Martin O’Malley, Governor | Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor | Robert M. Summers, Ph.D., Secretary

Solving the Ozone Transport Problem

Tad Aburn, Air Director, MDEAQCAC Meeting - September 21, 2015

An Update on Ozone Transport and “Good Neighbor “SIPs

Item 6, MWAQC-TACDecember 8, 2015

Baltimore – Worst Ozone in the East?

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Tons

Per

Day

VOC TPDNOx TPD

VOC TPD 210.9 348.75 640.43 1314.27

NOx TPD 236.46 362.06 590.94 960.8

Baltimore NAA Washington NAA Philadelphia NAA New York City NAA

Emissions in Tough Nonattainment Areas

Baltimore … the bad boyof eastern ozone is actually

an emissions wimp> Half the emissions of Washington> A third of the emissions in Philly

> 25 % of NY emissions

Page 2

So What the Heck is Going On?

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105

Ozone (ppb)

Hei

ght (

ft)

Incoming OzoneAugust 2, 2005 (7:00 AM EDT)

Beltsville, MDGood Moderate Unhealthy for

Sensitive GroupsUnhealthy

Residual Layerfrom 1500 – 6000 ft

of 110 ppb110 ppb

Ozone-reduced surface layer

<< 40 ppb40 ppb

Source: Maryland Department of the Environment & Howard University

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105

Ozone (ppb)

Hei

ght (

ft)

Incoming OzoneAugust 2, 2005 (7:00 AM EDT)

Beltsville, MDGood Moderate Unhealthy for

Sensitive GroupsUnhealthyGood Moderate Unhealthy for

Sensitive GroupsUnhealthy

Residual Layerfrom 1500 – 6000 ft

of 110 ppb110 ppb

Ozone-reduced surface layer

<< 40 ppb40 ppb

Source: Maryland Department of the Environment & Howard University

Residual Layerfrom 1500 – 6000 ft

of 110 ppb110 ppb

Ozone-reduced surface layer

<< 40 ppb40 ppb

Source: Maryland Department of the Environment & Howard University

Why has Baltimore historically measured some of the worst ozone in the East?

• What does the Maryland Ozone Research Program tell us about the significance of ozone transport?

• What is happening to reduce ozone transport into Maryland and across the East?

• Why are power plants in upwind states not running their controls?

• What happens next?

Topics

Page 4

Background – Ozone Transport• Many, many balls in the air

• Supreme Court has acted• Several times over the past two years

• “Expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)” Petition under Section 176A of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

• Challenges to EPA over large nonattainment areas (CAA Section 107)

• Challenges to EPA over “Good Neighbor” SIPs (CAA Section 110A2D)

• EPA’s new (1/22/15) transport guidance and “Failure to Submit” action (6/30/15)

• A collaborative effort between upwind and downwind states with a power plant focus

• New - lower ozone standard all but here

Page 5

Maryland’s Ozone Research Effort• MDE works in partnership

with local universities (UMD at College Park, UMBC, Penn State and Howard University) to study Maryland’s air pollution problems• Airplanes• Balloons• Lidar• Profilers• Satellites• Special monitors • Modeling• More

Page 6

Understanding Ozone Transport• It’s complicated … but not that

complicated … some key concepts• An “elevated reservoir” of ozone

• A transport cloud• An elevated ocean of ozone• The residual layer

• Three different types of transport• Westerly Transport – Power plants

are a contributor• Night-time, Southerly Transport –

Vehicles, power plants, more • City to City – An urban soup …

Washington to Baltimore … Baltimore to Philly … Philly to NYC … etc. etc. etc

Page 7

What is This Reservoir?A balloon launch at 2:30 am south of Baltimore …

north of Washington

2:30 AM

Ground level ozone is low … about 40 ppb

We measure a cloud of high ozone aloft … 2000 feet above ground level … 100ppb

We see this before almost every bad ozone day

Page 8

.

