PM Designations by mikesanye


									Reducing Pollution from Power

                          Joe Bryson
               US EPA Office of Air and Radiation
                      November 16, 2010

National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
Annual Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia

• Background
    –   Power sector emissions and sources
    –   Health impacts
    –   Costs and benefits of reducing emissions
    –   Characteristics of remaining uncontrolled sources
• Overview of EPA’s forthcoming power sector rules
    – Detail on Transport Rule 1 & 2 and Utility MACT
•   Managing impacts on power sector
•   Summary
•   For more information
•   Appendix
    – Additional detail on power sector regulations
The US Power Sector and Air Pollution
• Much of EPA’s clean air agenda over the past decade
  was declared inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, and so
  EPA must revisit those regulations.
• EPA now must promulgate a series of regulations that
  will require that the electricity generating industry
  become much cleaner.
• These rules will require decisions by power plant owners
  and state utility commissions:
   – For example, whether to make large investments in emissions
     controls for existing facilities or choose alternative cleaner
     resource options (e.g. new generation, demand response,
     energy efficiency).

          NOX and SO2 Emissions Affect the Health of
          Millions of Americans and Our Environment

•   Health impacts
     – NOX contributes to the formation of PM 2.5 and ground-level ozone.
     – SO2 contributes to the formation of PM 2.5.
     – PM2.5 has been linked to premature death, serious illnesses such as chronic
       bronchitis and heart attacks, and respiratory problems.
     – Ozone has been linked to premature mortality, lung damage, respiratory
       symptoms, aggravation of asthma and other respiratory conditions.
•   Environmental impacts
     – Sulfur deposition acidifies surface waters, and damages forest ecosystems
       and soils.
     – Nitrogen deposition acidifies surface waters, damages forest ecosystems and
       soils, and contributes to coastal eutrophication.
     – SO2 and NOX impair visibility, including at national parks and wilderness areas.

Air Quality in the United States
  Population Living with Unhealthy Air Quality

    Toxic Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases also
     Raise Health and Environmental Concerns

•   Hazardous air pollutants emitted by power plants include mercury, non-
    mercury metallic HAPS, acid gases, dioxin/furans, non-dioxin organics, and
•   Mercury risks include:
         • Main exposure to people in U.S. comes from eating fish and other marine species
           containing methyl mercury. This form of mercury can impair neurological development
           in fetuses, infants and children and may cause heart disease in adults.
         • Methylmercury accumulates in fish at levels that may harm the fish and other animals
           that eat them, including birds and mammals and their predators.
•   Other HAPs are human carcinogens (arsenic) and probable human
    carcinogens (lead, cadmium, nickel and dioxin/furans). HAPs also have
    other health and environmental effects.
•   EPA has determined, based on numerous current and anticipated impacts,
    that CO2 and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
             Power Sector: A Major Share of US Air Emissions
       Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 2009                                Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), 2009
            9.5 Million Tons                                                                                          Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 2008
                                                                      15.3 Million Tons                                    6.5 Billion Tons
3.8 Million Tons                5.7 Million Tons      13.3 Million Tons                    2.0 Million Tons
     40%                             60%                   87%                                  13%                                               2.6 Billion Tons
                                                                                                          3.9 Billion Tons
                                                                                                                60%                                     40%

         Other                                Coal                  Other              Electric    Coal                                                       Coal
         Sectors            Power                                   Sectors                        85%
                                              97%                                      Power                               Other            Electric          83%
                                                                                                                           Sectors          Power

               Particulate Matter (PM10), 2005                                    Mercury (Hg), 2005
                      14.8 Million Tons                                              114 Tons
                                                                                                           52 Tons
14.3 Million Tons
                                            0.5 Million Tons                                                46%                     Coal-fired
                                                                                                                                    power plants:
                   Other               Electric      Coal                       Other          Electric           Coal              vast majority of
                                                                                Sectors        Power              >99%
                   Sectors             Power         95%                                                                            power sector
                                                                62 Tons
                                                                 54%                                                                air emissions
Sources: SO2 and NOx - NEI Trends Data and NEI 2005 Version 2 (2009) and CAMD Data & Maps (2010); PM10 - NEI Trends Data (2009); Hg - NEI 2005 Version 2 (2009); CO2
- Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008 (2010) and 1990-2007; “Other” sources include transportation, other mobile sources, and industrial sources
Cleaner Air and a Growing Economy

