Implementation of the "clean smokestacks act" : a report to the Environmental Review Commission and the Joint Legislative Utility Review Committee

              Implementation of the
“Clean Smokestacks Act”
A Report to the
Environmental Review Commission and the
Joint Legislative Commission on
Governmental Operations
Submitted by the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources and
the North Carolina Utilities Commission
Report No. X
June 1, 2012
Implementation of the "Clean Smokestacks Act"
A Report to the
Environmental Review Commission and the
Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations
June 1, 2012
Executive Summary
The Clean Smokestacks Act (or “Act”) was enacted to improve air quality in North
Carolina by imposing limits on the emission of certain pollutants from investor-owned
electric generating facilities. The Act also provided for the recovery of costs incurred by
the utilities to achieve those limits. The emissions limitations set in the Act applied to
coal-fired electric generating units operated by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke
Energy) and Progress Energy Carolinas Inc. (Progress Energy). The Act also imposed
requirements on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); the
Division of Air Quality (DAQ) of DENR; the Environmental Management Commission;
the Department of Justice, effectively; and the Utilities Commission (Commission). The
Act, among other things, requires DENR and the Commission to report annually on the
implementation of the Act to the Environmental Review Commission and the Joint
Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations. The Act also requires Duke
Energy and Progress Energy to submit annual reports to DENR and the Commission.
This report includes summaries of the annual reports submitted by Duke Energy and
Progress Energy and describes actions and/or activities undertaken by state agencies
in compliance with the Act. In summary, DENR and the Utilities Commission have
concluded that the actions taken to date by Duke Energy and Progress Energy are in
accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Clean Smokestacks Act.
Further, the compliance plans and schedules proposed by Duke Energy and Progress
Energy appear adequate to achieve the emissions limitations set out in
G.S. 143-215.107D.
The General Assembly of North Carolina, Session 2001, passed Session Law 2002-4,
also known as Senate Bill 1078. This legislation is titled “An Act to Improve Air Quality in
the State by Imposing Limits on the Emission of Certain Pollutants from Certain
Facilities that Burn Coal to Generate Electricity and to Provide for Recovery by Electric
Utilities of the Costs of Achieving Compliance with Those Limits" (“the Clean
Smokestacks Act,” “the Act” or “the CSA”). The Clean Smokestacks Act, in Section 14,
requires DENR and the Utilities Commission to report annually (by June 1 of each year)
on the implementation of the Act to the Environmental Review Commission (ERC) and
the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations (Governmental
Operations).
2
The Act, in Section 9, requires Duke Energy, and Progress Energy, to submit annual
reports to DENR and the Commission containing certain specified information.
Duke Energy filed its report with DENR and the Commission by cover letter dated
March 27, 2012. Progress Energy filed its report with DENR and the Commission by
cover letters dated March 30 and April 2, 2012, respectively. Each report was submitted
in compliance with the requirements of G.S. 62-133.6(i). Duke Energy’s and Progress
Energy’s reports are attached, and made part of this report, as Attachments A and B,
respectively.
By letter dated May 15, 2012, the Secretary of DENR wrote to the Utilities Commission
stating that, pursuant to G.S. 62-133.6(j), DENR has reviewed the information provided
and has determined that the submittals comply with the Act. The Secretary further
stated that the plans and schedules of the Companies appear adequate to achieve the
emission limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D.
Significantly, 2007 marked the first step in meeting the emission reductions required by
the Clean Smokestacks Act. Duke Energy was limited to 35,000 tons of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) in any calendar year beginning Jan. 1, 2007, and Progress Energy was
limited to 25,000 tons of NOx (combined cap of 60,000 tons NOx). DENR/DAQ has
verified that both utilities have met their respective emission limits.
The end of 2009 marked the second milestone in emission reductions, when Duke
Energy had to further reduce its calendar year NOx emissions to 31,000 tons, and
Progress Energy was required to emit less than 25,000 tons (combined cap of
56,000 tons NOx). Both utilities were also required to reduce their calendar year sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions; Duke Energy to 150,000 tons and Progress Energy to
100,000 tons (combined cap of 250,000 tons SO2). For calendar year 2011, both utilities
reported that they have continued to meet their respective limits. This has been
confirmed by DENR/DAQ. The figure below shows the decrease in NOx and SO2
emissions as a result of control measures implemented by Progress Energy and
Duke Energy on a combined basis:
245,000
56,000
47,179
39,284
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
tons/year
Duke and Progress Energy NOx Emissions
1998 NOx
2009 NOx Cap
2010 NOx Actual
2011 NOx Actual
489,000
250,000
116,517
73,454
130,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
tons/year
Duke and Progress Energy SO2 Emissions
1998 SO2
2009 SO2 Cap
2010 SO2 Actual
2011 SO2 Actual
2013 SO2 Cap
3
The reduction in SO2 emissions required by CSA was paramount in attaining the fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) standard in the Hickory and Greensboro/High Point areas in
North Carolina. In December 2009, DENR submitted to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) a redesignation demonstration and maintenance plan for
these areas and then supplemented the maintenance plan in Dec. 2010. As part of the
redesignation demonstration and maintenance plan, DENR relied on the CSA SO2
reductions as permanent and enforceable measures that demonstrate continued
maintenance of the PM2.5 standard. On Sept. 26, 2011, the EPA adopted the CSA
emission caps into the State Implementation Plan (76 FR 59250). On Nov. 18, 2011, the
EPA approved the redesignation demonstration and maintenance plan for the Hickory
and Greensboro/High Point areas (76 FR 71452 and 71455). In this action, the EPA
redesignated the area to attainment, effective Dec. 19, 2011. The approval of the North
Carolina PM2.5 redesignation demonstration was made possible due to the CSA SO2
emission caps. NOx reductions attributable to the CSA also helped the area meet the
1997 ozone standard.