The Elevated Ozone Reservoir• Every bad ozone day, in the

morning hours, a large reservoir of ozone sits above Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic waiting to mix down• Ozone levels in the reservoir can

routinely reach 60 to 100 ppb• In the morning, ozone levels at

the surface are very low• Around 10:00 or 11:00 … the

“nocturnal inversion” breaks down … and• Ozone in the elevated reservoir

mixes down to the surface and degrades air quality

Page 9

The Elevated Reservoir – The 90’s

The gray line – MD ground level ozone monitors

The colored line – Aloftmonitors … now supplemented

with balloons

Noon

p. 11

Same Signal – Philly/NJ 2008

Same Signal – Tennessee 2011

Same Signal – Maryland 2011

This is a good way to look at the regional part of our problem in Maryland.

Regional mobile sources, power plants and other sources all contribute to the

“reservoir”. You see this “regional” component …. pretty much … all summer

long.

This is a good way to look at the “local” part of our problem in Maryland. Mobile sources generally

dominate this piece of our problem, but other sources and more “close by” power plants also contribute.

Local does not mean just Baltimore. For Baltimore, “local” also clearly includes the huge emission

contribution from mobile sources around Washington DC.

p. 14

The Three Different Types of Transport

Westerly Transport City-to

-City

“Loc

al”

Tran

spor

t

Nigh

-tim

e Sou

ther

ly

“Low

Lev

el Je

t”

p. 15

Classic Mid-Atlantic Ozone Weather

p. 16

Westerly Transport

p. 17

Winds ~ 1000 Feet Above Surface

MDE

Southerly Transport at NightThe Nocturnal Low Level Jet (NLLJ)

Air H

ockey

Fast-moving, narrow “river” of air typically around 1000 feet above the surface

In the Mid-Atlantic, typically observed during the night between Appalachians and the Atlantic Ocean.

Wind speeds can reach 40 mph or more. Stretches from NC to MD to NJ and

further up the east coast. Seen during most, Mid-Atlantic summer-

time air pollution events. Some form of NLLJ on virtually all code

orange or red days Recent findings indicate:

Presence of a NLLJ increased Baltimore maximum ozone by 7 ppb.

Ozone concentrations of 90 – 100 ppb have been measured in the NLLJ.

p. 18

Hei

ght (

ft)

Wind Speed and Wind Direction - Beltsville, MD on August 9 - 10, 2010

30 mph for 7 hours is about 210 miles

What does this graph tell us?- Wind direction- Wind speed- From the ground up

August 9th, 11 PM – 7 AMWinds from the southwest at

about 25 - 30 mph

Nocturnal Inversion up to 1000 ft

August 10th, 10 PM – 8 AMWinds from the southwest at

about 25 - 40 mph

Measuring the Nocturnal Low Level Jet

p. 19

July 12 | July 13, 2008

Howard University launched 4 ozonesondes on July 12-13, 2008. The 10:30 PM (Saturday, July 12th) and 2:30 AM (Sunday, July 13th) occurred during a NLLJ event, as captured by MDE’s Wind Profiler.

Mid

nigh

t (E

DT

)

(22+ mph for 14+ hours) Air Traveled 300+ miles.

10:30 PM

Ozone Spike at

NLLJ Core

NLLJ

2:30 AM

NearCode Red

Ozone

Measuring Ozone Transport in the NLLJ

Reducing Regional Ozone – A Case Study

2 1 25

1823

77

50

138

30

15

62 2

2 3 5 10

28

51

128

178191

199

229

244 250 252 254

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

50

100

150

200

250Number of UnitsCumulative Total Units

1.92

1.22

0.59 0.520.38

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1990 2000 2005 2008 2009

Year

Ozo

ne S

easo

n NO

X (m

illio

n to

ns) .

1.92

1.22

0.59 0.520.38

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1990 2000 2005 2008 2009

Year

Ozo

ne S

easo

n NO

X (m

illio

n to

ns) .