         Benefits of Reducing Power Sector
          Emissions Will Far Exceed Costs

• We cannot predict the costs – or the benefits - with certainty before
  we have established the regulations themselves.

• Achieving a much cleaner power industry will impose costs to the
  industry and to ratepayers.
• The value of the benefits to the public will be much greater than the
    – Benefits include prevented illness and death as well as ecological
    – Expect that the sum of these regulations will prevent thousands of
      premature deaths, and hundreds of thousands of episodes of
      respiratory illness each year.
            Health Benefits for Millions of Americans
                           Benefits Greatly Exceed Costs
     • EPA estimates the annual benefits from the proposed transport rule range between
       $120-$290 B (2006 $) in 2014 with annual compliance costs of $2.8 billion in 2014.
     • EPA estimates 2014 prices for electricity, natural gas, and coal prices increase 1 to 2%.

   Estimated Number of Adverse Health Effects Avoided Due to Implementing the Proposed Transport Rule*

    Health Effect                                               Number of Cases Avoided
    Premature mortality                                               14,000 to 36,000
    Non-fatal heart attacks                                                23,000
    Hospital and emergency department visits                               26,000
    Acute bronchitis                                                       21,000
    Upper and lower respiratory symptoms                                   440,000
    Aggravated asthma                                                      240,000
    Days when people miss work or school                                 1.9 million
    Days when people must restrict activities                             11 million
* Impacts avoided due to improvements in PM2.5 and ozone air quality in 2014
          Billions of Dollars of Health Benefits in 2014
                                                      Proposed Transport Rule

                                                                                                                                 Ranges of Benefits

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, North and South Dakota receive benefits and are not in the Transport Rule region. Transport Rule RIA, Table A-4 and A-5;
mortality impacts estimated using Laden et al. (2006), Levy et al. (2005), Pope et al. (2002) and Bell et al. (2004); monetized benefits discounted at 3%
       Public Health Protection Delayed
•   The American public has suffered avoidable deaths and illnesses as
    important Clean Air Act-required power plant controls have been delayed
    more than a decade.
•   The Act required states by 2000 to adopt rules as needed to control
    interstate pollution to help meet health-based air quality standards issued in
     – NOX SIP Call Rule (1998) partially addressed ozone transport by 2004, but did
       not address fine particles.
     – Previous Administration finalized Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 but
       court found legal flaws and ordered EPA to replace it. CAIR remains in place in
       the interim.
     – New Transport Rule to replace CAIR and address 2006 PM NAAQS is to be
       completed in June 2011.
•   The Act required studies in the early 1990s and, if appropriate and
    necessary, control of hazardous air pollutants from power plants.
     – Positive determination in 2000 meant final rule due by 2002.
     – Previous Administration issued Clean Air Mercury Rule for power plants in 2005
       but court found rule legally flawed and vacated it in 2008. Also, rule failed to
       address all air toxics.
     – Consent decree requires EPA to propose rule to control toxic air pollutants from12
       EGUs by March 2011 and finalize by November 2011.
Many Coal Plants Remain Uncontrolled for SO2 &/or NOX
                  Many are > 40 years old

 Many Coal Plants Remain Uncontrolled for SO2 &/or NOX
                                                 Many are > 40 years old
                                                  Many are < 250 MW

Out of 300+ GW of existing coal capacity, roughly 100 GW will remain unscrubbed
         (after installation of currently planned retrofits)

                                                                       Avg. Unit            Pollution Control Installed
                                    Units            Capacity
       Unit Age                                                          Size                       (% of units)
                             Count          %      MW           %                   SNCR    SCR      Scrubber     Uncontrolled

