TITLE 326 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SECOND NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD
LSA Document #05-116
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RULES CONCERNING MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has developed draft rule language for a new rule,
326 IAC 24-4, concerning mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants to implement the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). By this notice, IDEM is soliciting public comment on the draft rule language. IDEM seeks comment on the affected citations listed and any other provisions of Title 326 that may be affected by this rulemaking.
First Notice of Comment Period: June 1, 2005, Indiana Register (28 IR 2815).
SUBJECT MATTER AND BASIC PURPOSE OF RULEMAKING
Basic Purpose and Background
On May 18, 2005, U.S. EPA issued the first federal rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants serving a generator larger than 25 megawatts that produces electricity for sale. The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) builds on U.S. EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants, the largest source of mercury emissions in the nation. The Air Pollution Control Board final adopted CAIR on November 1, 2006.
When fully implemented CAMR will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a nationwide reduction of nearly seventy percent (70%). The CAMR establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap and trade program that will reduce utility emissions of mercury in two phases. The first phase nationwide cap is 38 tons, due in 2010, with emissions reductions that are considered "co-benefit" reductions. These are mercury reductions that will be achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation. New coal-fired power plants will have to meet new source performance standards (NSPS) in addition to being subject to caps (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da).
U.S. EPA has assigned each state and two tribes an emissions "budget" for mercury. Indiana's annual electric generating unit mercury budget in CAMR is 2.097 tons in years 2010 through 2017, a 15% reduction from 2002 levels, and 0.828 tons in 2018 and thereafter, a 66% reduction from 2002 levels. IDEM has estimated that the 2010 and 2018 caps are a 43% and 77% reduction, respectively, compared to uncontrolled emissions. Using the co-benefit controls that existed in 1999 and the associated U.S. EPA control efficiency for those controls, IDEM has estimated uncontrolled emissions at 7,396 pounds. The cap is permanent, regardless of growth in the coal-fired electric utility sector. The trading program promotes reductions at the sources with the lowest control costs, typically the larger sources. The flexibility of allowance trading creates financial incentives for coal-fired power plants to look for new and low cost ways to reduce emissions and improve the effectiveness of pollution control equipment.
Reducing the amount of mercury emitted into the air is an important step in improving the health of Indiana's citizens. Once mercury is released to the air from coal combustion and other sources, it can fall to the earth through rain and snow (wet deposition) or dust particles (dry deposition). After it settles in lake or river sediments, mercury can be converted by bacteria into methylmercury, a more toxic form of mercury. Methylmercury readily accumulates in the food chain and can build up in fish tissue. Mercury in fish, both freshwater and marine, is then consumed by people and wildlife. Women of childbearing age are considered the population of greatest concern for mercury exposure, because the developing fetus is most sensitive. Children are at risk as well since their nervous system is still developing. According to the U.S. EPA, more than 300,000 children born every year nationwide may have some risk of neurological impairment from mercury exposure. At nearly 2.5 tons per year, Indiana ranks fourth in the nation for amount of mercury emitted from power plants. In order to provide maximum public health protection, Indiana has a conservative fish consumption advisory standard. The application of this standard has resulted in fish consumption advisories for mercury for certain species of fish harvested from all Indiana rivers, streams, and over 47,000 lake acres. Indiana's fish consumption advisory levels
suggest that consumption of white tuna, halibut, lobster, shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tile fish should also be limited because of their mercury content.
U.S. EPA's modeling shows that CAMR will significantly reduce mercury deposition from coal-fired power plants in the United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury deposition from coal-fired power plants is currently the highest. U.S. EPA evaluated the impact of CAMR on mercury deposition in 2,150 watersheds encompassing the United States and found the deepest reductions in deposition would be in places where utilities had the biggest impact. By 2020, utility emissions will account for not more than 20% of deposition in any one watershed. This is a reduction from the maximum 55% contribution in the 2001 base case. On average, U.S. utilities will contribute 2.5% to deposition rates in 2020 after CAMR, CAIR, and other Clean Air Act programs are in place.
CAMR includes a model cap and trade program (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HHHH) that states can adopt to achieve and maintain the mercury emission budget. Emission monitoring and reporting requirements ensure that monitored data are accurate, reporting is consistent among sources, and that the emissions reductions occur. Each state must submit a state plan detailing how it will meet its budget for reducing mercury from coal-fired power plants by allowing their sources to participate in a national cap and trade program or by developing some other regulatory system. State plans were due November 17, 2006. IDEM plans to submit a state plan to U.S. EPA once this rulemaking process is completed.
The Air Pollution Control Board was petitioned by the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) in June of 2004 to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The HEC petition requested mercury limits for coal-fired electric generating units of six-tenths pounds of mercury per trillion British thermal units (0.6 lbs Hg/TBtu) or an emissions rate equal to 90% reduction of mercury from the measured inlet conditions, regardless of coal type. The HEC petition did not allow for emissions trading among sources and required compliance by July 2008. The initial petition was later revised in September 2005 to require compliance by 2010, allow site-specific emissions averaging, and limit the applicability to electric generating units serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts and produces electricity for sale. From September 2004 through June 2005, IDEM convened a Mercury Workgroup to collect information on mercury, which later became the Utility Rules Workgroup for both the mercury rule and the CAIR. During these last two years, IDEM has received many comments that high mercury levels in fish due to air deposition is a very important concern for the citizens of Indiana. Citizens are concerned about both the risk of neurological impairment of newborns from methylmercury exposure, and the fact that some studies have shown that high levels of mercury in adult males are associated
with higher rates of heart attacks and death. Since fish have significant nutritional benefits and have been shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks, a rule to reduce the level of mercury in fish will have important benefits.