• The 2003/2004 “NOx SIP Call” as a case study. Significant nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions from Federal Tier 2 Vehicle Standards occurring in the same time frame• A classic ozone transport success

story• Incoming ozone levels collect in an

elevated reservoir over night• Real world programs like the NOx

SIP Call (power plants) and the Tier 2 Vehicle Standards show that:

• Adding regional controls …• Results in regional NOx emission

reductions …• Which leads to reduced ozone in

the elevated reservoir …• Which lead to lower ozone at

ground level and public health protection!

80 ppb at 2000 ft.

at 6 a.m

.

Morning Elevated Reservoir of Ozone

Above the Mid-Atlantic States

Huge Investment in Selective Catalytic

Reduction (SCR) Control Technology at Eastern

Power Plants in 2003/2004

Regional NOx Emissions Drop

Dramatically in 2004

Ozone Levels in the Elevated Reservoir

Reduced by 25% after 2004

Ground Level Ozone Drops Dramatically in the Same Time

FrameMaryland's 8-Hour Ozone Design Value per Year

60

80

100

120

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

8-Hou

r Ozo

ne D

esig

n Val

ue (p

pb)

8-Hour Ozone Design Value (ppb) 8-Hour Ozone Standard (85 ppb)8-Hour Ozone Standard (75 ppb)

Page 20

So … Where Does This Take Us?• We understand the science of ozone

better than ever• We’ve implemented programs that

have worked in the real world• Maryland needs a two-part strategy to

continue making progress• Local controls are still critical

• AQCAC has seen many of these over the past year

• National/super-regional controls are also essential• EPA’s Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuels Standard is

the most important new measure needed by Maryland – but more is needed

• There has been significant progress in reducing NOx from regional power plants

• But there are a few significant issues that need to be resolved

Page 21

EPA’s Recent Transport Actions• On January 22, EPA issued a guidance memo to

begin a process that will require states to submit Good Neighbor SIPs (GN SIPs) to address ozone transport in the East• A 2011 requirement that’s a little late• The guidance builds from Supreme Court decisions …

and provides preliminary analyses to identify which states are contributing significantly to downwind problem areas

• On June 30, 2015 EPA made a “Finding of Failure to Submit” for GN SIPs in 24 States • Maryland not included - Submitted GN SIP in 2011 • These states are now required to submit GN SIPs in a

timeframe that allows EPA to approve those SIPs or implement a FIP (Federal Implementation Plan) in two years - All driven by a consent agreement

• Additional federal rules and guidance and a “federal backstop” rule are expected in about a month

Page 22

Preliminary EPA Contribution Work• EPA has performed preliminary modeling to identify which states may owe Good

Neighbor SIPs for selected downwind problem areas … Future problems for nonattainment and maintenance both identified. Texas problem areas not included.

Problem Monitors

AL

AR

DE

IA

IL

IN

KS

KY

LA

MD

MI

MO

NJ

NY

OH

OK

PA

TN

TX

VA

WI

WV

Harford, MD x x x x x x x x

Fairfield, CT x x x x x x x x

Fairfield, CT x x x x x x x

Suffolk, NY x x x x x x x x x x

Fairfield, CT x x x x x x x x x

New Haven, CT x x x x x x x x

Jefferson, KY x x x x

Allegan, MI x x x x x x x x x

St. Charles, MO x x x x x x x

Camden, NJ x x x x x x x x x x x

Gloucester, NJ x x x x x x x x x x x x

Richmond, NY x x x x x x x x x

Philadelphia, PA x x x x x x x x x x x

Sheboygan, WI x x x x x x x x

In the same nonattainment area … = NY/NJ/CT = Philadelphia

Contributing States from Preliminary EPA Analyses

Page 23

Transport Control Measures on the Way• Federal measures that will reduce transport

that are “on the way” include:• Over 40 control programs: generally older federal

programs that continue to generate deeper reductions as they phase in or as fleets turn over

• “Optimized” Electric Generating Unit (EGU) controls across the East:• Coal-fired units in eastern states simply running

controls in the summertime consistent with best emission rates measured in earlier years

• New OTC Regional Control Measures:• Nine new Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model

reduction programs for mobile sources and other sources implemented in just the 11 OTC states