      > 60 years               46           5%    1,762        1%          38         2%     4%         11%               87%

     51 - 60 years            313       31%       39,787      13%         127         21%    9%        19%                64%

     41 - 50 years            233       23%       58,078      20%         249         15%   19%        33%                53%

     31 - 40 years            229       23%       114,090     38%         498         4%    43%        65%                27%

     11 - 30 years            163       16%       80,165      27%         492         6%    29%        66%                31%

 10 years or younger           7            1%    2,444        1%         349         43%   29%        57%                29%

         Total               1,004               297,639                              13%   23%        41%                48%

Data Sources: 2007/2008 EPA IPM, ARP, NBP Databases & Commercial Sources, MJB&A Analysis
        Upcoming CAA Power Plant Rules

• Interstate Pollution Transport Rule (#1) for existing PM and ozone NAAQS
    – Proposed rule unveiled in July, published August 2, 2010
    – Final rule planned June 2011

• Transport Rule (#2) for 2010 reconsidered ozone NAAQS
    – Proposed rule in 2011, final rule in 2012

• Utility MACT (section 112/hazardous air pollutants)
    – Propose March 2011, finalize November 2011

• Utility NSPS (section 111/criteria pollutants)
    – Propose March 2011, finalize November 2011 (i.e., same schedule as MACT)
    – 2006 utility NSPS is under reconsideration and subject to pending litigation
    – Section 111(b) for new and modified/reconstructed sources

• Response to court remand on Utility NSPS (section 111) for GHGs
    – EPA is considering substance and timing of its response.
                              Transport Rule
•   EPA is proposing one approach and taking comment on two alternatives.
    – All three approaches would cover the same states – 31 states and the
       District of Columbia, set a pollution limit (or budget) for each state and
       obtain the reductions from power plants.
•   EPA’s preferred approach – allows intrastate trading and limited interstate
    trading among power plants but assures that each state will meet its pollution
    control obligations.
•   To meet this proposed rule, EPA anticipates power plants will:
     – Operate already installed control equipment more frequently,
     – Use lower sulfur coal, or
     – Install pollution control equipment such as low NO X burners, Selective
        Catalytic Reduction (SCR), or SO 2 scrubbers (Flue Gas Desulfurization).
•   CAIR remains in place until this rule is finalized.
•   Final rule is expected in late spring 2011.
                                                  Transport Rule
Counties with Monitors Projected to Have Ozone and/or PM2.5 Air
Quality Problems in 2012 Without the Proposed Transport Rule
                                                                  • In 2012, EPA projects that:
                                                                     • Some communities will still not meet the air
                                                                        quality standards.
                                                                     • Millions of people will continue to breathe
                                                                        unhealthy air.
                                                                     • Many upwind states will still contribute
                                                                        significantly to downwind nonattainment
                                                                  • The Transport Rule will affect power plants
                                                                    because their emission reductions are most
                                                                  • Other actions by EPA and the states must be
                                                                    taken before all areas will attain the current
         Counties with Violating PM and/or
         Ozone                                                      and future National Ambient Air Quality
         Monitors (55)                                              Standards (NAAQS).
         Counties with PM and/or Ozone
         Maintenance Problems (28)                                This analysis assumes that the Clean Air Interstate Rule is not in
                                                                  effect. It does reflect other federal and state requirements to reduce
         States covered by the                                    emissions contributing to ozone and fine particle pollution that were    17
         Transport Rule (31 + DC)                                 in place as of February 2009.
          Four Separate Control Regions

• Proposal includes separate requirements for:
   • Annual NOx reductions (2012)
   • Ozone-season NOx reductions (2012)
• Sets emissions budgets for each state