The next milestone in emission reductions occurs in 2013, when Duke Energy and
Progress Energy must reduce their annual SO2 emissions to 80,000 tons and
50,000 tons, respectively (combined cap of 130,000 tons SO2). Duke Energy’s calendar
year 2011 SO2 emissions are well below the 2013 cap (22,038 tons SO2). Progress
Energy’s calendar year 2011 SO2 emissions are near the 2013 cap (51,416 tons SO2).
Progress Energy is expected to meet its 2013 target with the recently planned
retirement of the Lee coal-fired plant and its replacement with a combined-cycle natural
gas-fired plant.
Collectively, the two utilities have reduced NOx emissions by 84 percent and SO2
emissions by 85 percent relative to 1998 emission levels.
This report is presented to meet the reporting requirement of the Act pertaining to
DENR and the Commission, as discussed above, and is submitted jointly by DENR and
the Commission. The report is structured to address the various actions that have
occurred pursuant to the provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Act.
Reports of actions under these Sections describe the extent of implementation of the
Act to this date.
I. Section 9(c) of the Act, Codified as Section 62-133.6(c) of the North Carolina
General Statutes
G.S. 62-133.6(c) provides: The investor-owned public utilities shall file their
compliance plans, including initial cost estimates, with the Commission and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources not later than 10 days after the date
on which this section becomes effective. The Commission shall consult with the
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources and shall consider the advice of the
Secretary as to whether an investor-owned public utility's proposed compliance plan is
adequate to achieve the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D.
4
Status: The investor-owned utilities regulated under the Act, Progress Energy and
Duke Energy, filed their initial compliance plans as required in June and July of 2002,
respectively, in accordance with G.S. 62-133.6(c), Section 9(c) of Session Laws 2002-4,
the Clean Smokestacks Act. DENR/DAQ reviewed this information and determined that
the submittals complied with the Act and, as proposed, appeared adequate to achieve
the emission limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D. The Commission agreed with
and accepted DENR/DAQ’s evaluations and findings.
II. Section 9(d) of the Act, Codified as Section 62-133.6(d) of the North
Carolina General Statutes
G.S. 62-133.6(d) provides: Subject to the provisions of subsection (f) of this section,
the Commission shall hold a hearing to review the environmental compliance costs set
out in subsection (b) of this section. The Commission may modify and revise those
costs as necessary to ensure that they are just, reasonable, and prudent based on the
most recent cost information available and determine the annual cost recovery amounts
that each investor-owned public utility shall be required to record and recover during
calendar years 2008 and 2009. In making its decisions pursuant to this subsection, the
Commission shall consult with the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to
receive advice as to whether the investor-owned public utility's actual and proposed
modifications and permitting and construction schedule are adequate to achieve the
emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D. The Commission shall issue an
order pursuant to this subsection no later than 31 December 2007.
Commission proceedings conducted in compliance with this provision of the Act and
related Commission rulings were comprehensively discussed in DENR and the
Commission’s 2009 Clean Smokestacks Act joint report to the ERC and the Joint
Legislative Utility Review Committee, predecessor to Governmental Operations. For a
complete detailed explanation of such matters, please refer to Part II of the 2009 report,
beginning on Page 2.
III. Section 9(i) of the Act, Codified as Section 62-133.6(i) of the North Carolina
General Statutes
G.S. 62-133.6(i) provides: An investor-owned public utility that is subject to the
emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D shall submit to the Commission and
to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources on or before 1 April of each
year a verified statement that contains all of the following [specified information]:
The following are the 11 subsections of G.S. 62-133.6(i) and the related responses from
Progress Energy and Duke Energy for each subsection:
1. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(1) requires: A detailed report on the investor-owned public
utility's plans for meeting the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D.
5
Progress Energy Response: Progress Energy originally submitted its compliance
plan on July 29, 2002. Appendix A of Attachment B to this report contains an updated
version of Progress Energy’s plan, effective April 1, 2012.
Duke Energy Response: Exhibits A and B of Attachment A to this report outline Duke
Energy’s plan for technology selections by facility and unit, actual and projected
operational dates, actual and expected emission rates, and the corresponding tons of
emissions that demonstrate compliance with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D. The
following changes to Duke Energy’s plan for meeting emissions limits as compared to
past compliance plans have been identified:
NOx Compliance
Emission Rate Changes – “Expected emission rates for certain units have been
adjusted in this 2012 update based on operating experience in 2011 with
installed controls, targeted future performance, and planned retirements.”
SO2 Compliance
Emission Rate Changes – “Expected emission rates for certain units have been
adjusted in this 2012 update based on operating experience in 2011 with
installed controls, targeted future performance and planned retirements.”
2. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(2) requires: The actual environmental compliance costs
incurred by the investor-owned public utility in the previous calendar year, including a
description of the construction undertaken and completed during that year.
Summary of Progress Energy Report: The actual environmental compliance net
costs incurred by Progress Energy in calendar year 2011 were $1.8 million (see
Attachment B, Appendix B). Such costs were related to remediation work with respect to
the wastewater treatment settling ponds at the Company’s Roxboro plant.
Summary of Duke Energy Report: The actual environmental compliance net costs
incurred by Duke Energy in calendar year 2011 were $3.6 million (see Attachment A,
Exhibit C). Such costs were incurred with respect to flue gas desulfurization (FGD) at
the Company’s Allen and Cliffside Steam Stations.
3. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(3) requires: The amount of the investor-owned public utility's
environmental compliance cost amortized in the previous calendar year.
Summary of Progress Energy Report: Progress Energy amortized $0 environmental
compliance cost in 2011. As reflected in earlier reports, Progress Energy has previously
amortized a total of $584.1 million. No additional amortization is anticipated.
Summary of Duke Energy Report: Duke Energy amortized $0 environmental
compliance cost in 2011. As reflected in earlier reports, Duke Energy has previously
amortized a total of $1.05 billion. No additional amortization is anticipated.