• The rest of this presentation will focus on the effort to insure that EGU controls across the East are being run in a manner to minimize NOx emissions

Page 24

• A collaborative partnership between about 25 Eastern

states• “State Collaborative on Ozone Transport”• Commissioner level policy discussions• Air Director technical discussions

• Looking at a host of issues, but highest priority is focused on insuring that EGUs are optimizing the use of existing control technologies - some progress but still a ways to go• Most states in the East now have 80% to 90% of coal-fired

generation controlled with SCR or SNCR control technology

What is “SCOOT”

Page 25

• Maryland and other states have analyzed EGU emissions data to see how well existing pollution controls are being run

• Changes in the energy market, a regulatory system that is driven by ozone season tonnage caps and inexpensive NOx allowances have created an unexpected situation• EGU operators can meet ozone season

tonnage caps without operating their control technologies efficiently on bad ozone days

• Sometimes not running them at all

Optimized EGU Controls

Page 26

or … running power plant controls more effectively

Page 27

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

0.4500

0.5000

NOx

Emis

sion

Rat

e, lb

s/M

MBt

uAverage Ozone Season Emission Rates at

Specific Units by Year

Example: Specific units (names not shown) consistently running controls

Many Sources Run Controls Well

These 4 units have consistently run at low

rates around or below 0.1 lb/MMBtu since 2004

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

0.4500

0.5000

NOx

Emis

sion

Rat

e, lb

s/M

MBt

u

Example: Specific units (names not shown) not running controls in later yearsSome Units Are Not

Running Controls as Well

These 3 units have been running at

higher rates since 2009

Running EGU Controls Well?

This is Happening in Many States

Page 28

TN SCR Units

always run well

In VA SNCR Units Appear to be Larger

EmittersPA has several issues … SCRs underperforming … units without

SCR or SNCR have large emissions

Same in NC - SNCR Units Appear to be

Larger Emitters

Reductions Could be Very Large

Average daily reductions that could have been achieved on this day … about 490 tons per day

Total reductions that could have been achieved during this 10 day bad “ozone episode” in 2012 - about 4740 tons

Potential large reductions – 11 state totalActual

Emissions

Emissions if controls run

consistent with best rates from

earlier years

Page 29

To put 490 tons per day in context, the expected reductions from the Tier 3 Vehicle and Fuel Standards in 2018 is projected to be 324 tpd (in OTC and 176A states) and 486 tpd for all states in SE and MW and OTC

Some Progress in 2015• The states participating in

SCOOT have been working to optimize EGU controls

• Some progress in the summer of 2015, but still a long way to go

• Pushing to have states include optimized controls in Good Neighbor SIPs

• More success by the summer of 2016?

Page 30

Analysis of 2015 Optimization• Maryland analyzed the emissions data

submitted by sources for May and June of 2015• MD, PA, VA, NC, TN, KY, WV, OH, IN, IL, MI

• Looked at 2015 May through June average emission rates at 233 individual units

• Compared those rates to the lowest demonstrated ozone season average emission rate from the past

• Identified which units are and are not optimizing controls

• Identified which states are doing better than others

• Mixed results• Clearly some real efforts being made to optimize

controls• Clearly some lack of effort as well

31

32

Optimization Appears to be Underway

• States with the majority of their units meeting or out-performing best historical rates• Illinois• Michigan• Tennessee• Virginia• Maryland

Optimization Appears to be UnderwayMay and June 2015 Total NOx Emissions – Actual and Best Rates from Past

