 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Environmental Protection > Air Quality > | Add to MyNCSL |
|
(
 |
Fine Particle and Ozone |
 |
Ozone Only |
 |
Fine Particle Only |
 |
Not Affected by CAIR |
Source: NCSL, May 2005.
The following chart outlines the results of EPA modeling that predicts emissions reduction results should states choose to meet their requirements by controlling power plant emissions through the EPA-administered interstate cap-and-trade program.
Table 1. CAIR Emission Reductions
|
|
2003 |
2010* (SO2) |
2015* |
2020* |
Full Implementation* |
|
SO2 |
10.6 million tons |
6.1 million tons |
5.0 million tons |
4.3 million tons |
3.5 million tons |
|
NOx |
4.2 million tons |
2.4 million tons |
2.2 million tons |
2.2 million tons |
2.2 million tons |
*Reduction levels are measured against 2003 emission levels for each pollutant.
Source: NCSL, May 2005
STATE ACTIONS
States Sue EPA Over Mercury Rule
On March 15, nine states filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently issued mercury rule. The litigation contends that EPA improperly exempted coal-fired power plants from regulation under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which requires the use of maximum achievable control technology to reduce emissions of toxic substances, instead of the cap-and-trade program proposed by EPA under Section 111 of the act (see story in this issue). The nine states are California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Vermont; a tenth state—Wisconsin—subsequently joined the suit.
In a March 15 press release, New Jersey’s attorney general, which took the lead in the case, argued that, “Cap-and-trade emission controls, while sometimes appropriate for general air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, are inappropriate for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) because they can allow localized deposition of mercury to continue unabated, perpetuating hotspots and hot regions that can significantly impact the health of individual communities.” The press release contended that, “A strict Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard, as required by the Clean Air Act, would reduce mercury emissions to levels approximately three times lower than the cap established in this EPA rule.”
New Jersey is one of four states—each of which joined in the suit—that have adopted more stringent mercury emission controls than contained in the EPA rule (the others being Connecticut, Massachusetts and Wisconsin). Wisconsin will have to revise its rule to mirror EPA’s rule, however, because of a provision inserted by the Legislature that prohibits the state from exceeding the standard promulgated by EPA.
New Hampshire Proposes Mercury Control Legislation
New Hampshire began its efforts to control mercury emissions in 2002 with passage of the Clean Power Act. The legislation aimed to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury emissions through a multi-pollutant approach. It provided incentives to the state’s coal-fired power plants through trading and banking of emission reductions within a cap-and-trade program.
The act set statewide annual emissions caps for SO2, NOx and CO2, with a compliance date of December 31, 2006, but held off on mercury pending further study and recommendations by the state Department of Environmental Services and promulgation of a standard by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (which the federal agency issued on March 15; see story in this issue).
The legislature chose to consider a bill that proposes technology-based controls on power plants rather than a cap-and-trade program. Senate Bill 128 sets two mercury emission caps—from 135 pounds to 50 pounds annually beginning July 1, 2009 (a 63 percent reduction), then to 24 pounds per year on July 1, 2013 (for an aggregate 82 percent cut). The reductions are greater and would occur sooner than those proposed by EPA. In addition, the bill prohibits power plants from using a trading and banking program similar to that allowed to achieve SO2, NOx and CO2 reductions under the Clean Power Act.
If enacted, New Hampshire electric utilities will have to use state-of-the-art control technology to achieve the reduction levels. The bill passed the Senate in April and is in the House of Representatives. The House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, by a unanimous vote, has decided to retain the bill in committee pending completion of mercury reduction tests this summer by Public Service of New Hampshire, which owns the state’s coal-fired power plants. The committee plans to continue work on the bill while the tests proceed.
Washington Adopts California Low Emission Vehicle Program
On May 6, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law House Bill 1397, which will bring California’s strict low emission vehicle (LEV II) emissions standards to the state. The new emissions standards will take effect in 2009, provided Oregon adopts similar legislation. (The Oregon legislature currently is considering Senate Bill 344, which would require the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to adopt California’s LEV II program beginning with the 2009 model year.) By 2016, all new cars, light trucks and sport utility vehicles sold in Washington would have to comply with the new standards.
Some commentators have questioned the legality of Washington’s law. The Clean Air Act gives states two options in adopting motor vehicle emissions standards; they can adopt either the federal standards issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the California standards. If a state chooses the California standards, that state’s program must be identical to California’s (federal law prohibits creating a “third vehicle” that automobile manufacturers would have to produce). House Bill 1397 does not mirror California’s LEV II program in its entirety, however, as Washington lawmakers chose not to include California’s controversial zero emission vehicle standards. This amendment was intended to lessen the impact on car dealers in the state.