6
4. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(4) requires: An estimate of the investor-owned public utility's
environmental compliance costs and the basis for any revisions of those estimates
when compared to the estimates submitted during the previous year.
Summary of Progress Energy Report: Progress Energy reported that its total net
capital costs (that is, excluding the portion for which the Power Agency is responsible)
actually incurred through 2011 was $1.055 billion and that future costs are currently
projected to be $0. Such amount is virtually unchanged from the Company’s April 2011
cost estimate.
Progress Energy’s current cost estimate of $1.055 billion, which excludes allowance for
funds used during construction (AFUDC), is $242 million or 30 percent greater than the
original 2002 cost estimate of $813 million.
Summary of Duke Energy Report: Duke Energy reported that there has been no
significant change to the scope or timing associated with any of its projects but that
forecasts for active projects have been updated as compared to those contained in the
Company’s 2011 report. Duke Energy’s current cost estimate of its compliance costs is
$1.840 billion, excluding AFUDC. Such amount is basically unchanged, in all material
respects, from its cost estimate of $1.843 billion as contained in its 2011 Report.
Duke Energy’s current cost estimate of $1.840 billion is $340 million or
23 percent greater than the original 2002 estimate of $1.5 billion.
5. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(5) requires: A description of all permits required in order to
comply with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D for which the investor-owned public
utility has applied and the status of those permits or permit applications.
Summary of Progress Energy Response: For the Roxboro plant, Progress Energy
requested approval to impound the repaired West Settling pond on May 10, 2011.
DENR Division of Land Resources approved the request on July 7, 2011. Progress
Energy has completed the permitting required to comply with the provisions of
G.S. 143-215.107D.
Summary of Duke Energy Response: Permitting necessary to comply with the
provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D was completed in 2010. Therefore, no further permit
applications were submitted in 2011. A history of permit applications submitted and
permits issued is contained in Attachment A (Page 2, Item 5).
6. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(6) requires: A description of the construction related to
compliance with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D that is anticipated during the
following year.
Summary of Progress Energy Response: At the Roxboro plant, work on the settling
ponds was completed in 2011. No further construction is anticipated.
7
Summary of Duke Energy Response: At the Allen Steam Station FGD, installation of
additional relays to eliminate power reliability issue will be performed. Activities at the
Cliffside Steam Station Unit 5 FGD will consist of final tie-in and testing of new 230 kV
breakers and upgrade of controls software.
7. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(7) requires: A description of the applications for permits
required in order to comply with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D that are
anticipated during the following year.
Progress Energy Response: “PEC has completed the permitting required to comply
with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D; therefore, there are no applications for
permits anticipated for calendar year 2012.”
Duke Energy Response: “Duke Energy Carolinas has completed the permitting
necessary to comply with the provisions of G.S. 143-215.107D. No additional permit
applications are expected.”
8. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(8) requires: The results of equipment testing related to
compliance with G.S. 143-215.107D.
Progress Energy Response: “No additional equipment testing related to compliance
with G.S. 143-215.107D was performed in 2011.”
Duke Energy Response: “No additional equipment testing related to compliance with
G.S. 143-215.107D was performed in 2011.” Equipment tests conducted in prior years
and their performance results are summarized in Attachment A (Page 6, Item 8).
9. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(9) requires: The number of tons of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted during the previous calendar year from the coal--fired
generating units that are subject to the emissions limitations set out in
G.S. 143-215.107D.
Both utilities determine their actual emissions through measurements collected by
continuous emissions monitors (CEMs). The raw CEM data are recorded and verified by
the utilities, and then reported to the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division.
Progress Energy Response: “The total calendar year 2011 emissions from the
affected coal-fired PEC units are:
 NOx 18,810 tons
 SO2 51,416 tons”
DENR/DAQ has verified these emissions using DAQ compliance records and CEM data
reported to the EPA Clean Air Market Division.
8
The first emissions reduction target imposed by the Act required Progress Energy to
meet a limit of 25,000 tons of NOx in calendar year 2007, and maintain this emission
limit in future years. 2009 marked the first emissions reduction target for SO2 at
100,000 tons per year. Progress Energy’s NOx and SO2 emissions for 2011 comply with
these limits. The Company continues to achieve emissions that are well below the
required levels.
Progress Energy’s next steps to comply with the Act are to continue meeting the annual
NOx and SO2 emissions limits of 25,000 tons and 100,000 tons, respectively; and to
further reduce annual SO2 emissions to 50,000 tons in 2013. As shown above, Progress
Energy is already close to meeting the future SO2 emissions limit. With the anticipated
retirement of the Lee coal-fired plant and its replacement with a combined-cycle natural
gas-fired unit, Progress Energy is well positioned to meet the Act’s 2013 emissions cap.
Duke Energy Response: Duke Energy’s reported emissions for calendar year 2011
are:
 NOx 20,474 tons
 SO2 22,038 tons
DENR/DAQ has verified these emissions using DAQ compliance records and CEM data
reported to the EPA Clean Air Market Division.
The first emissions limitation imposed by the Act required Duke Energy to meet a limit of
35,000 tons of NOx in 2007. By 2009, Duke was required to further reduce its annual
NOx emissions to 31,000 tons and reduce SO2 emissions to 150,000 tons per year.
Duke Energy’s reported emissions for 2011 comply with these limits. The Company
continues to achieve emissions that are well below the required levels.
Duke Energy’s next steps to comply with the Act are to continue meeting the annual
NOx and SO2 emission limits of 31,000 tons and 150,000 tons per year, respectively. In
2013, the annual SO2 emissions cap drops to 80,000 tons. The Company is already
meeting this target by a wide margin.
10. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(10) requires: The emissions allowances described in
G.S. 143-215.107D(i) that are acquired by the investor-owned public utility that result
from compliance with the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D.
Progress Energy Response: “During 2011, PEC did not acquire any allowances as a
result of compliance with the emission limitations set out in N.C. General Statute
143-215.107D.”
