Donald R. van der Vaart
NC DENR
 New
Sources – 111(b)
 Existing Sources – 111(d)
 Section
111(b) is not a health-based
program. It is technology based.
 This program was originally designed to
hinder industrial migration by defining a
national emission standard for new
plants.
Clean Air Areas and Dirty Air Areas
NAAQS
NAAQS
Concentration
Actual Concentration
Actual Concentration
Clean Air Area
Dirty Air Area
7
 EPA
has proposed a rule for new coalfired power plants that require Carbon
Capture and Sequestration (CCS).
 Claims the impact will be minimal since
only natural gas units will be built.
 Remember that a standard under 111(b)
is a required predicate for 111(d).
 Technology
must be “adequately
demonstrated”
 Problem: None of the cited facilities are
even operational.
 Problem: Three of the four cited facilities
were funded under the “Clean Coal Power
Initiative” (CCPI). The law authorizing CCPI
specifically prohibits these projects to be
considered “adequately demonstrated”
under section 111 of the CAA
 Standard
under 111(b) is not correct.
 Section 111(d) prohibits regulation of
sources subject to 112.
 Section 111(d) prohibits regulation of
pollutant listed under Section 108.
 Even if 111(d) is authorized, only
Building Block 1 is consistent with CAA.
 Section
111(d) prohibits regulating “source
categories” regulated under section 112 (as
coal fired power plants are).
 NC agrees with the NRDC and others:
 “Thus, the text of §111(d)(1)(A) makes clear
that EPA may not set standard for a pollutant
that is “emitted from a source category
which is regulated under section 112” or
included on the §112(b) list of hazardous air
pollutants.”
 Those
in favor of using 111(d) to regulate
Utility plants argue that the CAA
language showing a conformance of
House and Senate versions of
amendments is in conflict and therefore
ambiguous. EPA should be afforded
“Chevron” deference.
 The
CAA is not in conflict.
 NC agrees with NRDC when they stated
in 2007 that the ambiguity was
“manufactured” by EPA in an “attempt to
exploit a non-substantive difference
between the two amendments to111.”
 CAA
prohibits section 111(d) for any
pollutant listed under section 108
 By making an endangerment finding
under section 202, GHG have already
been listed under section 108
 Section
111(d) provides for controls on
an individual emission unit
 Applying 111(d) is a scientific – not
political - endeavor
 That is, each coal plant would be
evaluated based on various factors,
including its remaining useful life.
 So each plant could have a different
requirement.
 But
that would not lead to outside the
fence line reductions – that is, forcing the
shut down of existing coal plants, further
incentivizing of smart appliances, and
codifying Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standards
 Again, NRDC
and others stated:
 “This Court has previously rebuffed EPA’s
efforts to authorize pollution trading under
§111. In ASARCO, Inc., v. EPA, 578 F.2d
319(D.C. Cir. 1978), the Court rejected even
a limited emission trading scheme, whereby
existing plants could avoid §111 standards
when making changes so long as offsetting
emission reductions could be identified
elsewhere at the same plant site.”
 Defines
four “Building Blocks” of
guideline
 Four
Building Blocks are posited
 EPA makes clear that the BB are
severable – that is, if one or more BBs are
struck down (as all but the first one
should be) the guideline standard would
be equivalent to the first BB.
 Baseline year for the BBs is 2012
 Building
Blocks are based on the
following:
• Increase efficiency of existing coal units.
• Environmental dispatch of natural gas units over
coal units. (Based on $30/ton)
• Increase fraction of non-carbon dioxide forming
energy sources (i.e., nuclear and renewable
sources). Note - >$30/ton
• Increase efficiencies outside the fence line of the
plant (i.e., demand side management).
 EPA
believes efficiency gains can be
made on existing units of 6%
 EPA
believes (based on >$30/ton GHG)
that natural gas units should be used at
70% capacity.
 In NC the capacity factors are roughly
30%.
 Because many coal units were retired (in
part due to Clean Smokestacks Act) and
replaced with NG units, EPA assigned NC
a large decrease in GHG under BB2.
 Assigns
reductions to zero emitting
energy sources (renewables and
nuclear).
 NC’s number (10.6%) was based, in part,
on our having a RPS in place.
 Unclear on many fronts.
 Energy
Efficiency and Demand Side
Management.
 Set NC’s EE number at 10.3%.