33

Bald

win

Ene

rgy

Com

plex

1Ba

ldw

in E

nerg

y Co

mpl

ex2

Coffe

en01

Coffe

en02

Duck

Cre

ek1

E D

Edw

ards

3Ha

vana

9Jo

liet 2

971

Jolie

t 297

2Jo

liet 2

981

Jolie

t 298

2Jo

liet 9

5Ki

ncai

d St

ation

1Ki

ncai

d St

ation

2M

ario

n123

Mar

ion4

Pow

erto

n51

Pow

erto

n52

Pow

erto

n61

Pow

erto

n62

Prai

rie S

tate

Gen

erati

ng

Com

pany

01Pr

airie

Sta

te G

ener

ating

Co

mpa

ny02

Will

Cou

nty4

IL

0100200300

Illinois

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

Cadi

llac R

enew

able

En-

ergy

EUBL

R

Dan

E Ka

rn1

Dan

E Ka

rn2

J H C

ampb

ell2

J H C

ampb

ell3

Mon

roe1

Mon

roe2

Mon

roe3

Mon

roe4

MI

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

Michigan

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

Alle

n1Al

len2

Alle

n3Bu

ll Ru

n1Cu

mbe

rland

1Cu

mbe

rland

2Jo

hnso

nvill

e1Jo

hnso

nvill

e2Jo

hnso

nvill

e3Jo

hnso

nvill

e4Ki

ngst

on1

King

ston

2Ki

ngst

on3

King

ston

4Ki

ngst

on5

King

ston

6Ki

ngst

on7

King

ston

8Ki

ngst

on9

TN

0.00100.00200.00300.00400.00500.00600.00

Tennessee

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

2015 Actual

OS NOx Mass (Tons)

2015 @ Best

Rates OS NOx

Mass (Tons)

Lost Savings (Tons)

% of Total Loss

Illinois 3,236 2,905 332 1.26%

Michigan 1,231 1,064 167 0.64%

Tennessee 2,070 1,684 386 1.47%

Optimization Appears to be UnderwayMay and June 2015 Total NOx Emissions – Actual and Best Rates from Past

34

Birc

hwoo

d Po

wer

Fac

ility

001

Ches

terfi

eld

Pow

er S

tatio

n4Ch

este

rfiel

d Po

wer

Sta

tion5

Ches

terfi

eld

Pow

er S

tatio

n6Cl

inch

Riv

er1

Clin

ch R

iver

2Cl

inch

Riv

er3

Clov

er P

ower

Sta

tion1

Clov

er P

ower

Sta

tion2

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R01A

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R01B

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R02A

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R02B

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R03A

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R03B

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R04A

Spru

ance

Gen

co, L

LCBL

R04B

Virg

inia

City

Hyb

rid E

nerg

y Ce

nter

1Vi

rgin

ia C

ity H

ybrid

Ene

rgy

Cent

er2

York

tow

n Po

wer

Sta

tion1

York

tow

n Po

wer

Sta

tion2

VA

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

Virginia

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

AES

War

rior R

un00

1

Bran

don

Shor

es1

Bran

don

Shor

es2

C P

Cran

e1

C P

Cran

e2

Herb

ert A

Wag

ner2

Herb

ert A

Wag

ner3

Mira

nt C

halk

Poi

nt1

Mira

nt C

halk

Poi

nt (S

ACR)

2

Mira

nt D

icker

son1

Mira

nt D

icker

son2

Mira

nt D

icker

son3

Mira

nt M

orga

ntow

n1

Mira

nt M

orga

ntow

n2

MD

0.0050.00

100.00150.00200.00250.00

Maryland

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)2015 Actual

OS NOx Mass (Tons)

2015 @ Best

Rates OS NOx

Mass (Tons)

Lost Savings (Tons)

% of Total Loss

Virginia 2,018 1,728 290 1.10%

Maryland 1,258 1,187 71 0.27%

35

Review of Optimization Needed

• States with a meaningful portion of their units with rates exceeding best historical rates and higher than expected 2015 rates• Indiana• Kentucky• North Carolina• Ohio• Pennsylvania• West Virginia

Review of Optimization NeededMay and June 2015 Total NOx Emissions – Actual and Best Rates from Past

