|
Testimony by the Adirondack
Council's Legislative Director Before the Environmental Protection
Agency on the Clean Air Interstate Rule Reconsideration
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 51 and 96
(OAR 2003-0053; FRL-8003-7)
Rule to Reduce Interstate Transportation of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule): Reconsideration
Good morning. My name is Scott
Lorey. I am the Legislative Director for the Adirondack Council.
The Adirondack Council is a privately-funded, not-for-profit
organization dedicated to ensuring the ecological integrity and
wild character of the Adirondack Park. We have been fighting
to stop acid rain for over 25 years.
New York's Adirondack Park contains
nearly three million acres of public land protected by our state
constitution as "Forever Wild" for over 100 years.
The Adirondack Park has suffered some of the greatest damage
from acid rain due to its geology and geography. Prevailing winds
bring power plant emissions from outside New York into the Adirondacks
where it is deposited in many forms. Approximately one quarter
of the Park's 2,800 lakes and ponds can no longer sustain their
native plant and animal life.
The Adirondack Council has been
very involved in the promulgation of CAIR, including testifying
simultaneously at three hearings on the then-Interstate Air Quality
Rule in
North Carolina, Illinois, and Pennsylvania; testifying at the
supplemental hearing in Virginia; and recently submitting comments
on the CAIR FIP as a response to North Carolina's Section 126
petition. The Council has also testified three times before the
Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee on the issue
of acid rain, the last time in February when we described CAIR
as the "floor" by which any legislation must exceed
in terms of depth and timeliness of cuts.
Since we do not represent the
interests of any company or EGU, the Council does not favor one
type of fuel over another. Our main concern is to bring down
the aggregate emissions
levels as quickly and deeply as possible, which is not part of
today's hearing.
The Adirondack Council would
like to comment briefly on all four issues the EPA is reconsidering
today. First, the allowance allocation methodology for sulfur
dioxide credits. EPA's proposal and later acceptance of the methodology
in CAIR uses the existing framework of the Acid Rain program,
which was created as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
This approach seems reasonable and fair. This program has been
well established with all of the participants knowing the guidelines
of how the program operates. Over 90 percent of the units that
may be affected by CAIR, if their state chooses to participate
in the trading program, are already participating in the Title
IV program.
Changing the allocation scheme
now would be akin to changing the rules of a basketball game
during halftime. Not all companies, of course, are satisfied
with the current allocation. But this methodology has been used
for over a decade and in statute for 15 years.
EPA correctly points out that
companies have a number of alternatives, such as transferring
allowances from their plants outside of the CAIR region or opting
in units that would be affected by CAIR, but are not currently
part of the Acid Rain program. Since companies have these two
options, along with the facts that states must still opt in to
the trading program and that the depth of reductions are not
as deep as we believe they could have been, demonstrate that
power companies will be able to adapt readily to this program.
The companies were able to adjust after 1990, when the Acid Rain
program began. Some owners stated at that time it would be impossible,
but according to EPA, the sulfur dioxide program now has a 99.9
percent compliance rate.
The Adirondack Council is more
concerned with the establishment of the NOx state budgets. Again,
we are not advocating for one fuel source over another. EPA,
in this case, seems to have sidestepped the public comment process
by using four vague sentences in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPR) (Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 111/Thursday,
June 10, 2004/Proposed Rules 32689) which mention the possibility
of using specific fuel adjustment factors to establish the budgets.
However, as EPA notes, specific
numbers were never used in the supplemental proposal. While there
may be the historic NOx emissions rate for each fuel (1.0 for
coal, 0.4 for gas and 0.6 for oil), EPA failed to mention these
numbers as they considered fuel adjusted budgets in the SNPR
and ultimately in the final rule. The Adirondack Council believes
this is a procedural error on the part of EPA and should be corrected,
if possible. One potential solution would be to compromise on
the ratio and use something in between the original and supplemental
proposals. However, this would need to be done quickly. The Adirondack
Council would be opposed to any changes in CAIR that would create
a substantial delay in the implementation of the program.
On the issue of the modeling
used to determine that Minnesota should be included in CAIR for
PM 2.5, the Adirondack Council agrees with EPA's decision to
take into account future regulations that would limit that state's
emissions, but that it should still be included in CAIR, based
upon the updated data and modeling. We applaud Minnesota for
implementing what EPA describes as "certain State control
programs." Many other states, including New York, North
Carolina, Massachusetts and Connecticut have gone above and beyond
the federal requirements when it comes to reducing sulfur and
nitrogen emissions. However, all of these states are in the CAIR
program for either ozone or ozone and particles. We believe it
is appropriate that Minnesota be included in CAIR and hope that
this will help to further reduce emissions that cause acid rain.
Finally, EPA seeks comment on
the inclusion of Florida within the CAIR region for ozone. We
accept that EPA's models now show that Florida should be included
for ozone, based on the new platform and emissions data. Since
Florida was already in the CAIR region for particles, we do not
believe its inclusion for ozone would be a major burden on the
state and its utilities. As with Minnesota, we believe that the
state's inclusion will help to reduce the aggregate emissions
throughout the region and benefit the Adirondack Park.
Thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you today.
|