1. Presented By: Suruchi Verma, University of New Orleans Bhaskar Kura, University of New Orleans

2. Outline

3. Electricity Generating Facilities in United States Source: National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS 4.10 MATS)

4. In 2010, U.S. electricity generation was 70% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear, and 10% renewable Nuclear 19.6% Natural gas 23.8% 2010 Total net generation: 4,120 billion kWh Coal 44.9% 2010 Non-hydro renewable net generation: 168 billion kWh Geothermal: 0.4% Other biomass: 0.5% Wood and wood- derived fuels: 0.9% Other renewable 4.1% Conventional hydroelectric 6.2% Other 0.3% Wind: 2.3% Solar thermal and PV: <0.1% Petroleum 0.9% Other gases 0.3% Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review, October 2011

5. Power Plant Locations in Louisiana

6. Types of Electricity Generation in Louisiana Source: Institute for Energy Research (IER)

7. History of Power Plants and Regulations 1990: Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to issue standards to reduce toxic air emissions from many sources, and to study whether to do so for power plants. 1998: EPA released the Utility Toxics Study Report to Congress 2000: EPA listed power plants for regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) air toxics provisions NESHAP: EPA determined it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from power plants MATS: Mercury cited as pollutant of greatest concern but other toxics of potential concern include arsenic, chromium, cadmium, nickel, hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan

8. 2005: EPA reversed its earlier power plant air toxics determination and issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which regulated mercury from power plants through a cap-and- trade program (the New Source Performance Standard, NSPS). 2008: U.S Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s action, removing power plants from Section 112(c) air toxics source category list and vacated CAMR 2011: EPA proposed the MATS on March 16 and signed the final MATS on December 16. 2012: Final MATS rules published on February 16. History of Power Plants and Regulations

9. MATS Overview MATS will reduce emissions of heavy metals, including Mercury (Hg), Arsenic (As), Chromium (Cr), and Nickel (Ni); and Acid gases, including hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrofluoric acid (HF), and Particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) These toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects. Portion of US air pollution that comes from power plants Source: EPA – “Reducing Toxic Pollutants from Power Plants”; December 2011 About 40% of coal burning units don’t use add-on controls such as scrubbers

10. Health Impacts of Pollutants from Power Plants Uncontrolled releases of mercury from power plants damage children’s developing nervous systems, which can reduce their IQ and impair their ability to think and learn Mercury and many of the other toxic pollutants also pollute our nation’s lakes and streams, and contaminate fish Other metals such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel can cause cancer Acid gases cause lung damage and contribute to asthma, bronchitis and other chronic respiratory disease, especially in children and the elderly Particles cause premature death, increased numbers of hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease.

11. People – especially pregnant and nursing women, women who may become pregnant, and young children who eat fish contaminated with mercury – are at the greatest risk. Fishers and their families The standards will also result in reduction of SO2, hence reducing particles which cause thousands of illness and deaths. Health Impacts of Pollutants from Power Plants

12. The frequency distribution of Mercury in coals – Worldwide

13. The Rules in Brief MATS applies to Coal-fired power plants larger than 25MW Plants that sell power distributed to national grid to the public This covers 1,400 existing EGUs; total of 600 power plants nationwide 1,100 coal-fired units: Two subcategories 300 oil-fired units: Four subcategories Another subcategory for units that combust gasified coal or solid oil (integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units) EGU: Electricity Generation Unit

14. New Source Vs. Existing Source NEW SOURCE: must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source EXISTING SOURCE: must be at least as stringent as the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the source category

15. New Source Vs. Existing Source Source: Derived from AEP MATS Comments to U.S. EPA (2011). MATS Limit (lb/GWh) ExistingNew Hg0.0130.0002 HCl200.4 PM0.30.007

16. Comparison of MATS new and existing source emission limits for : (a.) Mercury (b.) HCL (acid gas) Figure (a) Figure (b) Source: U.S. EPA, Final MATS Rule (December 2011.) (In pounds per Gigawatt-hr.)

17. Coal Units (1,100 Units) Separate mercury standards set for two subcategories of coal-fired power plants: Mine mouth units designed for and burning low rank virgin coal Mine-rank, with a calorific value less than 8,300 Btu/lb All other coal-fired units Sets numeric emissions limits for Mercury (91% reduction), Acid gases (using HCl as a surrogate for all acid gases), and Non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants (using filterable PM as a surrogate) including arsenic and chromium Sets work practice standards (instead of numeric standards due to low – detected emissions) for organic air toxics, including dioxin and ensuring optimal combustion