Colorado Legislature Weighs In on New Source Review
The Colorado General Assembly approved a regulation proposed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that adopts the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) revised New Source Review (NSR) rule issued on December 31, 2002 (see story in December 2002 Clean Air Newsletter). The legislature’s action came after it received assurances from CDPHE that it would revisit the regulation if litigation filed by 14 states against the EPA rule were upheld in federal court (see story in March 2003 Clean Air Newsletter).
Debate over the NSR rule took place during the waning days of the 2005 session. Each year, the Joint Committee on Legal Services reviews state agency regulations adopted through a rulemaking process in the previous year that, unless extended by the legislature, expire on May 15. On April 29, the committee took action through approval of Senate Bill 183 that repealed the NSR rule by specifically removing its extension beyond the May 15 expiration date. The CDPHE executive director argued that the committee did not have the authority to override a regulation that did not conflict with legislative intent. The committee chair countered that the legislature had broad statutory authority to take the action it did. The regulation review statute states that:
No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency and as authorized by law. A rule shall not be deemed to be within the statutory authority and jurisdiction of any agency merely because such rule is not contrary to the specific provisions of a statute. Any rule or amendment to an existing rule issued by any agency…which conflicts with a statute shall be void. (Colo. Rev. Stat. §24-4-103(8)(a))
After Senate Bill 183 passed the Senate and reached the House floor on May 5, the governor, who opposed repeal of the NSR rule, threatened to call the legislature into special session if the bill were adopted with the repeal intact. Faced with a mandatory adjournment date of May 11, the General Assembly agreed to extend the regulation’s expiration date beyond May 15, once the CDPHE head agreed to reassess the regulation should the litigation against it prove to be successful. Oral arguments in the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia were heard in January. A decision is expected this summer.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS
Automakers Make Deal with Canadian Government to Cut Emissions
In an unprecedented agreement, the Canadian government and automakers entered into a voluntary agreement that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 5.3 million tons by 2010. According to government calculations, that equals a nearly 6 percent reduction in the total greenhouse gas emissions projected from all vehicles—old and new—in Canada in 2010. The anticipated reductions from new vehicles in 2010 would be greater, but exact figures have not been estimated.
The automakers intend to comply with the agreement by developing and deploying fuel-efficient technologies, producing more alternative fuel and gas-electric vehicles, and launching a campaign to encourage Canadians to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. Initially, the Canadian government wanted the auto industry to improve fuel economy by 33 percent. In the end, the companies agreed to meet the emissions target if they could use other methods in addition to improving fuel economy. There are no penalties for failure to reach reduction targets, but if the companies fail to act, the government can impose mandatory regulations.
In the United States, California has proposed a new rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles; the rule is not final and is being challenged in court by auto manufacturers (see story in January 2005 Clean Air Newsletter). Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have adopted California’s strict low emission vehicle standards, which eventually may include greenhouse gas reductions. Washington passed similar legislation this year (see story in this issue). With the addition of Canada, a total of one-third of the North American automobile market will have to meet stricter emissions rules.
MEETINGS
NCSL Schedules Clean Air Legislative Workshop
NCSL will conduct a Clean Air Legislative Workshop on June 3 in San Francisco at the Galleria Park Hotel. The third in a series of regional meetings under NCSL’s Clean Air Project, the workshop is designed to engage participants in a dialogue that explores the role of states in crafting policies to meet their own environmental and public health needs within the context of regional and national programs. Topics for discussion include EPA’s recently issued mercury rule, California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV II) program and greenhouse gas reduction rule, air pollution control strategies to reduce deposition in national parks, and policy options to cut diesel emissions in ports.
The workshop agenda is available on NCSL’s Air Quality Web page at www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/air/air.htm. For additional information, contact Larry Morandi or Jennifer Smith in NCSL’s Denver office at (303) 364-7700, or larry.morandi@ncsl.org, or jennifer.smith@ncsl.org.
NCSL Spring Forum
NCSL’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee held three sessions on air quality issues at its Spring Forum in Washington, D.C., April 14-15. The sessions addressed:
• Options to reduce emissions from diesel engines;
• Clean Air Act provisions that allow states to adopt either EPA’s (Tier II) or California’s (LEV II) mobile source emission standards; and
• EPA and congressional proposals to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury through multi-pollutant strategies.
The committee agenda is available on NCSL’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee Web page at www.ncsl.org/standcomm/scenvir/scenvir.htm. For additional information, contact Michael Bird or Tamra Spielvogel in NCSL’s Washington, D.C., office at (202) 624-5400, or michael.bird@ncsl.org, or tamra.spielvogel@ncsl.org.
STATE LEGISLATION
Summaries of Selected 2005 State Air Quality Bills
|
CLEAN AIR NEWSLETTER Published quarterly by the National Conference of State Legislatures, 7700 East First Place, Denver, Colorado 80230, (303) 364-7700. FAX: (303) 364-7800 William T. Pound, Executive Director Funding support for this publication is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any opinions, findings or conclusions in this publication are those of NCSL staff and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contributors to this issue: Printed on recycled paper. |
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