• Proposal includes separate requirements for:
   • Annual SO2 reductions
      • Phase I (2012) and Phase II (2014)
      • Two Control Groups
         • Group 1 – 2012 cap lowers in 2014
         • Group 2 – 2012 cap only
• Sets emissions budgets for each state
                 Transport Rule 2
• Will address CAA responsibility of upwind states to
  downwind state ozone problems
   – Emissions reductions needed for all states in the nation
     contributing to nonattainment/interfering with maintenance of
     upcoming 2010 ozone standards
   – Any emissions reductions needed for states contributing to
     nonattainment/interfering with maintenance of 1997 ozone
     standard in Baton Rouge, Houston, New York City

• Will analyze both EGU and non-EGU sources for
  available controls
• Transport Rule 1 provides framework for addressing
  transport under future standards                                   19
    Utility MACT: Coal and Oil-Fired Power Plants

•    Will likely drive significant investment in upgrading plants with modern pollution
•    To be proposed March 2011 and finalized November 2011 (per court order)
      – In response to court vacating (2008) EPA’s “Clean Air Mercury Rule” (2005)
•    Will reduce emissions of mercury, other metals such as arsenic and lead,
     dioxin/furans, acid gases, etc.
•    The standard: maximum reduction achievable for sources taking into
     consideration costs, energy requirements and non-air quality health and
     environmental impacts.
•    Must be at least as stringent as:
      – Existing sources: the average emissions reduction achieved by the top performing
        12 percent of sources within the category
      – New sources: the emissions reduction achieved by the best single performing
        source within the category
•    Compliance:
      – Existing: 3 years from final rule + 1 year allowable extension by State/EPA
      – New: upon final rule
   Non-CAA Rules Affecting Power Plants
                               (See Appendix)

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
   – Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
       • Proposed: June 2010

• Clean Water Act (CWA)
   – Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWIS)
       • Currently taking comments on Information Collection Request (ICR)

      Toolbox of Emissions Reduction Technologies for Power Plants
                            Many Have Multi-pollutant Benefits

• Pollution reduction controls at utilities are well-understood and available now

• SO2 reduction technologies
    • Reduce HAPs to meet requirements of upcoming Utility MACT
    • Help in-state areas attain the existing and upcoming PM2.5 NAAQS and 2010 SO 2 NAAQS
    • Help downwind states attain PM2.5 NAAQS
    • Address visibility (regional haze) improvement goals

• NOx   reduction technologies
    •   Help in-state areas attain the existing and new ozone NAAQS
    •   Help downwind states attain the existing and new ozone NAAQS
    •   Address visibility (regional haze) improvement goals

• Mercury reduction technologies
    • Reduce mercury emissions to meet requirements of upcoming Utility MACT

• Direct PM reduction technologies:
     • Help attain PM2.5 NAAQS and visibility program requirements
     • Reduce HAP emissions to meet requirements of upcoming Utility MACT           22
Industry Capacity to Add New Emissions Controls
 Added 20+ GW of SO2 scrubbers per year 2008 - 2010

  Source:   David C. Foerter, Executive Director
            Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), October 22, 2010
                    Industry Capacity to Add New Generation
Between 2001 and 2003 the electric industry built over 160 GW of new generation
    Capacity (MW)          U.S. Power Plant Capacity Added By In-service Year

   Source: Ceres, et al., Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States, June 2010 .
The Role of Energy Efficiency & Demand Response

  • Multiple benefits of supplementing our rules with actions to reduce
    electricity demand by increasing use of EE and DR
      – Reduce costs to power sector of controlling conventional pollutants
      – Avoid or defer need for new generation
      – Reduce conventional air pollutant emissions, including on high
        electricity demand days (which coincide with poor air quality)
      – Reduce concerns about reliability of electricity supply
      – Lower consumer bills
      – Achieve reductions in CO2 through idling or retirement of inefficient
        fossil-fuel-fired generating stations that would no longer be economic