18. Oil Units (300 Units) Sets separate standards for 3 subcategories of oil-fired power plants: Limited-use oil-fired units Non-continental oil-fired units All other oil-fired units Sets numeric emissions limits for metal air toxics including Mercury (using total metal air toxics as a surrogate) and Acid gases (using HCl and HF as surrogates) Sets work practice standards (instead of numeric standards due to low – detected emissions) for organic air toxics, including dioxin – ensure optimal combustion, preventing dioxin/furan emissions

19. Timeline Suggested by EPA Source: U.S. EPA, Final MATS Rule (December 2011.)

20. Compliance EPA expects most facilities will comply with this rule through a range of strategies, including The use of existing emission controls, Upgrades to existing emission controls, Installation of new pollution controls, and Fuel switching. Existing sources generally will have up to 4 years if they need it to comply with MATS. This includes the 3 years provided to all sources

21. Compliance Proven control technologies to reduce these emissions such as scrubbers, fabric filters, and activated carbon injection are widely available As a result of this standard, some power plants will upgrade existing controls Especially particulate matter controls like electrostatic precipitators Power plants may also install new controls Such as fabric filters, dry sorbent injection, or activated carbon injection

22. Compliance Methodologies FGD: flu gas desulfurization (scrubber) DSI: dry sorbent injection SCR: selective catalytic reduction ACI: activated carbon injection FF: fabric filter Retrofit pollution control installations on coal-fired capacity (by technology) with the base case and with the final MATS, 2015 (measured in GW capacity). Source: U.S. EPA, Final MATS Rule (December 2011.)

23. Mercury Removal Mercury is present in flue gas in varying percentages of three general forms: Particulate-bound mercury, Not readily captured by existing APCD Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control is also effective in converting elemental mercury to oxidized mercury that can be subsequently captured in a downstream Flu Gas Desulfurization Oxidized mercury (primarily mercuric chloride – HgCl2), Captured by Electro Static Precipitators and Fabric Filters Elemental mercury Being water soluble it is readily captured in Flu Gas Desulfurization systems. Efficiency of APCD systems depends largely on the fraction of mercury at the inlet of the system

24. Average Co-benefit Mercury Capture by Coal Rank and APCD Configuration

25. Percent Mercury Removal

26. Compliance Methodologies Dry FGD: utilizes high reactivity lime as the primary reagent material and requires particulate collection equipment downstream of the spray dryer absorbers. Wet FGD: To promote maximum gas-liquid surface area and residence time FGD: Flu Gas Desulfurization (scrubber) Remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants, and from the emissions of other sulfur oxide emitting processes

27. DSI: Dry Sorbent Injection Addition of an alkaline material (usually hydrated lime or soda ash) into the gas stream to react with the acid gases Compliance Methodologies

28. SCR: Selective Catalytic Reduction Conversion of nitrogen oxides with the aid of a catalyst into diatomic nitrogen, N 2, and water, H 2 O.

29. ACI: Activated Carbon Injection Powdered activated carbon is pneumatically injected from a storage silo into the flue gas ductwork which then adsorbs the vaporized mercury from the flue gas Compliance Methodologies

30. FF: Fabric Filter Removes particulates out of air or gas released

31. Variation in Cost of Electricity

32. The Timeline of Regulations for Coal Units Ozone PM 2.5 '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 SO 2 Cap -- adapted from Wegman (EPA 2003) Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual SO 2 & NOx Caps Next PM- 2.5 NAAQS Revision Next Ozone NAAQS Revision SO 2 Primary NAAQS SO 2 /NO 2 Secondary NAAQS NO 2 Primary NAAQS SO 2 /NO 2 New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated Hg/HAPS Final EPA Nonattainment Designations PM-2.5 SIPs due (‘06) Proposed CAIR Replacement Rule Expected HAPS MACT final rule 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) proposed rule expected 316(b) final rule expected 316(b) Compliance 3-4 yrs after final rule Effluent Guidelines proposed rule expected Water Effluent Guidelines Final 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 CO 2 CO 2 Regulation Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS

33. The MACT Timeline for Coal Units '08'09'10 '11'12'13 '14 '15 '16 '17 HAPs MACT proposed rule -- adapted from Wegman (EPA 2003) CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated Hg/HAPS HAPS MACT final ruleHAPS MACT Compliance 3 yrs after final rule

34. Cost The total national annual cost of this rule will be $9.6 billion The health benefits associated with meeting the standards for air toxics are $37 billion to $90 billion in 2016 (2007$). Jobs 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs Jobs manufacturing steel, cement and other materials needed to build pollution control equipment Jobs creating and assembling pollution control equipment Jobs installing the equipment at power plants Jobs operating and maintaining the equipment once it is installed

35. Anticipated Outcomes In 2016, these rules would avoid: 4,200 to 11,000 premature deaths, 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis, 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma 5,700 hospital and emergency room visits, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 140,000 cases of respiratory symptoms, 540,000 days when people miss work, and 3.2 million days when people must restrict their activities

36. Thank You!