Duke Energy Response: “During 2011, Duke Energy Carolinas did not acquire any
allowances as the result of compliance with the emission limitations set out in
N.C. General Statute 143-215.107D.”
9
11. G.S. 62-133.6(i)(11) requires: Any other information requested by the
Commission or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Progress Energy Response: “There have been no additional requests for
information from the North Carolina Utilities Commission or the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources since the last report.”
Duke Energy Response: “No additional information has been requested to be
included in this annual data submittal.”
IV. Section 10 of the Act provides: It is the intent of the General Assembly that
the State use all available resources and means, including negotiation, participation in
interstate compacts and multistate and interagency agreements, petitions pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 7426, and litigation to induce other states and entities, including the
Tennessee Valley Authority, to achieve reductions in emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) comparable to those required by G.S. 143-215.107D, as
enacted by Section 1 of this act, on a comparable schedule. The State shall give
particular attention to those states and other entities whose emissions negatively impact
air quality in North Carolina or whose failure to achieve comparable reductions would
place the economy of North Carolina at a competitive disadvantage.
DENR/DAQ and Department of Justice (Attorney General) Activities to
Implement this Section:
The State continues to pursue opportunities to carry forward the Legislature’s objectives
in Section 10 of the Act. The State reports the following recent activities and
developments:
1) On Jan. 30, 2006, the State, through the Attorney General, sued the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) in federal district court in Asheville. The suit alleges that
emissions of SO2 and NOx from TVA’s fleet of coal-fired power plants are
inadequately controlled and therefore create a public nuisance. The Attorney
General asked the court to require TVA to install NOx and SO2 controls to abate
the public nuisance.
On Jan. 13, 2009, the court found that four TVA coal-fired generating stations are
creating a public nuisance in North Carolina. These facilities are the Bull Run,
John Sevier, and Kingston plants in eastern Tennessee and the Widows Creek
plant in northeastern Alabama. The judge ordered that each unit of each facility
install modern pollution controls for SO2 and NOx and meet emission limits that
are consistent with the continuous operation of such controls. The court ordered
that TVA meet these limits on a staggered schedule ending in 2013.
On July 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the judgment, primarily on the ground that the action was pre-empted
by the Clean Air Act. North Carolina petitioned the United States Supreme Court
to review the case, but withdrew that petition pursuant to the ensuing settlement.
10
Meanwhile, on April 14, 2011, North Carolina, TVA, and several other parties
agreed to a comprehensive settlement of a variety of air pollution allegations.
The settlement was lodged with the federal district court in eastern Tennessee.
The detailed settlement would, among other things, (1) subject SO2 and NOx
emissions at all of TVA’s coal-fired facilities to system-wide caps that decline on
an annual basis to permanent levels of 110,000 tons of SO2 in 2019 and
52,000 tons of NOx in 2018; (2) require TVA to install modern pollution controls
on or shutdown all of its coal-fired units (except certain units at the Shawnee
plant in western Kentucky); and (3) require TVA to pay North Carolina
$11.2 million to fund mitigation projects in North Carolina. The settlement was
filed on June 30, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee and is now binding.
2) On July 8, 2005, the Attorney General filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) a petition for review of the EPA’s
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR was designed to reduce emissions of SO2
and NOx from power plants that cause particulate matter and ozone pollution
across the eastern United States. Among other things, the State alleged that
CAIR fails to take into account significant air quality problems in North Carolina,
fails to guarantee a remedy to North Carolina because the rule relies too heavily
on the trading of pollution credits, and fails to require controls to be installed
expeditiously.
On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit granted North Carolina’s petition in part. The
court found that CAIR’s trading program failed to comply with the Clean Air Act
because it did not guarantee that emission reductions would be targeted to the
downwind areas that need them, that EPA improperly refused to consider North
Carolina’s problems with maintaining national air quality standards, and that EPA
set the CAIR pollution reduction deadlines without proper consideration of the
tight deadlines faced by impacted States. The court also granted petitions from
other parties on other issues.
In response to the court’s judgment, on July 6, 2010, EPA proposed the Clean
Air Transport Rule (CATR). The rule would cap SO2 and NOx emissions from
States that impact attainment or maintenance of the national particulate matter
and ozone standards in downwind states. Unlike CAIR, the CATR, as proposed,
would largely abandon the interstate trading of pollution allowances. The
deadlines for these emissions reductions would be coordinated with the needs of
the downwind states and would ensure that the delay caused by the litigation
would not negatively impact downwind states. On March 14, 2011, the Attorney
General, along with the Attorney General of New York, sent a letter to the EPA
Administrator requesting that EPA establish a schedule for completing the rule by
the end of June 2011.
11
On July 6, 2011, the EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR), rebranded from the proposed CATR. The promulgated rule does not
stray far from the proposed CATR. Accordingly, CSAPR largely responds to the
State’s criticisms of CAIR.
Several petitions were filed in the D.C. Circuit for judicial review of CSAPR.
Those petitions were consolidated and North Carolina, along with many other
parties, intervened to assist EPA in the defense of CSAPR. The matter has been
briefed and argued. A decision is expected in mid-2012.
3) On July 8, 2005, the Attorney General filed a petition with EPA requesting that
EPA administratively reconsider certain aspects of CAIR. EPA denied this
petition. This petition was reviewed by the D.C. Circuit and resolved along with
the petition for review discussed in the preceding item.
4) On March 18, 2004, the State filed a petition under §126 of the Clean Air Act
requesting that EPA impose NOx and/or SO2 controls on large coal-fired utility
boilers in 13 upwind states that impact North Carolina’s air quality. On
March 15, 2006, EPA denied the State’s petition. The Attorney General then
petitioned EPA for administrative reconsideration, which was also denied. The
Attorney General petitioned the D.C. Circuit for judicial review of both of these
decisions.