  • EPA can encourage but cannot mandate or fund energy efficiency
    in residential or commercial sectors. We encourage state
    regulators, system operators, and utilities to take action to cost-
    effectively reduce demand for electricity.
Energy Efficiency Program Funding and Electricity
    Savings Projected to Grow Substantially
                                                                                       LBNL forecasts a
                                                                                       250% to 400%
                                                                                       (Med/High cases)
                                                                                       in EE program
                                                                                       funding by 2020

                                                                                       savings by 2020
                                                                                       equal 6.1% (med)
                                                                                       to 8.6% (high).of
                                                                                       EIA’s forecast
                                                                                       2020 electricity

Source: LBNL’s The Shifting Landscape of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency in the U.S. (October, 2009)
by Galen Barbose, Charles Goldman, and Jeff Schlegel
National Demand Response Potential

Role for State Utility Commissions, Generation
  Owners, Utilities and Other Stakeholders
•   EPA is now promulgating a series of regulations that will require that the
    electricity generating industry become much cleaner.
•   These rules will require decisions by power plant owners, utilities, state
    utility commissions and other stakeholders
     – For example, whether to make large investments in emissions controls for
       existing facilities or choose alternative cleaner resource options (e.g. new
       generation, demand response, energy efficiency).

•   These entities have tools and processes to manage these and other
    uncertainties to ensure reliable electricity service at reasonable rates
     – Other significant uncertainties include fuel prices; construction costs for new
       generation; potential federal legislation addressing RES, GHGs, Transmission,
       and tax policies; pace of economic recovery and impacts on load growth; and the
       scale, pace, and impacts of Smart Grid investments.

•   Like all uncertainty that utilities and state commissions face, good
    information is necessary to make informed decisions which best account for
    and manage risk appropriately
                                  Key Points
•   Cutting power plant pollution is required by the Clean Air Act and essential to protecting
    public health. Power plants are among the largest U.S. emitters of air pollutants with
    serious health effects including premature death.
•   Avoidable deaths and illnesses continue to occur because important Clean Air Act-
    required power plant controls have been delayed more than a decade.
•   Courts have determined that key rules issued by EPA over the past decade were
    inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, which contributed to delays. EPA now must meet
    legal obligations to issue new rules that will require that the power sector become much
•   Forty years of experience under national environmental laws shows that we can pursue a
    clean, healthy environment while maintaining economic growth and reliable electricity.
•   Improved efficiency in electricity use can cut air pollution control costs, help ensure
    reliability of electricity supply, and reduce emissions of GHGs and other air pollutants.
•   EPA has been considering reliability as it develops these new rules, and will continue to
    do so. EPA, FERC, DOE and state utility regulators, both together and separately, have
    tools at their disposal to ensure the continued reliability of our electricity supply.
•   NASUCA members play a key role through engagement with state utility commissions
                             For More Information
•   Clean Air Act (CAA)                                   NARUC Climate Task Force Webcasts on
     – Transport Rule                                              EPA Power Sector Rules           

     – Utility MACT

     – Utility NSPS

•   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
     – Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)

•   Clean Water Act (CWA)
     – Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWIS)
                                                                        Joe Bryson
•   GHG Permitting                                                                 202.343.9631              32

• Additional information for EPA rulemakings
   – Utility New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
   – §316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS)
   – Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)
• Safeguards for addressing reliability challenges
• Announced coal retirements

Utility New Source Performance Standards
•   Clean Air Act, Section 111, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
     – Authority to set emissions performance standard for new and modified sources
       (EPA directly), and existing sources (through the states)
     – Standards must reflect the emission limitation achievable through the application of
       the best system of emission reduction which the Administrator determines has been
       adequately demonstrated. Must consider:
           • cost of achieving such reduction
           • any non-air quality health and environmental impact, and
           • energy requirements
     – Standards are based on demonstrated performance and may not require use of any
       particular technology.
•   NSPS for Utility Boilers (NOx, SO 2, PM)
     – To be proposed with Utility MACT - March 2011 and finalized November 2011
•   NSPS for Utility Boilers (GHGs)
     –   Schedule and approach still under deliberation
•   NSPSs are to be reviewed at least every 8 years.
§316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS)