36

A B

Brow

n Ge

nera

ting

Stati

on1

A B

Brow

n Ge

nera

ting

Stati

on2

Alco

a Al

low

ance

Man

agem

ent

Inc4

Baill

y Ge

nera

ting

Stati

on8

Clift

y Cr

eek1

Clift

y Cr

eek2

Clift

y Cr

eek3

Clift

y Cr

eek4

Clift

y Cr

eek5

Edw

ards

port

CTG1

Edw

ards

port

CTG2

F B

Culle

y Ge

nera

ting

Stati

on2

F B

Culle

y Ge

nera

ting

Stati

on3

Gibs

on1

Gibs

on2

Gibs

on3

Gibs

on4

Gibs

on5

Hard

ing

Stre

et S

tatio

n (E

W

Stou

t)50

Hard

ing

Stre

et S

tatio

n (E

W

Stou

t)60

Hard

ing

Stre

et S

tatio

n (E

W

Stou

t)70

Mer

om1S

G1M

erom

2SG1

Mich

igan

City

Gen

erati

ng

Stati

on12 Pe

ters

burg

2Pe

ters

burg

3R

M S

chah

fer G

ener

ating

St

ation

14Ta

nner

s Cre

ekU2

Tann

ers C

reek

U3

IN

0.00200.00400.00600.00800.00

1,000.00Indiana

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

Ashe

ville

1As

hevi

lle2

Bele

ws C

reek

1Be

lew

s Cre

ek2

Cliff

side5

Cliff

side6

G G

Alle

n1G

G Al

len2

G G

Alle

n3G

G Al

len4

G G

Alle

n5M

arsh

all1

Mar

shal

l2M

arsh

all3

Mar

shal

l4M

ayo1

AM

ayo1

BRo

xbor

o1Ro

xbor

o2Ro

xbor

o3A

Roxb

oro3

BRo

xbor

o4A

Roxb

oro4

BW

estm

orel

and2

NC

0.00200.00400.00600.00800.00

1,000.001,200.00

North Carolina

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

Big

Sand

yBSU

2D

B W

ilson

W1

E W

Bro

wn3

East

Ben

d2El

mer

Sm

ith1

Elm

er S

mith

2Gh

ent1

Ghen

t3Gh

ent4

H L S

purlo

ck1

H L S

purlo

ck2

H L S

purlo

ck3

H L S

purlo

ck4

HMP&

L Sta

tion

2H1

HMP&

L Sta

tion

2H2

John

S. C

oope

r2M

ill C

reek

3M

ill C

reek

4Pa

radi

se1

Para

dise

2Pa

radi

se3

Trim

ble

Coun

ty1

Trim

ble

Coun

ty2

KY

0.00200.00400.00600.00800.00

Kentucky

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

2015 Actual

OS NOx Mass (Tons)

2015 @ Best

Rates OS NOx

Mass (Tons)

Lost Savings (Tons)

% of Total Loss

Indiana 5,852 2,890 2,962 11.25%

North Carolina

5,956 3,135 2,822 10.72%

Kentucky 6,503 3,546 2,957 11.23%

Review of Optimization NeededMay and June 2015 Total NOx Emissions – Actual and Best Rates from Past