Based on subsequent events, including the court’s holding in the CAIR case,
EPA conceded that it must reconsider its denial of North Carolina’s §126 petition.
The court agreed and, on March 5, 2009, remanded the matter back to EPA for
further consideration. As part of the above-referenced settlement with TVA, North
Carolina withdrew the petition as it relates to TVA. At the same time, North
Carolina withdrew the petition regarding all sources in Maryland in part because
Maryland enacted strict emissions limits on its coal-fired electric generating units
(EGUs) that provided the relief that North Carolina was seeking.
5) In April 2008, EPA finalized a rule that exempts sources of NOx in Georgia from
any summertime NOx cap under EPA’s “NOx SIP Call” rule. The NOx SIP Call
was designed to help downwind states reduce ambient levels of ozone. Sources
in Georgia are also exempt from summertime NOx controls for ozone pollution
under CAIR. On June 20, 2008, the Attorney General petitioned the D.C. Circuit
for review of EPA’s decision to exempt Georgia sources from the NOx SIP Call.
On November 24, 2009, the court ruled that North Carolina did not have standing
to sue EPA on this issue. The court concluded that, through the recent adoption
and/or implementation of NOx reduction rules by Georgia, sources in Georgia
have reduced NOx emissions to levels consistent with the NOx SIP Call.
V. Section 11 of the Act provides: The Environmental Management Commission
shall study the desirability of requiring and the feasibility of obtaining reductions in
emissions of oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) beyond those required
12
by G.S. 143-215.107D, as enacted by Section 1 of this act. The Environmental
Management Commission shall consider the availability of emission reduction
technologies, increased cost to consumers of electric power, reliability of electric power
supply, actions to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
taken by states and other entities whose emissions negatively impact air quality in North
Carolina or whose failure to achieve comparable reductions would place the economy of
North Carolina at a competitive disadvantage, and the environment, and the natural
resources, including visibility. In its conduct of this study, the Environmental
Management Commission may consult with the Utilities Commission and the Public
Staff. The Environmental Management Commission shall report its findings and
recommendations to the General Assembly and the Environmental Review Commission
annually beginning 1 September 2005.
Note: Session Law 2010-142 changed the beginning date of the requirements of this
Section to Sept. 1, 2011.
Environmental Management Commission and DENR Response: A letter dated
Sept. 1, 2011, was submitted to the Environmental Review Commission from
Mr. Stephen T. Smith, chairman of the Environmental Management Commission. The
letter (included as Attachment C in its entirety) stated that recent actions by the State,
the federal government, the Eastern Tennessee federal District Court, and the
U.S. Circuit Court are affecting power plant emissions and NOx and SO2 regulation. It
recommended that the study of further State action to achieve additional reduction of
these air pollutants be presented on Sept. 1, 2013. The study will:
• “allow the affected public utilities in North Carolina time to implement their
control strategies to meet the compliance deadline under CSA,
• give the NCDAQ time to quantify air quality impacts from CSA compliance and
evaluate necessary additional reductions needed to meet the new ambient air
quality standards, and
• give industry and NCDAQ time to implement new federal rules and court
actions.”
VI. Section 12 of the Act provides: The General Assembly anticipates that
measures implemented to achieve the reductions in emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) required by G.S. 143-215.107D, as enacted by Section 1
of this act, will also result in significant reductions in the emissions of mercury from
coal-fired generating units. The Division of Air Quality of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources shall study issues related to monitoring emissions
of mercury and the development and implementation of standards and plans to
implement programs to control emissions of mercury from coal-fired generating units.
The Division shall evaluate available control technologies and shall estimate the
benefits and costs of alternative strategies to reduce emissions of mercury. The
Division shall annually report its interim findings and recommendations to the
Environmental Management Commission and the Environmental Review Commission
beginning 1 September 2003. The Division shall report its final findings and
13
recommendations to the Environmental Management Commission and the
Environmental Review Commission no later than 1 September 2005. The costs of
implementing any air quality standards and plans to reduce the emission of mercury
from coal-fired generating units below the standards in effect on the date this act
becomes effective, except to the extent that the emission of mercury is reduced as a
result of the reductions in the emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) required to achieve the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D, as
enacted by Section 1 of this act, shall not be recoverable pursuant to G.S. 62-133.6, as
enacted by Section 9 of this act.
DAQ Actions to Implement this Section: DENR/DAQ submitted reports in Sept. of
2003, 2004 and 2005, as required by this Section. The first report primarily focused on
the "state of knowledge" of the co-benefit of mercury control that would result from the
control of NOx and SO2 from coal-fired utility boilers. DAQ also made preliminary
estimates of this co-benefit for North Carolina utility boilers based on the initial plans
submitted by Progress Energy and Duke Energy. The second report primarily focused
on “definition of options.” DENR/DAQ has also submitted the third and final report titled
Mercury Emissions and Mercury Controls for Coal-Fired Electrical Utility Boilers. In
2006, DENR/DAQ developed a state mercury rule that goes beyond the now-vacated
federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The North Carolina mercury rules, contained in
Section 15A NCAC 02D.2500, became effective Jan. 1, 2007. Under the rule,
emissions of mercury from each coal-fired unit at Duke Energy and Progress Energy
have to be controlled to the maximum degree that is technically and economically
feasible or the unit must be shut down by a prescribed date.
In July 2008, DENR/DAQ submitted its fourth report on mercury emissions and controls
for coal-fired electrical utility boilers. This report, required under 15A NCAC 2D.2509(b),
discussed the technology, benefits and costs to further reduce mercury emissions from
coal-fired electrical utility boilers (EGUs) in North Carolina. Also required under
15A NCAC 2D.2509(b), is the fifth mercury report, which is currently being drafted for
submission to the Environmental Management Commission (due July 1, 2012). The
2008 and 2012 reports provide updated information from the three earlier CSA reports
on the same issues related to the control of mercury emissions from coal-fired EGUs
and from other principal sources of mercury. Information must be presented on the
most recent mercury emissions, projected future emissions, existing and emerging
control technology performance and costs, recent EPA rules with mercury emission
limits, dispersion and deposition modeling, mercury in fish trends and mercury-related
health indicators of people consuming local fish.