• Original rule issued in 2004
   – Portions remanded to EPA by 2nd Circuit
   – Portions upheld by Supreme Court in Entergy decision

• 1,260 existing facilities collectively withdraw 226
  billion gallons of water per day
• Main environmental impacts
   – Impingement and entrainment
   – Thermal discharges may also be significant for some waters

                          Cooling Water Basics

      Traveling Screens

Fixed Bar Racks                         Larger fish unable to swim away are
                                        impinged against the screen and
                                        usually die.
                                        Smaller organisms that pass through
                                        the screens are entrained in the
                                        cooling system and also die.

                                        Once through cooling uses water
                                        only once as it passes through a
                                        condenser to absorb heat and is then
                                        Closed-cycle cooling reuses water by
                                        recycling it through recirculating
                                        systems or towers.

         Schedule for §316(b) Rule

• Agency’s intent is to issue final rule by July 2012
• Also effected through NPDES permits and 5 year cycle

Proposed Rule for Coal Combustion Residuals
                         The Basics

• Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) are byproducts from
  the combustion of coal – fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
  and flue gas desulfurization materials.
• Currently (2008) more than 136 million tons generated
  per year: 34 % (46 million tons) landfilled
   – 22% (29.4 million tons) disposed of in surface
   – nearly 37% (50.1 million tons) beneficially used
   – nearly 8% (10.5 million tons) placed in mines
   – 75 % of impoundments are greater than 25 years old; 10%
     greater than 50 years old
   – Approximately 300 CCR landfills and 584 surface
     impoundments in use at approximately 495 coal-fired power   38
              CCRs – The Proposal

• On June 21, 2010, EPA proposed 2 approaches for
  regulating disposal of CCRs under the Resource
  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):
  – Subtitle C approach
  – Subtitle D approach
• Proposal covers CCRs generated from the combustion
  of coal at electric utilities and independent power
• Does not cover coal-fired electric plants used
  captively by industries or universities.
       CCRs – The Proposal

• Engineering requirements (e.g., liners,
  groundwater monitoring) of the two options are
  very similar; differences are primarily in
  enforcement and implementation.

• Bevill exemption from regulation remains in place
  for beneficial uses of CCRs.

• Minefilling is not covered by the proposal.

               Regulation under Subtitle C

• Listed as a “special waste subject to subtitle C” – S001.

• Subject to existing Subtitle C requirements, e.g., generator,
  transporter, permitting, ground water monitoring, corrective action,
  and financial assurance. LDRs and treatment standards apply.
   – Single composite liner
   – [5 years for surface impoundments to comply with requirements; no
     requirement for annual dredging]
   – Structural Stability Requirements
   – Existing landfills must install groundwater monitoring within 1 year of effective
     date of rule, but do not need to install composite liners.
   – New landfills or lateral expansions of existing landfills must install composite
     liners and groundwater monitoring before landfill begins operation.
   – Surface impoundments must meet LDRs and liner requirements within 5 years
     of effective date of rule or close within an additional 2 years.
       • LDR requirements have the practical effect of phasing out surface impoundments
               Regulation under Subtitle D

•   CCRs would remain classified as a “non-hazardous” waste.
•   National minimum criteria governing facilities disposing of CCRs.
•   Many of the engineering requirements are very similar to the Subtitle C
    option, e.g., groundwater monitoring, liner and structural stability

