP regional haze analysis 2002 – used 2000 data from Canada – reported all mobile as on-road (For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, known or presumptive SO2 limits for BART EGUs in WRAP region, CAIR portion in CENRAP, Canadian 2020 projections, Mexico [1999] and Pacific shipping [2002] constant) Conclusions: WRAP region point sources declining due to BART ~425k tons in 2002 base year from power plants, down ~30% by 2006 Point 781,203 tons in 2002, 535,310 tons by 2018 – change of ~246,000 tons Large SO2 source regions around WRAP Shipping emissions are likely to double, will be assessed in final 2018 modeling

NOx emissions before BART used in WRAP regional haze analysis 2002 – used 2000 data from Canada – reported all mobile as on-road (For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, no NOx assumptions for BART sources in WRAP region, CAIR portion in CENRAP, Canadian 2020 projections, Mexico [1999] and Pacific shipping [2002] constant) Conclusions: WRAP and CENRAP regions’ mobile sources declining due to federal on-road and non-road rules just over 500k tons in 2002 base year from power plants, down ~10% by 2006 – no BART assumptions included for 2018 Mobile (on-road and non-road) 2,638,422 tons in 2002, 1,113,419 tons by 2018 – change of ~1,525,000 tons Large NOx source regions around WRAP Shipping emissions are likely to double, will be assessed in final 2018 modeling

Carbon PM emissions used in WRAP regional haze analysis 2002 – used 2000 data from Canada – reported all mobile as on-road For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, Canadian 2020 projections, No organic carbon emissions for Pacific Offshore shipping Tonnage much higher for OC emissions, visibility impact much greater for EC emissions Held constant - Wildfire [2000-04 average in WRAP region], Mexico [1999] and Pacific shipping [2002] Conclusions: Elemental Carbon in WRAP and CENRAP regions from mobile diesel-fueled sources declining due to federal on-road and non-road rules WRAP region dominates carbon PM emissions, large OC and EC source regions east of WRAP, Canada off-road increasing by 2018 Wildfire dominates OC and EC by 2018 Anthro fire drops due to Emissions Reduction Techniques applied through Smoke Management Programs Small EC from shipping emissions, will be assessed in final 2018 modeling

Dust PM emissions used in WRAP regional haze analysis 2002 – used 2000 data from Canada For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, includes PM10 SIP controls, Canadian 2020 projections, No dust emissions for Pacific Offshore shipping Mexico national EI incomplete for dust emissions – no windblown or fugitive data Tonnage much higher for Coarse PM dust emissions, visibility impact greater for Fine PM dust emissions Held constant – Windblown Dust [2002 meteorology] in WRAP region, Mexico [1999] Conclusions: Dust emissions uncertain in general, no policy definition of natural vs. anthro like for fire Windblown dust largely natural and only partially controllable Fugitive dust (mechanical activities like agricultural tilling and construction) in WRAP region projected using EPA emissions model driven by population and economic data Road dust highly uncertain Large dust source regions north, south, and east of WRAP, Canada road dust increasing by 2018

Visibility trends 1995 to 2004 Three Sisters Wilderness, OR 1) No worst visibility days’ trend at 3 Sisters – mix of sources and pollutants 2) Sulfate impacts declining slightly, organic impacts highly variable – big fire years 96, 99, 02-04 3) Nitrate impacts not big – independent of fire impacts 4) Coarse Dust not significant

Visibility trends 1997 to 2004 Yellowstone NP, WY/ID/MT 1) Slightly degrading trend on worst visibility days at YNP – dominated by fire 2) Sulfate impacts declining slightly, organics show big impacts from fire 2000, 01 3) Nitrate flat, not related to fire 4) Coarse Dust slightly declining

Visibility trends 1995 to 2004 Rocky Mountain NP, CO 1) No worst visibility days’ trend at RMNP – mix of sources and pollutants 2) Sulfate impacts relatively constant, organic impacts as well – 2002 big fire year 3) Nitrate higher in recent years – occurs whether fire big or not 4) Coarse Dust important as well

Visibility trends 1995 to 2004 Petrified Forest NP, AZ 1) Slightly degrading trend on worst visibility days at PFNP – mix of sources and pollutants 2) Sulfate impacts declining, organics show big impacts from fire in recent years 3) Nitrate flat, not a big player due to site conditions – not related to fire 4) Coarse Dust variable and important

Additional reductions expected from major point sources All BART sources in WRAP region will be controlled BART §309 SO2 Milestone Program BART is a complicated and time-consuming process In the West… No federal rule (i.e., CAIR) Limited contribution to nonattainment areas

NAAQS Nonattainment & CAIR region Maps http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/pdfs/20061025_graphsmaps.pdf http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/20070621_maps.pdf http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/index.html

SO2 Milestone Program status Annex prepared 2000, EPA adopted, ‘04 court decision nullified AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WY completed §309 plans with declining regional emissions milestones in 2003 Annual milestone tracking reports since 2003 In 2008, 4 states (OR to use §308) are resubmitting §309 plans with with updated milestones based on: Improved emissions projections for all sources in program Maintaining tribal set-aside Input from stakeholders

