Multi­
emissions
Proposal
Minnesota
Issues
August
24,
2004
M.
Cashin
8/
24/
04
Air
Emission
Considerations
Minnesota
°
NAAQS
attainment
state
°
Low
SO2
emission
rate
compared
to
national
average
°
Burns
low
sulfur,
low
mercury
coal
°
Majority
of
coal
generation
already
scrubbed
°
Emissions
not
significantly
impacting
nonattainment
areas
 
USEPA
modeling
questions
winter
NOx
transport
°
Focus
is
preserve
air
quality
standard
attainment,

regional
haze
improvements,
mercury
reduction
 
Clean
Air
Minnesota
(
voluntary
program,
established
2002)

 
Minnesota
Voluntary
Mercury
Reduction
Initiative
Minnesota
and
neighboring
north
central
states
best
match
western
state
air
quality
issues
MP
Electric
Power
Trend
0
10
1980
1990
2000
MP
MN
Unit
Generation
(
Million
MWHs)

Emission
Rate
(
lbs
Criteria
Pollutant/
MBtu)

Annual
Emissions
(
10,000'
s
Tons)
MP
Generation
Emission
rate
Annual
Emissions
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Lbs./
mmBTU
Minnesota
Power's
Plant
Emission
Rates
are
Low
PM
0.17
0.06
0.29
NOx
0.76
0.39
0.42
SO2
1.18
0.46
2.62
MP
1980
actual
MP
2000
actual
MP
Permitted
Emissions
SO2
NOx
PM
Minnesota
Power's
coal
plants
have
about
a
70%
compliance
margin
for
maintaining
local
air
quality
attainment
All
Minnesota
Power
plants
are
operated
with
environmental
controls
that
enable
them
to
outperform
emission
limits
established
to
support
local
air
quality
standard
attainment.

Allowed
Actual
Minnesota
air
quality
has
improved
significantly
over
the
last
three
decades
and
is
in
attainment
with
all
the
NAAQS.
Multi­
Emission
Program
Goals
°
Certainty
 
Planning:
coordinated
and
reinforcing
objectives
°
Environmental
controls
and
related
fuel/
operating
needs
°
New
capacity,
future
energy
procurement
needs
°
Fair
and
equitable
 
Cost
effective
action
(
avoid
technology
forcing)

 
Flexibility,
with
market­
based
incentives
 
Credit
for
early
action
&
"
baseline"
protection
°
Support
national
energy
policy
objectives
 
e.
g.
Fuel
diversity,
energy
independence,
economic
growth
°
Sound
science
must
guide
environmental
quality
objectives
Diminishing
Returns
from
SO2
Emission
Controls
Measures
North
Central
States
are
in
air
quality
standard
attainment.

Attainment
Designation
Expected
Acid
Rain:
A
residual
concern
in
the
Northeast
US
<
4.7
pH?

MN
is
"
OK"
for
acid
deposition
High
Emissions
Density
Matches
Problem
Area
Hg
Annual
Deposition
(
µ
g/
m2­
y)
2004
Base
Simulation
Minnesota
Mercury
Deposition
10
to
15
ug/
m2­
y,
about
a
third
that
of
eastern
states.

US
electric
utilities
contribute
up
to
7%
(
ref.
EPRI)
U.
S.
Mercury
Deposition
from
Non­
U.
S.

Sources
%
contribution
by
non­
U.
S.
sources,

2004
Three­
quarters
of
Minnesota
Mercury
Deposition
Sources
from
Non­
US
Sources
(
ref.
EPRI)
Wind
transport
of
emissions
to
problem
areas,

need
a
multi­
state
solution
Ozone
Change
if
No
Manmade
Emissions
in
MN,
IA,
NE,
SD,
ND
Benefits
are
local,
in
areas
already
in
ozone
attainment.