Both IDEM and the Indiana Utility Group (IUG) have estimated the emissions reductions and the costs of CAMR and the HEC petition. IUG is comprised of the Indiana Electric Association and individual nonmember companies: Dominion State Line Energy, Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation, and Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. IDEM estimates that CAMR will result in a net annual revenue of $26 million (IUG $1 million) in 2010 due to allowance trading from CAIR co-benefit controls and annual costs of $64 million (IUG $68 million) in 2018 when the Phase II cap is in effect. The emissions reductions ranging between 2,883 lbs (IDEM) and 3,392 lbs (IUG) in 2018 compared to the 1999 estimated levels would be achieved at a $/lb cost ranging from about $20,000/lb (IUG) to $22,000/lb (IDEM).
The HEC petition is estimated to result in emissions equal to 1,095 lbs (IUG) and 1,260 lbs (IDEM) beginning in 2010. IDEM's emissions estimates for 2010 are slightly higher because IDEM allowed for site-specific averaging in the fiscal analysis for the HEC petition. This amounts to emissions reductions ranging from about 74% and 78% compared to 1999 estimated levels. IDEM estimated that the HEC petition would cost $207 million year (90% control or 0.6 lb/TBtu, whichever is readily achievable and allowing plantwide averaging) to implement and IUG estimated that the HEC petition would cost $373 million a year (assuming that electrostatic precipitator (ESP), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and a scrubber would not meet 90% reduction and activated carbon injection would be required on all units). The emissions reductions ranging between 3,624 lbs (IDEM) and 3,789 lbs (IUG) compared to 1999 estimated levels are estimated at a $/lb cost ranging between $57,000/lb (IDEM) and $98,000/lb (IUG). IDEM is required to adopt a regulation at least as protective as CAMR; therefore, IDEM and the Purdue University State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) evaluated the cost of the additional reductions, due to the HEC petition. In 2018, these reductions range between 397 lbs (IUG) and 741 lbs (IDEM) and are estimated to be achieved at an incremental $/lb cost ranging between $193,000/lb (IDEM) and $768,000/lb
(IUG). This assumes the HEC petition emissions and costs remain unchanged in 2018. In terms of electricity rate impacts, SUFG estimated that due to the HEC petition rates would increase by 2.8% (IDEM) to 5% (IUG), incremental to CAMR.
The other part of the cost equation is the cost to society that results from adverse health effects due to mercury emissions. Using information submitted to IDEM by HEC, health care costs apportioned down to the state level based on 1999 mercury emissions from Indiana power plants are estimated at $15,970/lb for IQ loss, $41,464/lb for cardiovascular effects, $3,071/lb for mental retardation, for a total of $60,500/lb. References for the HEC health care costs can be found at the end of the Response to Comments section. The cost/benefit of the HEC petition can be estimated by using the estimated health care costs associated with mercury emissions, the estimated cost of complying with the HEC petition, and the pounds of mercury emissions reduced by the HEC petition compared to CAMR. This is the marginal benefit of the HEC petition since IDEM is required to adopt a rule at least as stringent as CAMR. Assuming a linear relationship between health benefits and reductions in power plant emissions, the incremental benefit/cost ratio due to the HEC petition is estimated to range between 0.08 (IUG) and 0.38 (IDEM).
Due to uncertainties over the achievability of 90% control, reductions in actual mercury exposure levels, cardiovascular health effects, and the low benefit/cost ratio, IDEM is proceeding with a rulemaking based on CAMR. IDEM is proposing to implement CAMR by adopting the CAMR cap and trade program with modifications to the allocation methodology in Article 24: Trading Programs. All options for a mercury rule are still open for comment, however, and IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking.
To ensure consistency, states participating in the national cap and trade program are required to adopt the following key operational elements: allowance management; banking without restriction; accountability for affected sources; and enforcement requirements. The model cap and trade rule does allow states to modify language to best suit their unique circumstances with regard to allocation methodologies. Mercury allocation methodology elements for which states have flexibility include: 1) the cost of the allowance distribution (e.g., free distribution or auction); 2) the frequency of allocation (e.g., permanent or periodically updated); 3) the basis for distributing the allowances (e.g., heat-input or power output); and 4) the use of allowance set-asides and their size, if used (e.g., new unit set-asides or set asides for energy efficiency, for development of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology generation, for renewables, or for small units).
The draft rule includes several changes to the allocation methodology in the model rules for the mercury trading program. Where possible IDEM is proposing to make the allocation methodology consistent with the recently adopted CAIR.
IDEM is proposing a methodology that includes a six year allocation, six years in advance, allocation cycle. The initial allocation would only be for five years awarding allowances for 2010 through 2015 to be consistent with CAIR. This is slightly different than the model rule that provides for states to make an initial allocation for Phase I (2010-2014) and then make annual submissions of allocations six years in advance. While a more frequent allocation methodology allows new units to draw from the main pool of allowances more quickly, most affected sources have commented that they were in favor of longer allocations cycles that provide greater certainty on the number of available allowances for planning purposes.
The allocation methodology makes a proportional allocation of allowances to individual EGUs based on heat input to the boiler, which is a measure of fuel usage and heat content of the fuel. The draft rule updates baseline heat input for subsequent allocation cycles using the most current eight years of heat input data. The longer look back period for the initial allocation (1998-2005) is more appropriate than the time frame in the model rule (2000-2004) because many Indiana sources were installing equipment to comply with the NOx SIP Call, which would not be representative of "normal" operations. U.S. EPA's model rule did not include a baseline that would be updated over time; retired units would continue to receive allowances forever and existing units would have allocations based on data that is eventually decades old. The draft rule provides that the most recent operational data would be used for calculations and that a retired unit would eventually stop receiving allowances.
