Seeing Clearly, Fighting Fairly
EPA’s Role in Regulating Clean Air Across the States
Mike EgglSVP, external relations and communications
Seeing Clearly, Fighting FairlySeeing Clearly, Fighting Fairly
• Clean Air Act / Regional Haze background
• States impacted
• Legislative response
• Communications efforts
– ND case study
Final EPA Nonattainment Designations
Environmental Regulatory Timeline for Coal Units
Ozone
PM2.5
‘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
SO2 Cap
Beginning CAIR Phase II Annual
SO2 & NOx Caps
Next PM-2.5
NAAQS Revision
Next Ozone NAAQS Revision
SO2 Primary NAAQS
SO2/NO2 Secondary
NAAQS
NO2
Primary NAAQS
SO2 /NO2
New PM-2.5 NAAQS Designations
CAMR & Delisting Rule vacated
Hg/HAPS
A PM-2.5SIPs due (‘06)
Proposed CAIR Replacement
Rule Expected
HAPS MACT final rule expected
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) proposedrule expected
316(b) final ruleexpected
316(b) Compliance3-4 yrs after final rule
Effluent Guidelines
proposed ruleexpected
Water
Effluent GuidelinesFinal 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
CO2
CO2 Regulation
Reconsidered Ozone NAAQS
Clean Air Act Section 169A 1977
Visibility Protection
Federal Class I Areas
National goal:
The prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.
No visibility impairments by
2064
EPA Regional Haze Regulations 1999
Requires states to submit state implementation plans (SIPs)
1. Establish goals – reasonable progress – eliminate visibility impairment (2064)
2. Measures to make reasonable progress including: best available retrofit technology (BART) large sources built between 1962 and 1977
North DakotaLeland Olds Station (LOS)• Basin submitted BART for LOS in August, 2006 (supplemented 2007-2010).
• State of North Dakota submitted Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA in March, 2010.
• EPA notifies North Dakota of its intent to propose partial Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for BART controls on some units November 29, 2010.
ND
EPA ImpactsEPA Impacts• Regional Haze / Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART)
– Improving Visibility in Class 1 areas (i.e. Theodore National Park)
– Reducing Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitric Oxide (NOx)
– Main disagreement - SCRs
– Timeline = Current to 2018
– Costs = Up to $700 million
• Regional Haze / Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
– Improving Visibility in Class 1 areas (i.e. Theodore National Park)
– Reducing Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitric Oxide (NOx)
– Main disagreement - SCRs
– Timeline = Current to 2018
– Costs = Up to $700 million
WildEarth Guardians vs. EPA Consent Decree:
• EPA obligated to issue regional haze proposal for North Dakota SIP by:
March 15, 2011
May 13, 2011
July 21, 2011
?
• Final Action – June 21, 2011
January 26, 2012?
States vs. the Feds
• 40 state plans submitted
• Refused: NM and OK
• Pending: ND
• Pending: WY (?)
• Approved: SD
• Voluntary FIP: MT (2006)
Response:
• Legal
• Public Relations
• Congressional
Legislation
Funding - States
• Wyoming – Increased Governor’s discretionary funding that could be used for EPA lawsuits
• North Dakota – $1 million added to the Department of Health’s budget
EPA legislation Federal
• Senator Inhofe – Introduces discussion draft of Clean Air Act revisions on Regional Haze
• Discourages EPA micromanaging state efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA), while ensuring EPA considers the economic impacts of these State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Senator Hoeven
Senator Inhofe
Letter to the EditorLetter to the Editor
Publications:
Bismarck TribuneFargo Forum
Grand Forks HeraldMinot Daily News
Dickinson PressValley City TimesJamestown SunBeulah Beacon
Hazen Star
Minnesota SenatorsMinnesota Senators
Letter to the EditorJuly 17, 2011
Letter to the EditorJuly 17, 2011
62 Op-ed Signees
Communicationsefforts
Communicationsefforts
• Partners for Affordable Energy branded effort
• Print, TV, radio
• Earned media
• Social media engagement
• Employee push
• Letter to the editor
• Organizational support
• Partners for Affordable Energy branded effort
• Print, TV, radio
• Earned media
• Social media engagement
• Employee push
• Letter to the editor
• Organizational support
www.stopEPAnd.com•
TV spotTV spot
www.stopEPAnd.com
Facebook: “Like” www.stopEPAnd.com
Questions?
Top Related