37

Avon

Lake

Pow

er P

lant

12Ca

rdin

al1

Card

inal

2Ca

rdin

al3

Gen

J M G

avin

1Ge

n J M

Gav

in2

J M S

tuar

t1J M

Stu

art2

J M S

tuar

t3J M

Stu

art4

Kille

n St

ation

2Ky

ger C

reek

1Ky

ger C

reek

2Ky

ger C

reek

3Ky

ger C

reek

4Ky

ger C

reek

5M

iam

i For

t Gen

erati

ng

Stati

on6

Mia

mi F

ort G

ener

ating

St

ation

7M

iam

i For

t Gen

erati

ng

Stati

on8

Mus

king

um R

iver

5W

H S

amm

is5W

H S

amm

is6W

H S

amm

is7W

H Z

imm

er G

ener

ating

St

ation

1

OH

0.00400.00800.00

1,200.001,600.00

Ohio

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

Bruc

e M

ansfi

eld1

Bruc

e M

ansfi

eld2

Bruc

e M

ansfi

eld3

Cam

bria

Cog

en1

Cam

bria

Cog

en2

Ches

wick

1Co

nem

augh

1Co

nem

augh

2Ho

mer

City

1Ho

mer

City

2Ho

mer

City

3Ke

ysto

ne1

Keys

tone

2M

onto

ur1

Mon

tour

2Ne

w C

astle

3Ne

w C

astle

4Ne

w C

astle

5Pa

nthe

r Cre

ek E

nerg

y Fa

cility

1Pa

nthe

r Cre

ek E

nerg

y Fa

cility

2Sc

rubg

rass

Gen

erati

ng P

lant

1Sc

rubg

rass

Gen

erati

ng P

lant

2Se

war

d1Se

war

d2Sh

awvi

lle1

Shaw

ville

2Sh

awvi

lle3

Shaw

ville

4

PA

0.00

400.00

800.00

1,200.00

Pennsylvania

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

Gran

t Tow

n Po

wer

Pla

nt1A

Gran

t Tow

n Po

wer

Pla

nt1B

Harr

ison

Pow

er S

tatio

n1Ha

rriso

n Po

wer

Sta

tion2

Harr

ison

Pow

er S

tatio

n3Jo

hn E

Am

os1

John

E A

mos

2Jo

hn E

Am

os3

Long

view

Pow

er 0

01M

itche

ll (W

V)1

Mitc

hell

(WV)

2M

ount

Sto

rm P

ower

Sta

tion1

Mou

nt S

torm

Pow

er S

tatio

n2M

ount

Sto

rm P

ower

Sta

tion3

Mou

ntai

neer

(130

1)1

Phil

Spor

n31

Phil

Spor

n41

Plea

sant

s Pow

er S

tatio

n1Pl

easa

nts P

ower

Sta

tion2

WV

0.00400.00800.00

1,200.00

West Virginia

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

2015 Actual

OS NOx Mass (Tons)

2015 @ Best

Rates OS NOx

Mass (Tons)

Lost Savings (Tons)

% of Total Loss

Ohio 8,212 3,855 4,356 16.55%

Pennsylvania 11,499 5,023 6,476 24.60%

West Virginia 7,982 2,474 5,508 20.92%

Lost NOx Reductions - By State

38

IL IN KY MD MI NC OH PA TN VA WV0.00

2,000.00

4,000.00

6,000.00

8,000.00

10,000.00

12,000.00

14,000.00

May & June 2015 Total NOx Emissions - Actual and at Best Rates from Past

2015 OS NOx Mass 2015 Best OS NOx Mass

NO

x M

ass (

Tons

)

2015 Actual NOx Mass: 55,8182015 @ Best Rates: 29,490 Tons

Lost Savings -26,328 Tons

What Happens Next?• SCOOT Effort will continue - Additional push for 2015 optimization

• EPA transport rule and federal backstop expected by late 2015

• Downwind states pushing for more reductions from optimized EGUs by 2016

• The Good Neighbor SIP clock is ticking

• Maryland pushing for other states to adopt the “optimized EGU” control requirement from our Phase 1 NOx regulation approved by AQCAC and now being implemented – Could drive up to a 400 to 500 ton per day NOx reduction - A huge reduction

39

… for each day during the ozone season, the owner or operator of an affected EGU shall minimize NOx emissions by operating and optimizing the use of all installed pollution control technology and combustion controls consistent with the technological limitations, manufacturers specifications, good engineering practices and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions (as defined in 40 CFR Section 60.11(d)) …

The real work is done by Mike Woodman, Dave Krask, Jen Hains, Joel Dreessen, Emily Bull, Hannah Ashenafi, Kathy

Wehnes, Carolyn Jones and Roger Thunell at MDE and Tim Canty, Dan Goldberg, Hao He, Xinrong Ren, Dale

Allen, Ross Salawitch, Russ Dickerson, Tim Vinciguerra, Dan Anderson, Samantha Carpenter, Linda Hembeck and

Sheryl Ehrman at UMCP. Thanks to support/input from MARAMA, OTC, NH, NYDEC, NJDEP, ME, VADEQ, LADCO, SESARM, NASA, AQAST, MOG and EPA.

Questions?

Page 40