Heat Input and Electrical Output Adjustment Factors
IDEM is proposing a fuel neutral approach for calculating adjusted heat input values for different coal ranks. This approach will treat all coal types the same, and will be more simple to implement. The model rule included a fuel adjustment factor of 1.0 for bituminous coal, 1.25 for sub-bituminous coal, and 3.0 for lignite coal. New units use electrical output data to convert output into heat input for the determination of the baseline. The draft rule retains the output-based provision for new units in the model rule, but modifies the electrical output to heat input conversion factor to provide a greater benefit for more efficient units.
The draft rule includes a new unit set-aside of 5% of the budget for years 2010 through 2014 and 3% of the budget for year 2015 and after.
IDEM invites comments and suggestions on the draft rule language.As stated previously, all options for a mercury rule are open for comment and IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking.
IC 13-14-9-4 Identification of Restrictions and Requirements Not Imposed Under Federal Law
No element of the draft rule imposes either a restriction or a requirement on persons to whom the draft rule applies that is not imposed under federal law. All changes to the CAMR model rule included in the draft language are modifications to the allocation methodology that are allowed under the federal CAMR.
This rulemaking will exceed the $500,000 threshold requiring a fiscal impact analysis (FIA) under
IC 4-22-2-28, although the following costs are not above and beyond what would incur from the federal program. Both IDEM and the Indiana Utility Group (IUG) have estimated the cost of CAMR using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) by ICF Consulting Inc. IPM is a multiregional, dynamic, deterministic linear programing model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. IDEM and IUG used IPM with different assumptions for input parameters, such as electricity demand growth, fuel costs, and pollution control costs and effectiveness. Cost estimates include the fiscal impact of capital costs (retrofit controls), fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), and allowance trading. IDEM estimates that CAMR will result in a net annual revenue of $26 million in 2010 due to allowance trading from CAIR co-benefit controls and annual costs of $64 million in 2018 when the Phase II cap is in effect. IUG estimates that CAMR will result in a net annual revenue of $1 million in 2010 due to allowance trading from CAIR co-benefit controls and annual costs of $68 million in
2018 when the Phase II cap is in effect.
Public Participation and Workgroup Information
An external workgroup, referred to as the "OAQ Utility Rules Workgroup," has been established to discuss issues involved in this rulemaking. The workgroup is made up of a variety of stakeholders and is convened by IDEM, Office of Air Quality staff. If you wish to provide comments to the workgroup on the rulemaking, attend meetings, or have suggestions related to the workgroup process, please contact Susan Bem, Rules Section, Office of Air Quality at (317) 233-5697 or (800) 451-6027 (in Indiana). Please provide your name, phone number, and e-mail address, if applicable, where you can be contacted. The public is encouraged to participate in the workgroup process. You can also request to be put on the OAQ Utility Rules Workgroup email distribution list to obtain information related to the rulemaking or workgroup meetings.
SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE FIRST COMMENT PERIOD