•   Requirements are self implementing.
•   Owner/operator required to:
     – obtain certifications by independent professional engineers/minimum
       qualification requirements for those who make certifications.
     – document how various standards are met. Must be kept in the operating
       record and the State notified.
     – maintain a web site available to the public that contains the documentation
       that the standard is met.
        Key Differences: Subtitle C versus Subtitle D
                                                            SUBTITLE C                                          SUBTITLE D
Effective Date                             Timing will vary f rom state to state, as each         Six months af ter f inal rule is promulgated
                                           state must adopt the rule individually-can take        f or most provisions.
                                           1 – 2 years or more
Enforcement                                State and Federal enf orcement                         Enf orcement through citizen suits; States
                                                                                                  can act as citizens.
Corrective Action                          Monitored by authorized States and EPA                 Self -implementing
Financial Assurance                        Yes                                                    Considering subsequent rule using CERCLA
                                                                                                  108 (b) Authority
Permit Issuance                            Federal requirement f or permit issuance by            No
                                           States (or EPA)
Requirements for Storage, Including        Yes                                                    No
Containers, Tanks, and Containment
Surface Impoundments Built Before          Remove solids and meet land disposal                   Must remove solids and retrof it with a
Rule is Finalized                          restrictions; retrof it with a liner within f ive      composite liner or cease receiving CCRs
                                           years of ef f ective date. Would ef f ectively phase   within 5 years of ef f ective date and close
                                           out use of existing surf ace impoundments              the unit
Surface Impoundments Built After           Must meet Land Disposal Restrictions and liner         Must install composite liners. No Land
Rule is Finalized                          requirements. Would ef f ectively phase out use        Disposal Restrictions
                                           of new surf ace impoundments.
Landfills Built Before Rule is Finalized   No liner requirements, but require groundwater         No liner requirements, but
                                           monitoring                                             require groundwater monitoring
Landfills Built After Rule is Finalized    Liner requirements and groundwater monitoring          Liner requirements and groundwater
Requirements for Closure and Post-         Yes; monitored by States and EPA                       Yes; self -implementing            43
Closure Care
            Costs of CCR Regulation
EPA has estimated regulatory costs and regulatory benefits
  (groundwater protection avoided cancer cases, avoided future
  cleanup costs, increased beneficial use) for the next 50 years.

• Subtitle C (assuming no reduction in beneficial uses):
    – Cost: up to $1.5 billion / year
    – Benefit: up to $7.4 billion / year
• Subtitle D (assuming no reduction in beneficial uses):
    – Cost: up to $587 million / year
    – Benefit: up to $3 billion / year

• If the full regulatory costs of Subtitle C were passed on from utility
  companies to consumers, our estimates indicate that electricity
  prices nationwide could increase by 0.8%, on average.
• For Subtitle D, the potential full cost pass-thru nationwide
  increase in electricity prices is estimated at 0.2%.                 44
                       Providing Relief in Extreme Cases
                 Statutory, Regulatory, and Market Safeguards
Assorted risk management procedures under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Federal Power Act (FPA), and other
statutes provide the EPA, DOE, FERC, and the President an array of tools to moderate, when and where
necessary, potential impacts on electric system reliability.
                                         Source of Authority / Instrument of
Agency                                                                                Measure

Regional Wholesale Electricity Markets   Enf orcement of Market Rules, Reliability-   RMR agreements allow units to operate only to
(e.g: PJM, ISO-NE, etc.)                 Must-Run (RMR) agreements, Forward           ensure reliability while minimizing adverse
                                         Capacity Markets, etc.                       environmental impacts.

                                                                                      Forward capacity markets provide a mechanism to
                                                                                      signal the need f or new capacity additions

State Public Utility Commissions         Regulatory oversight of utilities            Adopt ratemaking policies that encourage system
                                                                                      reliability and environmental goals including ones
                                                                                      that address utilities’ f inancial disincentives where
                                                                                      EE and DR programs lower utility revenues.
U.S. Department of Energy                Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act      Override CAA-derived control requirements in
                                                                                      limited emergency circumstances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency     Cap-and-trade based regulations              Emissions trading mechanisms enable greater
                                                                                      compliance f lexibility to manage potential reliability
                                         Section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA              concerns

                                                                                      Extend deadlines f or utility MACT rule where
                                                                                      necessary to maintain electric system reliability

                                         Section 112(i)(4) of the CAA                 Extend deadlines f or utility MACT rule where             45
U.S. President
                                                                                      necessary to maintain electric system reliability


To top