WRAP Region BART Sources State # EGU Plants # EGU Units # Non-EGU Plants AK 2 4 3 AZ 12 5 CA 20 CO 8 14 1 HI 6 ID MT (by EPA R8) NV 10 NM ND 7 OR SD UT WA WY 13 Tribal (by EPA R9) Totals 44 95 49

Probable BART Completion Matrix State BART Completion Date Mid to late 2008 Other Alaska X   Arizona California Later ? Colorado Hawaii Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming Tribal

Implementation Work Group Co-Chairs Tina Anderson, Wyoming DEQ Mike Edwards, Idaho DEQ IWG is regional haze planners from each state + tribal, FLM, and EPA regional office reps WRAP staff support

2018 “Reasonable Progress Goals” in Regional Haze Plans Reasonable Progress for 2018 is based on: BART, SO2 Milestone Program, and other stationary source reductions Mobile reductions from federal rules, exceeds GCVTC recommendations Smoke Management Programs – referenced in SIPs Implementation of other state air quality programs Long-term strategy includes: Evaluating opportunity for additional point and area source controls O&G in particular and Other sources Uncertain emissions Controllable vs. Uncontrollable Sources Addressing fire tracking with Fire Emissions Tracking System Dust International transport

Tribal Sources (EPA – Navajo, Four Corners) Section 308 Haze Planning - Estimated Dates of Completion http://www.wrapair.org/308/index.html State BART Rulemaking SIP Hearing SIP Adoption Comments AK Jan 2008 – Determs. March 2009 June 2009 Late 2009 Estimates are worst-case dependent on sources’ responses to analyses AZ 1st Quarter 2008 August 2008 CA Early 2008 July 24-25, 2008 August or September, 2008 BART sources regulated by local districts CO Complete and submitted RPG SIP Undetermined – Late 2008 Outstanding BART issues HI Unknown ID Rule complete. Determs. In process July/August 2008 September/October 2008 MT (EPA) Analyses Nov 2007 Comments Pending Undetermined SIP and BART on same schedule  ND Done! BART in May, RPG SIP October 2008 BART June/July, RPG SIP November 2008 BART authorization rule complete. BART and SIP separate schedules NM Determs. February 2008 July 2008 BART Authorization in effect NV SIP Schedule determined soon after BART OR Late 2008 Summer 2008 SD 1st half 2008 2nd half 2008 WA Rule in place. Determs. July 2008 Late Winter 2008 or 2009 WY DONE! Mid 2008 Mid to late 2008 Tribal Sources (EPA – Navajo, Four Corners) Mid - 2009 Proposal Mid-2008 Last updated on: 2/16/2008

SO2 Trading Rule Revisions Section 309 Haze Planning - Estimated Dates of Completion http://wrapair.org/309/index.html State SO2 Trading Rule Revisions SIP Hearing SIP Adoption Comments AZ 1st Quarter 2008 June 2008 NM July 2008 July/August 2008 Alb/BC,NM Rule completed in 2003. Pending further notice UT Done! April 2007 June/July 2008 WY Hearing – Feb 2008, Final Rules – April 2008 March, April 2008 Mid–2008 Last updated on: 2/16/2008

What is left to do? 4 hurdles Individual states are processing BART applications and determining emissions limits for permits – complicated States completing reasonable progress analyses, WRAP staff helping SIPs require administrative rulemaking and public hearing processes States must consult with FLMs

Thanks! Questions and Roundtable Discussion

BART Eligible Power Plants AK Anchorage ML&P, GVEA Healy AZ APS West Phoenix & Cholla, AEPCO Apache & SRP Coronado CO Colorado Springs Drake, PSC Valmont, Cherokee, Comanche, Hayden & Pawnee, Tri-State Craig & Trigen Golden HI HECO Kahe & Waiau, HELCO Kanoelehua, Hilo Coast, KIUC Port Allen & MECO Kahului MT PP&L Colstrip & Corette NV Sierra Pacific Tracy & Ft. Churchill, Nevada Power Reid Gardner & SoCal Edison Mohave NM PNM San Juan ND Basin Leland Olds, Great River Coal Creek & Stanton & Minnkota Milton Young OR PGE Beaver & Boardman SD Otter Tail Big Stone UT Pacificorp Hunter & Huntington WA Trans Alta Centralia WY Pacificorp Dave Johnston, Jim Bridger, Naughton & Wyodak & Basin Laramie River Tribal SRP Navajo & APS Four Corners

BART Eligible Non-EGU Sources AK Agrium Urea, Conoco-Phillips LNG & Tesoro Refining AZ Abitibi Pulp, Arizona Cement, CLC Nelson Lime, Asarco Hayden & PD Miami Copper CA Too Numerous to List CO Cemex Lyons Cement HI Hawaiian Sugar & Tesoro Refining ID TASCO Sugar, Monsanto/P4 MT Columbia Falls Aluminum, Ashgrove & Holcim Cement NV Nevada Cement OR Ft. James Wauna & Weyerhaeuser Springfield Pulp, Amalgamated Sugar Nyssa WA BP Cherry Point & Tesoro Refining, Alcoa Ferndale & Wenatchee, Port Townsend & Weyerhaeuser Longview Pulp & Lafarge Cement WY FMC Granger & Green River, General Chemical Soda Ash Plants