IDEM requested public comment from June 1, 2005, through July 5, 2005, on alternative ways to achieve the purpose of the rule and suggestions for the development of draft rule language. IDEM received comments from the following parties by the comment period deadline:
Amy Chinn (AYC)
Betty Wrigley (BYW)
Brian Kautz (BK)
Carl Lowry (CL)
Christine A. Carver (CAC)
Chuck and Kathy Brinkman (CKB)
Citizens Thermal Energy (CTE)
Dominion (DM)
Edward Brady Hansel (EBH)
Eugene F. Wallace (EFW)
Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC)
Improving Kids' Environment (IKE)
Indiana Office of Consumer Counselor (OUCC)
Indiana University Purdue University – Department of Public Health (IDH)
Indiana Energy Association/Utility Group (IEA)
Indiana Michigan Power Company, dba American Electric Power (AEP)
Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA)
Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL)
Iris S. Carr (ISC)
J. Dan Webster (JDW)
Janet Braun (JTB)
Jean and Philip C. Ross (JPR)
Jeff Barnd (JFB)
Jeffrey V. Cefali (JVC)
John Braun (JNB)
Kenneth G. Reinhardt (KGR)
Kim Fisher (KF)
Kristina Lindborg (KAL)
Lucy Carver-Gay (LCG)
March of Dimes (MOD)
Marcia Campbell (MC)
Marian Cooley (MNC)
Martha V. Smith (MVS)
Mary Boghwalts (MYB)
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIP)
P. M. Pizzo (PMP)
Pat Berna (PTB)
Paul B. Overhauser (PBO)
Protect Our Rivers Now! (PRN)
Purdue University (PU)
Rosemarie M. Jeffery, M.D. (RMJ)
Sue Robinson (SER)
University of Notre Dame – Department of Biological Sciences (UND)
Valley Watch, Inc. (VWI)
Whitewater Valley Land Trust, Inc. (WVL)
Yvonne Lupear (YL)
Comments Collected and Submitted by the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) to IDEM:
Shanna Huff (SAH)
Cynde Connelley (CEC)
Barbara Searcy (BAS)
Julia Karr (JAK)
Linda Harmon (LAH)
Krystal Moriarty (KLM)
Rhonda Wolfe (RAW)
Rachel Koch (RLK)
Pam Morman (PMM)
Justin Schoof (JNS)
Melanie Loehwing (MEL)
Susan S. (SNS)
David Show (DDS)
Elizabeth Johnson (EHJ)
Barbara S. (BAS)
Sarah Vecker (SHV)
Charlotte Aldenhagen (CEA)
Bonnie H. (BEH)
Michelle Purvis (MEP)
John Pacer (JNP)
Jeana Toy (JAT)
Sam Shar (SMS)
Robert Winters (RTW)
Nathan Johnson (NNJ)
Jason Sucec (JNS)
Laura Sucec (LAS)
Miles Enright (MSE)
Robert Richardson (RTR)
Pamela McGinley (PAM)
Kourtney West Sanders (KWS)
Matthew Mossey (MWM)
Kevin Johnson (KNJ)
Courtney Williams (CYW)
A. Wilson (AW)
R. Eaton (AE)
Crystal Templeton (CLT)
Marilyn Nobbe (MNN)
J. Myers (JM)
Barb Ruess (BBR)
Laura Neiss (LAN)
Venita Wimbleduff (VAW)
Greg Swallow (GGS)
Nami Swallow-Novak (NSN)
Madeline Swallow (MES)
Marsha Cederquist (MAC)
Anna Feesa (AAF)
Cynthia Yanez (CAY)
Kathleen Moreland (KNM)
David Boone (DDB)
Sarah Ashcraft (SHA)
Angela America (AAA)
John Boyd (JNB)
Leslie Miller (LEM)
David Harrell (DDH)
T. Miller (TM)
Brent Winter (BTW)
Bridget Yoder (BTY)
Jaime Pearce (JEP)
Joe Staut (JES)
Ashley Chambers (AYC)
Brittany May (BYM)
Natalie Swedenberg (NES)
Tristin Olson (TNO)
Michael Maple (MLM)
Kassady Olson (KYO)
Jillian Short (JNS)
Joseph Short (JHS)
Kristi Short (KIS)
Dorothy Chandler (DYC)
Jason Sell (JNS)
William Carlson (WMC)
Elisabeth Henn-Carlson (EHC)
Barbara Rudomski (BAR)
Sharon Tranbarger (SNT)
Ray Tranbarger (RYT)
Sydney Miller (SYM)
Tammy Sajdyk, Ph.D (TYS)
William Johnston (WMJ)
Lesa Beals (JAB)
Harvey Siuschlag (HYS)
Cara Retz (CAR)
C. Shannon Brown (CSB)
Luciane Baier (LEB)
Robert Neal (RTN)
Susan Maslow (SNM)
Amy Connell (AYC)
Brian Wheat (BNW)
Lisa Strachota (LAS)
Tim Reasoner (TMR)
Therese Byerly (TEB)
John Ward (JNW)
Christopher Grashoff (CRG)
Adam Southerland (AMS)
Karen Carmichael (KNC)
