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

Topics to be Covered Today n Overview of Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) n Requirements for Mercury and CO2 in CSA n Origin of Mercury and CO2 Requirements in CSA n Expectations for Annual Reports to Legislature n Expectations for Final Recommendations to Legislature

Why Was CSA Proposed and Enacted? n Public Health Concerns n Significant Visibility Degradation, Especially in the Mountains n Economic Well Being, both Currently and for the Future n Dedication of Individuals n Opportunity Was Right n Alignment of the Stars

Creation of Clean Smokestack Act n 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 n 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 n Utility Companies n Legislative Sponsors n Environmental Community n Division of Air Quality / Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources n Governors Office n State Utilities Commission n Attorney Generals Office n Business and Industrial Community n Utility Rate Payers

Daily SO 4 Aerosol & its Change on July 15, 1995 for a 10% Reduction of 2010 Strategy A2 SO 2 Emissions KYWVVA TN 2010-A2NC ALGASC g/m 3 ( Class 5 day)

SAMI Observations: SO2 Sensitivity Maps State to State Comparison: n In general, the largest change in SO4 aerosol or SO4 deposition in a SAMI state is due to SO2 emissions changes in that state n 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? n NOx & SO2 Caps on Emissions Tons / year Caps per Company - They decide on Controls n Phased Compliance; 1 Jan 07, 09, 13 n Actual Reductions in NC; About 75 % n Unique Cost Recovery Feature n Recommendations on Hg & CO2; Sep 05 n Reduction Credits Held by the State

Utility Company Plans n Initial Plans Submitted n 20 + SO2 Scrubbers n 36 SCR / SNCR Units n Most with Combustion Controls n NOx Controls in Place Starting in 2001 n SO2 Scrubbers Scheduled to be in Starting in 2005

Emissions Reductions Under Clean Smokestacks Bill 50, , , , , , , , , , NOx (tons/year) SO 2 (tons/year) 245,000 60,000 56, , , ,000

Origin of Mercury and CO2 Provisions in CSA n Concern Over Public Health and Environment n Desire for Comprehensive Approach for Utilities n Concern Over State of Knowledge, Technical Issues and Costs n Expectations of Significant Co-Benefits of Mercury Reduction from Control of SO2 and NOx n 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 n SO2 and NOx reductions are Actual in NC

Requirements for Mercury in CSA n Section 12 of CSA n Significant Co-benefits Expected from SO2 and NOx Control n DAQ Shall Study Issue of Monitoring and Control Programs for Mercury from Coal-Fired power plants n DAQ Shall Evaluate Available Controls and Estimate the Costs and Benefits n Annual Reports to Legislature and Environmental Management Commission on on Interim Findings and Recommendations– September 1, 2003 and n Final Findings and Recommendation on Further Controls - September 1, 2005 n Costs of Additional Controls for Mercury Not Recoverable under the Provisions of the Current CSA

Requirements for CO2 in CSA n Section 13 of CSA n DAQ Shall Study Issues Related to Standards and Plans to Control Emissions of CO2 from Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other stationary Sources n DAQ Shall Evaluate Available Control Technologies and Estimate the Benefits and Costs of CO2 Control n Annual Reports to Legislature and Environmental Management Commission on Interim Findings and Recommendations– September 1, 2003 and n Final Findings and Recommendations - September 1, 2005 n Costs of Additional Controls for CO2 Not Recoverable under the Provisions of the Current CSA

n Question: Will Clean Smokestacks SOx/NOx Control Co-Benefit be Enough? n White Paper on State of Knowledge/Science on Expected Co-Benefit of Controls, - September 2003 n Workshop April September 2004 Report n Understand What Control Options Exist; Benefits and costs n Update Knowledge/Make Recommendations to Legislature on Whether Additional Controls are Necessary – September 2005 n If so how much and by when? So, What Does this Mean WRT Mercury

WRT Carbon Dioxide n Report on State of Knowledge – September 2003 n Comprehensive Review Full Range of Options Possible for Reducing CO2 Consider Costs What is Being Done Elsewhere? What is being proposed? n Workshop April September 2004 Report n Update Knowledge, Present Range of Options for consideration, Make Recommendations to Legislature on Reducing CO2 – September 2005

What Is Next? n April Status Reports on Compliance Progress n 2nd Report to Legislature on Implementation by Utilities n A Lot of Work by Utilities n 2nd Report to legislature on Hg and CO2 - September 1, 2004 n Section 126 Petition

References n Text of Act: s/AllVersions/Senate/S1078vc.ht ml n n