Twin
Cities
is
VOC
limited,
need
VOC
reductions
to
preserve
ozone
attainment
margin.
Minnesota
monitored
visibility
(
haze)
degradation
does
not
exceed
Grid
2.
Haze
is
not
a
major
public
concern
in
Minnesota.
(
graphics,
USEPA)

Grid
1,
<
12
dV
(
near
natural
background)
Grid
4,
<
40
dV
Grid
3,
<
30
dV
Grid
2,
<
20
dV
Wide
Disparities
Exist
Between
Company
Average
Emission
Rates
Equitable
allocation
should
assure
low
emitters
are
not
allowance
short
or
technology
forced
Mix,
higher
sulfur
coal
or
no
scrubbers
ALLETE
(
Minnesota
Power)

(
80+
%
scrubbed,
low
sulfur
coal)

Reference:
Benchmarking
Air
Emissions
of
the
100
Largest
Electric
Generation
Owners
in
the
U.
S.
­­
2000
March
2002,
NRDC,
PSEG,
CERES
EPA's
Transport
Rule
Proposal
°
MN
utility
emissions
not
a
significant
PM2.5
or
ozone
nonattainment
contributor
 
Utility
NOx
<
0.1
ug/
m3
nonattainment
area
impact
(
estimate
from
EPA
data),
20%
of
the
MN
NOx
inventory,

 
Utility
NOx
plus
SO2
<
0.15
ug/
m3
modeled
impact.

 
Minnesota
emissions
(
all
sources)
under
2
ppb
ozone
impact
°
EPA
calculates
health
benefits
as
if
all
fine
particulate
components
have
similar
impacts,
ARIES
interim
findings
not
considered
 
Fine
Particulate,
statistically
significant
health
impacts
(
ARIES)

°
Yes,
carbon/
organic
fine
particulates
health
impacts
°
No,
sulfates
fine
particulates
health
impacts
°
Models
not
suitable
for
assigning
transport
culpability
at
less
than
1
ug/
m3
significance
°
Clean
Air
Minnesota
voluntary
reductions
were
not
modeled
so
MN
emissions
influence
is
overstated.
1999
Ozone
Precursor
Inventory
(
13
county
MN­
WI
CMSA
metro
area)

NOx
Contribution
Point
35%

Area
6%

Mobile
57%
Biogenic
2%
VOC
Contributions
Point
9%
Area
38%

Mobile
42%
Biogenic
11%

Based
on
1999
data
from
Sonoma
Technology
Report
at
MPCA
website:
http://
www.
pca.
state.
mn.
us/
publications/
reports/
ozonestudy2002.
pdf
Twin
Cities
area
emissions
are
dominated
by
mobile
sources
Summary
°
A
25
to
30%
reduction
in
NOx
will
likely
be
achieved
°
A
15
to
20
%
reduction
in
VOC
will
likely
be
achieved
°
Mandated
federal
fuel
and
car
changes
and
Stage
1
vapor
control
will
provide
90
t/
day
NOx
&
72
t/
day
VOC
reductions
by
2010
°
Current
CAM
commitments
will
provide
8
t/
day
VOC
and
106
t/
day
NOx
reductions
by
2010
or
earlier
°
CAM
will
set
a
goal
to
meet
30%
NOx
reduction
and
a
22%
VOC
reduction
°
Additional
modeling,
monitoring
and
data
collection
are
needed
to
refine
the
goals
in
the
future.
Plant
Pollutant
Before
(
tpy)
After
(
tpy)
Change
(
tpy)
(%)

King
SO2
26,000
2,400
23,600
91
NOx
18,700
2,000
16,700
89
High
Bridge
SO2
3,100
0
3,100
100
NOx
4,500
100
4,400
99
Riverside
SO2
12,000
0
12,000
100
NOx
13,200
100
13,100
Metropolitan
Emission
Reduction
Program
Targets
Twin
Cities
Area
Reductions
To
Reduce
SO2
about
40,000
tons
per
year
To
Reduce
NOx
about
34,000
tons
per
year
Capital
Cost
Estimate
Exceeds
$
1
Billion
(
Ref.
Rick
Rosvold
Xcel
Energy
­
Environmental
Services
Department)

Plant
Project
Cost
King
$
385
million
(
2001
dollars)