Brandon Kindley (BNK)
Clinton Winkler (CNW)
Rachel Schmidt (RLS)
Betty Unger (BYU)
Lisa Widner (LAW)
Linda Easter (LAE)
Jennifer Hulen (JRH)
Kellie Hoffa (KEH)
Adolf Koshik (AFK)
Mark Richardson (MKR)
Christina & James Fletcher (CJF)
Dave Lawson (DEL)
Sheree Webster (SEW)
Mr. & Mrs. Schaffer (MMS)
Donald & Phyllis Campo (DPC)
Jamie Craddock (JEC)
Cynthia Keller (CAK)
Kris Goens (KSG)
John Noel (JNN)
Kathleen Comerford (KNC)
Naomi Landis (NIL)
Heather Cannella (HRC)
Jonathan Chambles (JNC)
Kim Curtis, PT (KMC)
Franklin Henderson (KNH)
Patircia Henderson (PAH)
Amy McInenary (AYM)
John McInenary (JNM)
Donna McInenary (DAM)
Jeanen Walton (JNW)
Christopher Walton (CRW)
Carl Walton (CLW)
Emily Szewczyk (EYS)
Marc Szewczyk (MCS)
Paul Szewczyk (PLS)
Nancy Trullinger (NYT)
Shelby Richardson (SYR)
Renee Richardson (RER)
Shone Richardson (SER)
Kailey Richardson (KYR)
Shelby Richardson (SYR)
Renee Richardson (RER)
Shone Richardson (SER)
Jami Fields (JIF)
Merigail Anderson (MLA)
Edward Foggs (EDF)
Louis Kersh (LSK)
Robin Kersh (RNK)
Jimmy Mallon (JYM)
Kate Mallon (KEM)
Jason Kersh (JNK)
Bob Lancaster (BBL)
Shelley Lancaster (SYL)
Alex Lancaster (AXL)
Thomas Williams, MD (TSW)
Kathleen Williams, RN (KNW)
Brittney Dick (BYD)
Corey Dick (CYD)
Jamie Rickard (JER)
Erin Hansen (ENH)
Rebecca Tyrrell (RAT)
Mark Sneegas (MKS)
Gretchen Sneegas (GNS)
John Sneegas (JNS)
Karla Sneegas (KAS)
Steve & Kelly Alley (SKA)
Candace Draper (CED)
Delnaz Daruwala (DZD)
Kaizad Daruwala (KDD)
Lowhorn Family (LNF)
Stephanie & Minh Nguyen (SMN)
Dianna Luther (DAL)
Mark Luther (MKL)
Victoria Luther (VAL)
Olivia Luther (OAL)
Charlene Everett (CEE)
Phillip & Jessica Cann (PJC)
Alexander Woods (CRW)
Corbin Laque (CNL)
Sophia Laque (SAL)
Layla Laque (LAL)
Angela Laque (AAL)
Craig Laque (CGL)
Damien Grey (DNG)
Connie Grey (CEG)
Alex (ALE)
Lori (LOR)
Nathan (NAT)
Ruth Ann Schroeder (RAS)
Emma Schroeder (EAS)
Candace (CAN)
Jonnie Bacon (JEB)
Gloria Bacon (GAB)
Kristi Schrock (KIS)
Maddy & Sandra Tipton (MST)
Christine Officer (CEO)
Kattlyn Thomas (KNT)
Kimberly Thomas (KYT)
Bonnie Knapp-Wild (BKW)
Caroline Taylor (CET)
Sarah Longfellow (SHL)
Christine Tilly (CET)
Michael Butler (MLB)
Jeri Smith (JIS)
June Holt (JEH)
Nancy Brown (NYB)
Amanda Applegate (AAA)
Jennifer Dye (JRD)
Billie Babb (BEB)
Julie Martin (JEM)
James Martin (JSM)
Erin Braden (ENB)
Ben Melvin (BNM)
Susan Melvin (SNM)
Benjiman Melvin (BNM)
Holly Settles (HYS)
Jason Settles (JNS)
Andrew Olson (AWO)
Paul Miller (PLM)
Max Schmitt (MXS)
Steve Sullivan (SES)
Janet (JAN)
Kaylie Brooks (KEB)
Mr. & Mrs. David Berthold (MDB)
Debbie Irwin (DEI)
Sabrina Faust (SAF)
Sandra Ziebold (SAF)
Freda Beccue (FAB)
Kate M. (KEM)
Steve Curtis (SEC)
Carol Cox (CLC)
Tara Sheringer (TAS)
Pauline Danda (PED)
Brian Johnson (BNJ)
Lisa Johnson (LAJ)
Luann Haddin (LNH)
Judy McClure (JYM)
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lovett (MRL)
Kent Morrison (KTM)
Michael Schekenfelder (MLS)
Susan Arvin (SNA)
Cynthia Goldberg (CAG)
Michael Julian (MLJ)
B. Adam Zeigler (BAZ)
Frank Rosenthal (FKR)
Robert Welch (RTW)
Julius Finch (JSF)
Donna Hatton (DAH)
Jeff Grafton (JFG)
Patrick Huhn (PKH)
Mike Skaggs (MES)
John & Becky Reyes (JBR)
Maggie Lewis (MEL)
Mary Sausmann (MYS)
Thomas Pacheco (TSP)
Kathie Smith (KES)
Melissa Ash (MAA)
Theresa Anderson (TAA)
Emily Voorhis (EYV)
Tom Foacade (TMF)
Lydia Bauer-Martinez (LBM)
Rene Martinez (REM)
Catherine Bauer (CEB)
Kelly Everitt (KYE)
A. Wells (AWS)
Michael A. Jordan (MAJ)
Lynda Kosberg (LAK)
Michael A. Jordan (MAJ)
Jean Reich (JNR)
P.R. Cordray (PRC)
Jonathan Kirschner (JNK)
Chuck Hardcastle (CKH)
D. Mathews (DMS)
Sarah Abel (SHA)
A. Starks (AST)
