Air Quality: EPAâs Proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (24 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
March 13, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RL32273 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Larry Parker and John Blodgett, Resources, Science, and Industry Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
On December 17, 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to
address the effect of interstate transport of air pollutants on non-attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates (PM2.5) and ozone (specifically, the 8-hour
standard). The proposed Interstate Air Quality (IAQ) rule appeared in the Federal
Register January
30, 2004. For PM2.5, the proposed rule finds that the interstate transport of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) from 28 states and the District of Columbia contributes significantly to
downwind non-attainment; for ozone, the proposed rule finds that interstate transport of NOx from
25 states and D.C. contributes significantly to downwind non-attainment of the 8-hour standard.
With the IAQ rule, EPA proposes a region-wide emissions cap for NOx and SO2 to be
implemented in two phases -- 2010 and 2015. Based on the methodology employed in the proposed
rule, EPA estimates reductions of about 70% from baseline emissions in 2015. EPA's methodology
determined the caps by applying "highly cost effective" pollution controls on electric generating
units.
EPA has presented the proposed IAQ rule and the accompanying proposed Mercury (Hg) rule
as a "suite of integrated air actions" to reduce emissions of three pollutants -- SO2, NOx, and Hg.
The two proposed rules are integrated in such a way that the technologies reducing SO2 and NOx
emissions under the IAQ rule also reduce enough Hg emissions to meet the modest 2010 reduction
requirements of the proposed Hg rule. This combination of requirements and technology allows
utilities to meet the requirements of both rules without installing three different control technologies
-- one for each pollutant. As EPA does not provide a cost-benefit analysis of Hg reductions, it is not
possible to quantitatively determine whether this decision is economically efficient in terms of
potential Hg benefits foregone by not imposing a more stringent reduction requirement.
However, from the broader perspective of the interaction of the proposed rules with the
underlying Clean Air Act (CAA), there is a resulting lack of integration. It is likely to be argued that
the proposed rule simply represents another layer on an already multi-layered cake called the Clean
Air Act. Adding a regionwide annual cap and trade program onto a regulatory structure whose
foundation is health-based national standards that focus on the local concentration of pollutants in
the ambient air presents numerous difficulties. As a result, there are multiple inconsistencies between
the proposed rule and other provisions of the CAA. These conflicts are not surprising -- there is little
EPA can do to resolve them out by regulation. If the Administration's goal is to restructure CAA
compliance strategies toward market-oriented cap and trade programs without creating more layers
and conflicts, it is possible a statutory solution will be necessary.
This report will be updated if events warrant.