The controls needed to comply with the Clean Smokestacks Act provide significant
co-benefits in the form of mercury emission reductions.Therefore, mercury emission
reductions in North Carolina will continue through the year 2013 and beyond. The Clean
Smokestacks Act greatly reduces mercury emissions as a co-benefit of the NOx and
SO2 controls from EGUs within the State. In 2002, the mercury emissions from the CSA
facilities were 3,382 pounds (lbs). In 2009, those emissions dropped to 1,257 lbs, which
is a 63 percent reduction in the mercury emissions. Mercury emission reductions in
14
North Carolina will continue through the year 2013. By 2018, all of the Duke Energy and
Progress Energy units will either have controls in place or be shut down, as a matter of
State law or recently promulgated national mercury and air toxics standard.
On Feb. 16, 2012, the EPA finalized the national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS) for new and existing coal- and oil-fired EGUs. The rule replaces the
court-vacated CAMR, and mercury reductions in North Carolina remain on schedule.
The rule establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and
non‐mercury metallic toxic pollutants. According to the EPA, the standards will “prevent
90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in power plants from being emitted to the air;
reduce 88 percent of acid gas emissions from power plants; and cut 41 percent of sulfur
dioxide emissions from power plants beyond the reductions expected from the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule.” Existing sources will have up to four years to comply with the
MATS.
As noted earlier herein, on July 6, 2011, the EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule. A decision from the D.C. Circuit related to petitions filed for a judicial
review of this rule is expected in mid-2012. If the D.C. Circuit upholds the rule, the final
rule will likely require emissions reductions beyond Clean Smokestacks for North
Carolina utilities and mercury reduction is likely to be an added benefit. It is expected
that reductions from our border states will provide further reductions in mercury
deposition in North Carolina.
VII. Section 13 of the Act provides: The Division of Air Quality of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources shall study issues related to the development and
implementation of standards and plans to implement programs to control emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal-fired generating units and other stationary sources of air
pollution. The Division shall evaluate available control technologies and shall estimate
the benefits and costs of alternative strategies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2). The Division shall annually report its interim findings and recommendations to
the Environmental Management Commission and the Environmental Review
Commission beginning 1 September 2003. The Division shall report its final findings
and recommendations to the Environmental Management Commission and the
Environmental Review Commission no later than 1 September 2005. The costs of
implementing any air quality standards and plans to reduce the emission of carbon
dioxide (CO2) from coal-fired generating units below the standards in effect on the date
this act becomes effective, except to the extent that the emission of carbon dioxide
(CO2) is reduced as a result of the reductions in the emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) required to achieve the emissions limitations set out in
G.S. 143-215.107D, as enacted by Section 1 of this act, shall not be recoverable
pursuant to G.S. 62-133.6, as enacted by Section 9 of this act.
DENR Actions to Implement this Section: DENR/DAQ submitted reports in
September of 2003, 2004, and 2005, as required by this Section. The first report
primarily focused on the "state of knowledge" and actions being taken or planned
elsewhere regarding CO2 control from coal-fired utility boilers. The second report
15
primarily focused on “definition of options.” DENR/DAQ submitted the third and final
report titled, “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission Reduction Strategies for North Carolina,”
to the Environmental Management Commission and the Environmental Review
Commission as required. Numerous recommendations were set forth in this report,
including a recommendation for a North Carolina Climate Action Plan. The remaining
text summarizes related actions at the state and federal level.
North Carolina Actions
The North Carolina Global Warming/Climate Change Bill (HB 1191/SB 1134) was
enacted during the 2005 Session of the General Assembly. Along with the passage of
the bill, the North Carolina 2005 Session of the General Assembly passed the Global
Climate Change Act. This act established a Legislative Commission on Global Climate
Change (LCGCC). DENR formed a related stakeholder group called the Climate Action
Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG). CAPAG’s purpose was to assess possible climate
change mitigation options, carry out analysis related to emission trends, climate
scenarios and technology options, and make recommendations for state-level climate
action planning, including CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. Impacts on
economic opportunities and co-benefits of proposed potential mitigation options were
evaluated through a formal consensus-based stakeholder process. Determination of
economic benefits to North Carolina was also assessed. The inaugural meeting of the
CAPAG was held on Feb. 16, 2006, and the CAPAG made recommendations regarding
56 mitigation options in the following five sectors: (1) Agriculture, Forestry and Waste;
(2) Energy Supply; (3) Transportation and Land Use; (4) Residential, Commercial and
Industrial; and (5) Cross Cutting (for issues that cut across different sectors, such as
establishing a GHG registry). The work of developing these recommendations and
evaluating potential GHG emissions reductions was divided among five technical work
groups. The final CAPAG report can be found at http://www.ncair.org/ncclimatechange/.
One of the earlier recommendations of the CAPAG, a Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS), was enacted by Session Law 2007-397 (SB3) and
codified under G.S. 62-133.8. The Utilities Commission, in the context of an extensive
rulemaking proceeding, has developed and issued comprehensive rules implementing
the provisions of G.S. 62-133.8, including provisions related to REPS.
Federal Actions
On Oct. 30, 2009, EPA promulgated the “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases,”
a regulation that requires reporting of GHG emissions from certain large emissions
sources. The rule would apply to major emitters, including electric power utilities such
as Duke Energy and Progress Energy. As a result of this action, on Nov. 19, 2009, the
N.C. Environmental Management Commission chose not to take action on amendments
to the N.C. Annual Emissions Reporting Rule (as recommended by CAPAG) because
GHG emissions data collected under the federal rule are considered to be sufficient in
content and expected to be publically available.