Anthony P. (AYP)
Lori Hirsch (LIH)
Charles Harpenan (CSH)
Janie Robinson (JER)
Florence M. (FEM)
Carol Jenks (CLJ)
Louise Lowery (LEL)
Michele & Scott Tying (MST)
Douglas Heavilin (DSH)
Stacey Julious (SYJ)
Bernice Anthony (BEA)
Nicolas Ebtinger (NSE)
Becky Demma (BYD)
Jenn Paul (JNP)
Jay Oswatt (JYO)
Jamie K. (JEK)
M. Lauer (MLR)
Holly (H)
Craig (C)
Jiangmei Wu (JIW)
Judy Colyer (JYC)
Mary C. Smith (MCS)
Amy Whittemore (AYW)
Karen Scott (KNS)
Valerie Moore (VEM)
Andrea Hayes (AAH)
Jack Chambers (JKC)
Kim Einstein (KME)
Elward R. Cardora (ERC)
Tammy Smith (TYS)
Cynthia Jones (CAJ)
Rev. Mary Frances Haberkern (MFH)
Kari Townsend (KIT)
Lisa Monfred (LAM)
Robyn LeRows (RNL)
Jessica H. (JAH)
Brenda Hamm (BAH)
Steve S. (SES)
Erin-Leigh Smith (ELS)
Tim Robinson (TMR)
Stephanie Lloyd (SEL)
Steve Beard (SEB)
Karen Vaugh (KNV)
Tina Bays (TAB)
Peggy Mitchell (PYM)
Radic Bennett (RCB)
Jessica Salvators (JAS)
Monica Hamilton (MAH)
Leigh Delloon (LHD)
Amy Wilson (AYW)
Elizabeth Arnold (EHA)
Sheryl Avery (SLA)
Louvenia Hagy (LAH)
Samantha Hardenan (SAH)
Gayle Urban (GEU)
James Summers (JSS)
Betty Bohale (BYB)
Erin Fleser (ENF)
Kelly Eads (KYE)
Hubert Helms (HTH)
Michael Burns (MLB)
Hope Coatsworth (HEC)
Nick Martin (NKM)
Julie Hamilton (JEH)
Cathy Hardwick (CYH)
Tao Yi Mowers (TYM)
Elliott Pinkie (ETP)
Tami Ochitman (TIO)
Mike Benson (MEB)
Roberta Murphy (RAM)
Marilyn Deardorf (MND)
Joan Emery (JNE)
Amy Jen (AYJ)
Lillian M. Page (LMP)
Grover Page (GRP)
Maya V. Page (MVP)
Carolyn Trullinger (CNT)
Evan Szewczyk (ENS)
Ryan Klee (RNK)
Nicholas I. Johnston (NIJ)
Conner Short (CRS)
Brennen Maple (BNM)
Haven Sill (HNS)
Aiyanna Sucec (AAS)
Samuel Szewczyk (SLS)
Greta S. (GAS)
Julie Langford-Johnson (JLJ)
Sara Norter (SAN)
Nathan E. Fletcher (NEF)
Harold Brown, Jr. (HDB)
Patrick Colbert (PKC)
Maryann Massey (MNM)
Mary Wilkerson (MYW)
Arlene Keresey (AEK)
Steve Ottenweller (SEO)
Marquerite Starkey (MES)
Jerry B. (JYB)
Jason Dennis (JND)
Courtney Stewart and Paul Joyner (CSJ)
Steve Q. (SEQ)
Rachel Jacobs (RLJ)
Debbie Wall (DEW)
Jean Gifford (JNG)
Joseph T. Schmidt (JTS)
Natalie Peckingpaugh (NEP)
Ben Vanlaningham (BNV)
Courtney Hoy (CYH)
Jackie Chaney (JEC)
Melanie Madden (MEM)
Florence Grisham (FEG)
Susan Goldman (SNG)
Sharon Burton (SNB)
Janet Brown (JTB)
Elgin T. Smith, Minister (ETS)
Tuan Wilson (TNW)
Addie Smith (AES)
Michelle Oswalt (MEO)
C. Baker (CBR)
Kelsey K. (KYK)
Todd Eads (TDE)
Alma Whitmer (AAW)
David & Brenda Fisher (DBF)
Mark Devine (MKD)
Andre (A)
Lauren (L)
Leonard G. (LDG)
Susan Swaney (SNS)
Debra Love (DAL)
Jennifer Thompson (JRT)
Helen D. (HND)
Dia Srichareon (DAS)
Sarah Kelley (SHK)
Stephen Stout (SNS)
John Walker (JNW)
Kristin Gibson (KNG)
Janet Turner (JTT)
Lois McCartney (LSM)
Penny J. White (PJW)
Mary Fowler (MYF)
G. Truran (GTN)
Bambi Seifert (BIS)
Brianna McQueen (BAM)
Melissa Adams (MAA)
Joseph V. (JHV)
David W. (DDW)
Marsha O. (MAO)
Kathy M. (KYM)
Candice Cook (CEC)
Laura Cooper (LAC)
Kyle Harris (KEH)
Tracey Rynolds (TYR)
Ashanta Colemen (AAC)
Donald & Elizabet Kent (DEK)
Karen Sensney (KNS)
Rena Becker (RAB)
Mindy Buckler (MYB)
Gary LaFever (GYL)
Douglas B. Morrison (DBM)
James J. (JSJ)
B. J. W. (BJW)
Johan James Gerguson, Sr. (JJG)
Rhonda Davis (RAD)
Michael B. (MLB)
Kristen Fanning (KNF)
Dennis DeMay (DSD)
Richard A. Waples (RAW)
J. H. (JH)
Carol Wellnitz (CLW)
Kate Taylor (KET)
Julie Harris (JEH)
Robert Hulet (RTH)
Jay Baldwin (JYB)
David Bonner (DDB)
Carolyn Hopp (CNH)
Rob (R)
Mathew Tielker (MWT)
Megan Wall (MNW)
D. Hathaway (DHY)
Lester Sanders (LRS)
Paula Chappell (PAC)
Samuel B. Marlin (SBM)
Debra D. (DAD)
Hope Howard (HEH)
Tim Leonard (TML)
Cathy P. (CYP)
