State Regulations on Airborne Emissions: Update Through 2007 |
|
Implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule States are moving forward with implementation plans for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) [42]. The program, promulgated by the EPA in March 2005, is a cap-and-trade system designed to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx. States originally had until March 2007 to submit implementation plans, but the deadline has been extended by another year. CAIR covers 28 eastern States and the District of Columbia. States have the option to participate in the cap-andtrade plan or devise their own plans, which can be more stringent than the Federal requirements. To date, no State has indicated an intent to form NOx and SO2 programs with emissions limits stricter than those in CAIR, and it is expected that all States will participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program. CAIR remains on schedule for implementation, and AEO2008 includes CAIR by assuming that all required States will meet only the Federal requirement and will trade credits. A similar program, the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), was promulgated by the EPA in March 2005 to reduce emissions of mercury [43]. On February 8, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals found CAMR to be unlawful and voided it, ruling that the EPA had not proved mercury to be a pollutant eligible for regulation under a less stringent portion of the Clean Air Act. Because the court’s ruling came too late for EIA to remove the CAMR provisions from its analysis, AEO2008 includes consideration of CAMR. Regardless of CAMR, however, some States have implemented plans calling for mandatory 90-percent cuts in mercury emissions from all plants of a certain size. More stringent modeling of mercury emissions limits in some regions may be necessary when State actions have been finalized. State Greenhouse Gas Initiatives RGGI. Since the end of 2006, three additional States have joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) [44]. Currently, RGGI includes 10 members: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maryland. Although AEO2008 does not include RGGI, given the current uncertainty about the program’s structure and allowance trading, several States are now moving forward with their draft implementation plans. Massachusetts, Maine, and New York have released public drafts for comment. Each of those plans closely follows the model rules published in August 2006, requiring that 100 percent of the allowances be auctioned. It is thought that all RGGI States are likely to follow the same precedent, with a limited number of giveaway credits. RGGI formally begins in January 2009. Some States will have to enact legislation to make the program legally binding, whereas others have State agencies that already have such authority and do not need to pass new laws. As of late 2007, Vermont was the only RGGI State that had enacted a new law. WCI. In February 2007, the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington established the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Utah and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba have since joined as full partners. Six additional U.S. States and several Canadian provinces participate as observers. The eight full partners have agreed to the goal of decreasing emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, but little else about the program has been decided. Although the WCI is leaning heavily toward a cap-and-trade system, the specifics of covered emissions, State allowance allocations and trading, emissions accounting, and offsets—among other items—still are being negotiated. AEO2008 does not include the WCI, because it remains to be seen how the program will function and what the penalties for noncompliance will be. WCI has a task force that will assemble a program model rule by August 2008. Some WCI partner States already have GHG laws or goals, while others, such as Utah, do not. The agreement does not override the binding GHG laws in California, Oregon, and Washington, but it does require WCI partners to join the Climate Registry, which is a collaboration of 39 U.S. States, Canadian provinces, and Mexican states seeking uniform GHG accounting and reporting. California. California’s S.B. 1368 [45] makes it illegal to enter into new long-term contracts to serve the State’s electricity demand with power plants that produce GHG emissions in excess of 1,100 pounds per megawatthour of electricity generated—effectively prohibiting the construction of new coal-fired facilities without carbon sequestration, even if they are located in a neighboring State. AEO2008 includes the impact of S.B. 1368 through limits on coal-fired electricity generation serving California. California’s Assembly Bill (A.B.) 1493, which would establish GHG emissions standards for LDVs, is not considered in the AEO2008 reference case. A.B. 1493 was signed into law in July 2002, and regulations were released by the California Air Resources Board in August 2004 and approved by California’s Office of Administrative Law in September 2005 [46]. The emission standards would be applied to lightduty noncommercial passenger vehicles manufactured for model year 2009 and beyond [47]. The standards, specified in terms of CO2-equivalent emissions, would apply to vehicles in two size classes: passenger cars and light-duty trucks with a loaded vehicle weight rating of 3,750 pounds or less; and light-duty trucks with a loaded vehicle weight rating greater than 3,750 pounds and a gross vehicle weight rating less than 8,500 pounds. The CO2-equivalent emissions standard for light trucks would include noncommercial passenger trucks between 8,500 pounds and 10,000 pounds. The regulations were to become effective in January 2006 and set near-term emission standards that were to be phased in between 2009 and 2012. The mid-term emission standards were to be phased in between 2013 and 2016. After 2016, the emissions standards would be left unchanged. Before California can implement the GHG emission standards for vehicles established in A.B. 1493, it must receive a waiver from the U.S. EPA. The EPA, however, has denied California a waiver to regulate GHG emissions from mobile source under the Clean Air Act. Expressing concern about the establishment of regional emissions standards for new motor vehicles, the EPA reasoned that the effects of climate change in California did not support the need for a regional standard. In October 2003, California, 11 other States, 3 cities, and several environmental groups filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that the EPA should regulate GHG emissions from vehicles. In July 2005, a three-judge panel ruled 2 to 1 in the EPA’s favor, stating that the agency was not required to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The decision was overturned in April 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the EPA has authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions from automobiles. Nonetheless, on December 19, 2007, the EPA again denied California’s request for a waiver [48]. On January 2, 2008, California and 15 other States sued the EPA, challenging its decision to deny the wavier [49]. AEO2008 also does not include consideration of California A.B. 32, which mandates a 25-percent reduction in California’s GHG emissions by 2020. Implementing regulations have not been drafted and are not due to be finalized until January 2012. Washington and Oregon. Washington and Oregon have joined California in the enactment of State GHG legislation. In May 2007, Washington’s Governor Christine Gregoire signed S.B. 6001 [50], which mandates cuts in emissions and performance standards for power plants. The legislation targets reductions to 1990 emissions levels in the State by 2020, to 25 percent below the 1990 levels by 2035, and to 50 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. Washington has not yet mandated the program specifics, such as the type of system that will be used to meet the targets. Additional action from the governor, the utilities, and the State’s transportation commission will be required. Washington State has also adopted the same standards included in California S.B. 1368. Oregon, which has CO2 regulations for natural-gas-fired plants but not for other fossil-fuel-based power systems, passed its GHG reduction law in August 2007. The law has the same 2020 reduction goal as Washington’s and also requires that emissions growth be capped by 2010. It establishes the Oregon Global Warming Commission, a body will have 25 members with various backgrounds who will serve as an advisory board to State and local governments. Like Washington and California, Oregon has not determined the specific procedures to be followed in implementing the required emissions reductions. Other States. Many other States have goals and other provisions for GHG reductions and accounting of emissions from stationary sources. In May 2007, Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer signed House Bill 25 [51], which requires any new coal-fired generating facility to sequester at least 50 percent of the CO2 it emits. Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist signed three executive orders [52] over the summer concerning his State’s emissions of heat-trapping gases, including an overall State goal to bring emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. An Energy and Climate Change Action Plan will be developed to determine how the State of Florida can reach those reduction goals. ICAP. Ten U.S. States, all of which are participants in either RGGI or WCI, have entered the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). ICAP, created in October 2007, seeks collaboration among carbon trading programs. Members include nine European Union countries, the European Commission, Norway, and New Zealand. Several other U.S. States have non-binding goals, carbon registry requirements, or energy plans that include recommendations to limit CO2 emissions from stationary sources, including those described above.
Contact: Robert Smith |