High
Bridge
$
394
million
(
2001
dollars)

Riverside
$
226
million
(
2001
dollars)
All
Tachyarrhythmic
Events­
Days
(
Lag
0)

Provisional
Results
Organic/
Carbon
Particulates
ARIES:
Health
impact
correlation
2020
Clear
Skies
Control
Case
PM2.5
Species
0
5
10
15
20
Chicago
ug/

m3
Unattributed
Crustal
Elemental
Carbon
Primary
Organics
Biogenic
Secondary
Organics
Anthropogenic
Secondary
Organics
Ammonium
Nitrate
Ammonium
Sulfate
Clear
Skies
and
Transport
Rule
proposals
provide
for
SO2
and
NOx
emission
reductions.
Organic/
carbon
emissions
are
primarily
sourced
from
motor
vehicles.

Interim
study
findings
(
ARIES,
Metzger
et.
al.)
show
it
is
the
organic/
carbon
particulates
that
exert
statistically
significant
health
impacts.

15.93
Ammonium
Sulfate
and
Nitrate
post
CSA
Phase
2
ARIES:
No
statistically
significant
health
impacts
Ref.
USEPA,
July
28,
2003
Ref.
CMAQ
Model
Performance
Evaluation
Conducted
by
USEPA,
OAQPS
7/
17/
04
Annual
Average
Particulate
Nitrate
Performance
1:
1
correlation
line
Better
fit
?
1.5:
1
+/­
3/
4
ug/
m3
CMAQ
modeling
vs.
IMPROVE
Monitor
Observations
Ref.
CMAQ
Model
Performance
Evaluation
Conducted
by
USEPA,
OAQPS
7/
17/
04
Seasonal
Average
Particulate
Nitrate
Performance
1:
1
correlation
line
Better
fit
?
1.5:
1
+/­
1.5
ug/
m3
CMAQ
modeling
vs.
IMPROVE
Monitor
Observations
Ref.
CMAQ
Model
Performance
Evaluation
Conducted
by
USEPA,
OAQPS
7/
17/
04
Annual
Average
Particulate
Nitrate
Performance
1:
1
correlation
line
Better
fit
?
1.5:
1
+/­
2
ug/
m3
CMAQ
modeling
vs.
STN
Monitor
Observations
Ref.
CMAQ
Model
Performance
Evaluation
Conducted
by
USEPA,
OAQPS
7/
17/
04
Seasonal
Average
Particulate
Nitrate
Performance
1:
1
correlation
line
Better
fit
?
1.5:
1
+/­
4
ug/
m3
CMAQ
modeling
vs.
STN
Monitor
Observations
Seasonal
Average
Particulate
Nitrate
Performance
REMSAD
v7.01
REMSAD
v7.06
(
CSA)

Seasonal
Average
Nitrate­
IMPROVE
Annual
REMSAD
1996
Modeling
(
nrd96)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Improve
Observations
(
ug/
m3)

REMSAD
Predictions
(

ug/

m3)
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter
Seasonal
Average
Nitrate­
IMPROVE
Annual
REMSAD(
v7.06)
1996
Modeling
(
CSA2003)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Improve
Observations
(
ug/
m3)

REMSAD
Predictions
(

ug/

m3)
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter
1:
1
correlation
line
Correlation
between
model
predicted
nitrate
and
Improve
measurements
is
skewed,
modeling
overstates
nitrate
Better
fit
?
3:
1
Better
fit
?
3:
1
+/­
2
ug/
m3
Seasonal
Average
Organic
Aerosols
Performance
REMSAD
v7.01
REMSAD
v7.06
(
CSA)

Seasonal
Average
Organic
Aerosols­
IMPROVE
Annual
REMSAD
1996
Modeling
(
nrd96)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Improve
Observations
(
ug/
m3)

REMSAD
Predictions
(

ug/

m3)
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter
Seasonal
Average
Organic
Aerosols­
IMPROVE
Annual
REMSAD(
v7.06)
1996
Modeling
(
CSA2003)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IMPROVE
Observations
(
ug/
m3)

REMSAD
Predictions
(

ug/

m3)
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter
1:
1
correlation
line
Correlation
model
predicted
organics
vs.
Improve
measurements.