Victoria McGillium (VAM)
Andrew L. (AWL)
Juan F. Noriega (JFN)
Dian McClure (DNM)
Shannon Horrall (SNH)
Debby C. (DYC)
Rita Offett (RAO)
Nick Shotwell (NKS)
Dana Faith (DAF)
Cathy Stevens (CYS)
Trisha Buck (TAB)
Heather Genry (HRG)
Connie Diaz (CED)
Gretchen Dennis (GND)
Matt Johnson (MTJ)
Tyler Weatherford (TRW)
Lark L. Roberts (LLR)
Donna Charles (DAC)
Ruth Eckstein (RHE)
Stephani Demers (SID)
Lindsay Hill (LYH)
Christopher Garrity (CRG)
Diane Schmitz (DES)
Jim & Carol Elias (JCE)
Jennifer Adams (JRA)
Diana D. (DAD)
Jill Wickham (JLW)
Cherokee S. Hyzer (CSH)
Mary W. (MYW)
Keith (K)
Vickie Basman (VEB)
Susan E. S. (SES)
Chris D. (CSD)
Cynthia J. Leistikow (CJL)
Tom Platt (TMP)
James Schelble (JSS)
Suzanne Faulk (SEF)
Colleen Moore (CNM)
John M. (JNM)
Velma Goin (VAG)
C.S. Bott (CSB)
SPC Nicholas Seys, US Army (NSS)
Dane Kiteben (DEK)
Amy B. (AYB)
Antoinette Kennedy (AEK)
Madeline Kates (MEK)
Don Griffin (DNG)
Brian Massey (BNM)
Marisa Shuman (MAS)
Jessica W. (JAW)
Kristin Pimlott (KNP)
Sarah Kanter (SHK)
Brandon Schmitt (BNS)
Amanda Matan (AAM)
Steve Sterns (SES)
Cat Albanese (CTA)
Pam Flood (RMF)
James W. (JSW)
Douglas Rosenbane (DSR)
Brian Good (BNG)
T. Hall - A. Suge - O. Milligan (HSM)
Lisa B. (LAB)
Karen S. (KNS)
Elizabeth Cory (EHC)
Ashlee Fisher (AEF)
Ronald Sparks (RDS)
Brenda G. (BAG)
Greg Alexander (GGA)
Carolyn Schultz (CNS)
Jerry L. Johnson (JLJ)
Sherri Doudt (SID)
Kathy Braden (KYB)
A. S. (AS)
Deanna Newhart (DAN)
Cynthia F. Chapman (CFC)
Eric L. (ECL)
Ruth S. (RHS)
Kim Fox (KMF)
Edward B. (EDB)
Sheila Runner (SAR)
Eric Fry (ECF)
Ginny Nielsen (GYN)
Eric G. (ECG)
Janet & Merlyn Bartlett (JMB)
Norman Lewis (NNL)
Amy Wentworth (AYW)
Jeremy Keller (JYK)
Mark Maze (MKM)
Anthony Cale (AYC)
Meghan Mackrell (MNM)
Beth L. (BHL)
Tim Holms (TMH)
Gale Kram (GEK)
Pam Schiefelisein (PMS)
Lori Train (LIT)
C.N. Julie Marisin (CJM)
Rick Cunningham (RKC)
Robin Larsen (RNL)
Carol Spencer (CLS)
L.A. Siffin (LAS)
K. U. (KU)
M. L. (ML)
Linda Davidson (LAD)
Constance Hanson (CEH)
Dean Stomps (DNS)
Kay S. (KYS)
Jean Sims (JNS)
B. Smiths (BSS)
Brandon Williams (BNW)
Shala Van Bree (SVB)
Natalie R. (NER)
Graham Travino (GMT)
Eilazabeth K. (EHK)
C. N. (CN)
Andie Moore (AEM)
Ryan Brannigan (RNB)
Roger Deetz (RRD)
William R. Starkey (WRS)
Tracy Hollon (TYH)
Andrea Barnes (AAB)
Staphanie Jones (SEJ)
Stacy Hale-Yannessa (SHY)
Susan Bucove (SNB)
Charles Fisher (CSF)
Norma J. Conklin (NJC)
Jeanne Dutton (JED)
Dolores Williams (DSW)
Regina M. McShen (RMM)
Rachel Fowler (RLF)
Elaine Haag (EEH)
Gayle Leehy (GEL)
Mikil E. B. (MEB)
Kim M. (KMM)
Dawn Surber (DNS)
Jane M. (JEM)
Chad Perry (CDP)
Summer Perry (SRP)
Paula Carson (PAC)
Monique Shanks (MES)
Diane Wesnek (DEW)
B. Shoulders (BSS)
Lulu Belle Walker (LBW)
Rodney Reed (RYR)
Ryan C. Hawkins (RCH)
Gellia Gray (GAG)
Ryan D. F. (RDF)
Suzanne Martin (SEM)
Rachel A. Rale (RAR)
Mary McClain (MYM)
Bill G. (BLG)
Tammy B. (TYB)
Amber Schiefelbein (ARS)
Lisa Lifford (LAL)
Dottie Evans (DEE)
John C. Brooks (JCB)
Catherine A. Kilter (CAK)
Bernard Asbery (BDA)
Mary Etta B. (MEB)
Christine Carver (CEC)
Peter W. (PRW)
B. Henn (BHN)
Thomas P. Shafer (TPS)
K. Hill (KHL)
Bobbie Shank (BES)
Bruce Pearson (BEP)
Julia Knox Pearson (JKP)
Jim Emery (JME)
Cheryl Hashill (CLH)
Tom Buckingham (TMB)
Mary E. McGann (MEM)
Lisa Patrick (LAP)
Deborah Young (DHY)
Julie U. (JEU)
Kim Patterson (KMP)
Angela Stevens, M.D. (AAS)
Harlan D. Anders (HAD)
Stacy L. Campbell (SLC)
Keon Manson (KNM)
Andrea D. (AAD)
Kelly Gardner (KYG)
Mike B. (MEB)
Cindy Nicholson (CYN)
Jaron Moore (JNM)
Jeremy Weimer (JYW)
Kevin Frayer (KNF)
J. B. (JB)
Frances Walter (FSW)
Vickie L. S. (VLS)
Jennifer Bailey (JRB)