16
On Dec. 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs
under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the Endangerment Finding, the
Administrator found “that the current and projected concentrations of the six key
well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2)…--in the atmosphere threaten the
public health and welfare of current and future generations.” In the Cause or Contribute
Finding, the Administrator found “that the combined emissions of these well-mixed
greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute
to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.”
On April 1, 2010, the EPA set national emission standards under Section 202(a) of the
CAA to control GHGs from passenger cars and light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles, as part of a joint rulemaking with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. The standards would be phased in beginning with model
year 2012 through 2016. The implementation of EPA’s light-duty vehicle standard
resulted in GHGs being subject to regulation under the CAA for the first time. As written
in the CAA, air pollutants that are subject to regulation under the statute, are subject to
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and operating-permit provisions for
stationary sources (CAA Section 169(3)). To identify when stationary sources are
subject to regulation, the EPA completed its reconsideration of the Dec. 18, 2008,
memorandum entitled “EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Federal PSD Permit Program.” The final action, issued on March 29, 2010,
confirms that “any new pollutant that EPA may regulate becomes covered under the
PSD program on the date when the EPA rule regulating that new pollutant takes effect.”
It then clarifies that for GHGs that date will be Jan. 2, 2011, when the vehicle rule took
effect.
To limit the number of stationary sources that would be subject to GHG regulations, the
EPA promulgated a rule on May 13, 2010, that would apply a tailored approach to GHG
regulations under the PSD and Title V programs of the CAA. The Tailoring Rule
temporarily raises statutory thresholds and sets a PSD significance level for GHGs. By
tailoring the applicability thresholds, only large emitting sources would be affected. EPA
is phasing in the permitting requirements. In Step 1 (starting Jan. 2011), large industrial
facilities that must already obtain CAA permits for non-GHGs must also include GHG
requirements in these permits if they are newly constructed and have the potential to
emit 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) or more or if they
make changes at the facility that increase GHG emissions by that amount. In Step 2
(starting July 2011), in addition to facilities described above, all new facilities emitting
GHGs in excess of 100,000 tpy of CO2e and facilities making changes that would
increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, and that also exceed 100/250
tpy of GHGs on a mass basis, will be required to obtain permits that address GHG
emissions. On March 8, 2012, the EPA Proposed Step 3 PSD and Title V Tailoring
Rule that retained the initial GHG permitting thresholds of 100,000/75,000 tpy CO2e.
Sources subject to the Clean Smokestacks Act are likely to be affected by the GHG
Tailoring Rule. Future modifications at these sites, determined to meet significant
emission levels, would require a review of best available control technologies. This will
most likely consist of energy efficiency improvements at the affected sites.
17
On Dec. 23, 2010, the EPA entered into two proposed settlement agreements to issue
rules that will address GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants and refineries.
The CAA requires the EPA to set new source performance standards (NSPS) for
industrial categories that cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution. These
standards set the level of pollution new facilities may emit and address air pollution from
existing facilities. On March 27, 2012, EPA released a proposed GHG NSPS for new
fossil fuel-fired EGUs. EPA is proposing that new fossil fuel‐fired power plants meet an
output‐based standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt‐hour (lb
CO2/MWh gross). The proposal covers fossil fuel‐fired boilers, integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) units, and stationary combined cycle turbine units that generate
electricity for sale and are larger than 25 megawatts (MW). The proposal would not
cover existing units, including units that need permits for modifications, nor would it
cover new power plant units that have permits and start construction within 12 months
of the proposal. EPA is also proposing that plants may opt to meet a 30-year average of
CO2 emissions to meet the standard, under which the plants would meet a 1,800 lb
CO2/MWh gross emissions standard for the first 10 years and then ratchet down to a
600 lb CO2/MWh gross emissions standard over the next 20 years. According to EPA,
this would allow carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to be transitioned in over a
period of 10 years in order to meet the lower standard. Comments are due by
June 12, 2012.
VIII. Supplementary Information
Public Staff ─ North Carolina Utilities Commission Audit Reports: As noted in
earlier reports, the Public Staff ─ North Carolina Utilities Commission (Public Staff) has
audited the books and records of the IOUs with regard to the costs incurred and
amortized in compliance with the Act and has filed reports of its findings with the
Commission. According to these reports, the Public Staff’s audits have confirmed that
the costs in question have been incurred in compliance with the Act and have been
properly accounted for.
By letter dated May 20, 2008, the Public Staff requested that the Commission confirm
that the Public Staff’s audit and reporting responsibilities with respect to the costs
incurred and amortized by Duke Energy in compliance with the Act have been fulfilled
with the filing of the Public Staff’s 2008 report; inasmuch as Duke Energy’s obligation
under the Act, with respect to accelerated amortization, had been completed as of
December 31, 2007.
By letter dated July 10, 2008, the Commission advised the Public Staff that, in
consideration of the foregoing, it was of the opinion that the Public Staff should not need
to continue to routinely monitor, audit and make reports to the Commission regarding
Duke Energy’s recording of accelerated amortization, per se. But rather, the
Commission expressed the opinion that such monitoring, auditing, and reporting should
be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, as circumstances and/or events may require.
18
Progress Energy’s obligation under the Act, with respect to accelerated amortization,
was completed in June 2008. Consequently, neither IOU has recorded accelerated
amortization since 2008.
The Public Staff filed its last Clean Smokestacks Act report concerning Progress
Energy, and certain comments regarding Duke Energy, with the Commission on
May 12, 2009. Such matters were addressed in DENR and the Commission’s 2009
Clean Smokestacks Act joint report.
In its May 12, 2009, cover letter accompanying its 2008 Progress Energy Clean
Smokestacks Act report, the Public Staff requested that the Commission “. . . confirm
that its audit and reporting responsibilities with respect to costs incurred and amortized
by [Progress Energy] in compliance with the Clean Smokestacks Act have been fulfilled
with the filing of [the Public Staff’s report for 2008].” While the Commission has not
responded to that request directly, its expectations regarding any further audits and
reports by the Public Staff relating exclusively to compliance with the Act are the same
for Progress Energy as they are for Duke Energy.