Skewed
&
highly
variable.
Model
understates
organic
particulates.

Better
fit
?
1:
2
+/­
2
ug/
m3
Fit
?
1:
1
+/­
2
ug/
m3
Seasonal
Average
Sulfate
Performance
REMSAD
v7.01
REMSAD
v7.06
(
CSA)

Seasonal
Average
Sulfate­
IMPROVE
Annual
REMSAD
1996
Modeling
(
nrd96)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Improve
Observations
(
ug/
m3)

REMSAD
Predictions
(

ug/

m3)
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter
Seasonal
Average
Sulfate­
IMPROVE
Annual
REMSAD(
v7.06)
1996
Modeling
(
CSA2003)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Improve
Observations
(
ug/
m3)

REMSAD
Predictions
(

ug/

m3)
Summer
Fall
Spring
Winter
Correlation
between
model
predicted
sulfate
and
Improve
measurements
is
good
to
about
+/­
2
ug/
m3
1:
1
correlation
line
+/­
2
ug/
m3
Summary
of
Impacts
on
2010
PM2.5/
nitrate/
sulfate
based
on
zeroout
of
all
SO2+
NOx
emissions
in
MN
­
Of
the
66
nonattainment
receptors:

+
MN
impacts
PM2.5
at
24
receptors
by
0.10
ug/
m3
or
more
+
MN
impacts
PM2.5
at
4
receptors
by
0.25
ug/
m3
or
more
­
Example
impacts
of
MN
SO2+
NOx
emissions
on
Chicago
(
Cook
Co
site
170310052)
and
St.
Louis
(
Madison
Co,
IL
site
171191007)
[
note,
sulfate+
nitrate
impacts
don't
equal
PM2.5
impacts
b/
c
there
is
also
a
slight
impact
on
organics
from
NOx
reductions]

+
Chicago
2010
Base
DV
at
this
site
is
18.14
ug/
m3
+
impact
of
MN
on
annual
avg
PM2.5
at
this
site
is
0.38
+
impact
on
annual
avg
ammonium
sulfate
is
0.09
+
impact
on
annual
avg
ammonium
nitrate
is
0.28
+
max
quarterly
avg
impact
on
nitrate
is
0.52
(
1st
qtr)

+
St.
Louis
2010
Base
DV
at
this
site
is
16.38
ug/
m3
+
impact
of
MN
on
annual
avg
PM2.5
at
this
site
is
0.27
+
impact
on
annual
avg
ammonium
sulfate
is
0.08
+
impact
on
annual
avg
ammonium
nitrate
is
0.18
+
max
quarterly
avg
impact
on
nitrate
is
0.42
(
1st
qtr)

Impacts
on
2010
8­
Hr
ozone
based
on
CAMx
Source
Attribution
Technique
­
Max
impact
on
8­
hr
ozone
nonattainment
is
1
ppb
in
Chicago
Minnesota
Impact
on
Annual
Average
PM2.5
(
SO2
+
NOx)
in
2010
PM2.5:
Regional
Reductions
Region
1
Region
3
Region
5
Region
1
Region
3
Region
5
­
60%
SOx
and
NOx:
Summer
­
60%
SOx
and
NOx:
Winter
Modeled
Region
1
particulate
benefits
are
local,
not
transporting
east.

1
3
5
Regional
Source
Emissions
under
Clear
Skies
CSA
2020
Modeled
Emission
Reductions
in
Minnesota:

°
14%
reduction
in
SO2
emissions
°
70%
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
°
3%
reduction
in
mercury
emissions
EPA
assesses
CSA
emission
reductions
in
Minnesota
based
on
control
retrofit
costs
vs.
projected
price
to
buy
allowances
from
other
states.

The
best
modeled
MN
economic
for
SO2
and
mercury
is
to
help
pay
for
controls
in
high
emissions
states
through
allowance
purchases.