Estimated 2012 Cost-of-Service Impact of IOUs’ Continuing Compliance with the
Act: The cost-of-service1 or, synonymously, the revenue requirement impact of
continuing compliance with the Act, for calendar year 2012, for each IOU is estimated to
be as follows:
Progress Energy:
● Total company $106.7 million
● N.C. retail $73.6 million
● Residential customer monthly bill impact
with usage @ 1,000 kWh per month $1.97
● Residential customer monthly bill
with usage @1,000 kWh $106.00
1 The annual cost of service or, synonymously, annual revenue requirement of an investor-owned public
utility, such as Progress Energy and/or Duke Energy, is typically defined as the sum total of reasonable
operating expenses, depreciation expense, taxes, and a reasonable return on the net valuation of
property.
19
Duke Energy:
● Total company $199.7 million
● N.C. retail $145.1 million
● Residential customer monthly bill impact
with usage @ 1,000 kWh per month $2.64
● Residential customer monthly bill
with usage @1,000 kWh $105.50
IX. Conclusions
DENR/DAQ
DENR/DAQ has carefully reviewed and considered the information provided by
Progress Energy and Duke Energy in their compliance plan submittals for calendar year
2011. Both companies continue to meet the emissions limitations as specified in the
Act.
Progress Energy has completed all of the emissions control projects and associated
work to assure compliance with the Clean Smokestacks Act. No further construction is
anticipated. The Company has installed a mix of combustion devices, which minimize
the formation of NOx (e.g., low-NOx burners and over-fire air technologies), and
post-combustion controls, which reduce NOx produced during the combustion of fossil
fuel to molecular nitrogen (e.g., selective catalytic reduction and selective non-catalytic
reduction technologies). Progress Energy has continued to meet its 2009 annual
emission limit of 25,000 tons NOx. Calendar year 2011 NOx emissions were
18,810 tons (see figure below):
25,000 25,000 24,741
18,810
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
tons/year
Progress Energy NOx Emissions
2007 NOx Cap
2009 NOx Cap
2010 NOx Actual
2011 NOx Actual
100,000
73,748
51,416 50,000
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
tons/year
Progress Energy SO2 Emissions
2009 SO2 Cap
2010 SO2 Actual
2011 SO2 Actual
2013 SO2 Cap
Progress Energy’s initial SO2 control plan included putting scrubbers on eight units. The
Company’s 2004 SO2 emissions were 195,655 tons with no scrubbers. Progress Energy
has continued to meet its 2009 SO2 limit of 100,000 tons. Calendar year 2011 SO2
20
emissions were 51,416 tons. By 2013, Progress Energy plans to retire the Lee coal-fired
plant and replace the plant with a combined-cycle natural gas-fired unit. It is reasonable
to conclude that with the annual operation of the two Asheville units, all four Roxboro
units, one Mayo unit, and retirement of the three Lee units, Progress Energy is on track
to meet its SO2 limit of 50,000 tons in 2013.
Duke Energy has completed all emissions control projects to assure compliance with
the Clean Smokestacks Act. The Company has completed installing controls for NOx
reductions, which consists of a combination of selective catalytic reduction and selective
non-catalytic reduction technologies, and low NOx burners. Duke Energy has continued
to meet its 2009 annual emissions limit of 31,000 tons for NOx. Calendar year 2011
NOx emissions were 20,474 tons (see figure below):
35,000
31,000
22,438
20,474
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
tons/year
Duke Energy NOx Emissions
2007 NOx Cap
2009 NOx Cap
2010 NOx Actual
2011 NOx Actual
150,000
42,769
22,038
80,000
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
tons/year
Duke Energy SO2 Emissions
2009 SO2 Cap
2010 SO2 Actual
2011 SO2 Actual
2013 SO2 Cap
Duke Energy’s SO2 control plan included installation and operation of 12 scrubbers to
meet emissions limits of 150,000 tons in 2009 and 80,000 tons in 2013. Duke Energy
has completed installation of wet flue-gas desulfurization scrubbers on all 12 generating
units, and all scrubbers were in operation at the end of 2010. These units have so far
reduced Duke Energy’s SO2 emissions from 298,781 tons (in 2005) to 22,038 tons (in
2011). Duke Energy’s SO2 controls are several years ahead of the planned schedule.
The Company has already met its 2013 SO2 target, and is likely to maintain such
emissions levels through continuous operation of the required control systems.
COMMISSION
The Commission has also carefully reviewed and considered the information and data
provided by the investor-owned public utilities in their Clean Smokestacks annual
reports for calendar year 2011. Based upon those reports and in consideration of
DENR’s findings, the Commission is also of the opinion that Progress Energy and Duke
Energy continue to be in compliance with the Act.
21
SUMMARY
In summary, DENR and the Commission conclude that the actions taken to date by
Progress Energy and Duke Energy are in accordance with the provisions and
requirements of the Clean Smokestacks Act. Further, the compliance plans and
schedules proposed by Progress Energy and Duke Energy appear adequate to achieve
the emissions limitations set out in G.S. 143-215.107D.
Attachments
Attachment A: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC, NOx and SO2 Compliance Plan
Annual Update, Submitted by Cover Letter Dated March 27, 2012
Attachment B: Progress Energy Carolinas Inc. Annual NC Clean Smokestacks Act
Compliance Report, Submitted by Cover Letters to DENR and the
Commission Dated March 30 and April 2, 2012, respectively.
Attachment C: Letter from Stephen Smith, Chairman of the N.C. Environmental
Management Commission to the N.C. Environmental Review
Commission, Emissions Reductions Beyond the Clean
Smokestacks Act, Sept. 1, 2011.