John McDaniels (JNM)
Dana Hurs (DAH)
Benjamin Levey (BNL)
Ed Gentry (EDG)
Rebecca Lee (RAL)
P. G. (PG)
Jane E. L. (JEL)
Bonnie L. Todd (BLT)
Dorie Queen (DEQ)
Rachel Laner (RLL)
Deanna & William Atkins (DWA)
Jennifer & Andrew Dussinger (JAD)
Heidi Seidel (HIS)
Brian Boch (BNB)
Rachel Simons (RLS)
Morgan Price (MNP)
Kathryn Brooles (KNB)
Mark Cronkhite (MKC)
Graham T. (GMT)
Jeanne T. (JET)
Matt Schmelzer (MTS)
David Rast (DDR)
Heather Reynolds (HRR)
David Rolle (DDR)
Tammy Hunter (TYH)
Labrina Falls (LAF)
Delores Kirkland (DSK)
Becky Turner (BYT)
Sara G. (SAG)
Derrick Harris (DKH)
Sharon Olson (SNO)
B. M. (BM)
Sue Jones (SEJ)
Jill D. Sledd (JDS)
Kathy & Dave K. (KDK)
Janet Berlo & Bradley Gale (JBG)
James S. (JSS)
Gene Viel (GEV)
M. Burr (MBR)
Margaret Sibbitt (MTS)
Lauren B. (LNB)
Amie M. & Tim K. (ATK)
Mary E. Oliver (MEO)
Kelly H. (KYH)
Wendi Meier (WIM)
Dolores C. (DSC)
Edna Babbit (EAB)
Laura Murdock (LAM)
Julia K. (JAK)
David Hartman (DDH)
D. Boyrd (DBD)
Phil Carspecken (PLC)
Royala Brandt (RAB)
Heather R. Miller (HRM)
Eulah McGlure (EHM)
Pam Hensly (PMH)
Cheri Hogan (CIH)
Karla Williams (KAW)
Judy Joutras (JYJ)
James S. (JSS)
Angel Lee Padro (ALP)
Jennifer Meyers (JRM)
Ann Hassler (ANH)
Marcia B. (MAB)
Karen Boswell (KNB)
Carol Sylvester (CLS)
Susan Fisher (SNF)
Cassie Lakens (CEL)
Suzy Fulkerson (SYF)
B. M. (BM)
Jennifer D. (JRD)
B. C. (BC)
Lori Ramsey (LIR)
Kathleen Berry (KNB)
Zelma J. Norris (ZJN)
Richard Thompson (RDT)
Fred Oaks (FDO)
Susan Meyn (SNM)
Marjorie D. (MED)
Jeremy Johnson (JYJ)
Shawnda D. (SAD)
Melinda Dorsey (MAD)
Bayyinah Batts (BHB)
Tracy L. Whitley (TLW)
Norman K. (NNK)
Robbin Shick (RNS)
M. Lynch (MLH)
L. Mann (LMN)
Lisa Brant (LAB)
Christine S. (CES)
Heidi & Jeremy Roll (HJR)
Becky Middleton (BYM)
S. K. (SK)
Ruth Pennington (RHP)
Jennifer Johnson (JRJ)
Sue Cramer (SEC)
James Roth (JSR)
Deborah S. (DHS)
Vincent L. S. (VLS)
Rhonda Norman (RAN)
Patricia L. WillHite (PLW)
John E. (JE)
James. S. (JSS)
Joyce Johnson (JEJ)
A. Simmons (ASN)
Pam S. (PMS)
Barbara O. (BAO)
Jodi Schrock (JIS)
Phil C. (PLC)
Tim Halvorson (TMH)
Anne C. (AEC)
Megan C. (MNC)
Nancy C. (NYC)
M. A. (MA)
Darin Yoder (DNY)
Amy Yoder (AYY)
Grace Yoder (GEY)
Andrea D. (AAD)
Brian, Janet & Natalie Stomper (BJNS)
Darwin P. Hoose (DPH)
Marily Jordan (MYJ)
Peggy Hoose (PYH)
Xa Que Tu (XQT)
C.J. Yoder (CJY)
Wakitha R. Downs (WRD)
J. Buckley (JBY)
Betsy M. (BYM)
Dorothy Echols (DYE)
Trish Johnson (THJ)
Debra Jordan (DAJ)
Rich Trout (RHT)
Debrah Bolen (DHB)
James Smith (JSS)
Rebecca P. (RAP)
Karen Brown (KNB)
G. M. (GM)
Jane Judd (JEJ)
Doug Rockhold (DGR)
Kate Lammers (KEL)
David Wild (DDW)
Jeff B. (JFB)
Desmond Whitney (DDW)
Ann Goebel (ANG)
J. Dale (JDE)
Rosemary S. (RYS)
Kyle Farkas (KEF)
Calvin Robertson (CNR)
N. D. (ND)
Heather Dodds (HRD)
E. R. (ER)
Andrew Hamilton (AWH)
Kristin Campbell (KNC)
Lisa Messer (LAM)
Lester S. (LRS)
Carol Watkins (CLW)
Janet C. (JTC)
D. R. (DR)
Keith Gifford (KHG)
Naomi Stone (NIS)
Brenda Smith (BAS)
Brynn Johnson (BNJ)
James Sanders (JSS)
Alfie Brock, RN (AEB)
Richard McCann (RDM)
Katherine Maxwell (KEM)
Jean Manson (JNM)
Elizabeth Essory (EHE)
Christine W. (CEW)
Charlotte G. (CEG)
Heather Vaughan (HRV)
Mikell Zimmerman (MLZ)
John B. (JNB)
Sean James (SNJ)
Karen Coleman (KNC)
John Fitzgerald (JNF)
Debbie Goodwine (DEG)
Ricky Thomas (RYT)
Lance V. (LEV)
Kimberly Jarrett (KYJ)
Curtis Jones (CSS)
Dawn Smith (DNS)
L. Williams (LWS)
Mary Jean Martin (MJM)
Jeremy Glen (JYG)
Donna Smith (DAS)
Marcus Miller (MSM)
LaDonna C. (LAC)
Debbie Evans (DEE)
Justin Graham (JNG)
Leesa Gilbert (LAG)
Sandra Chandler (SAC)
John K. (JNK)
Michael Librett (MLL)
Nancy S. (NYS)
Debbie M. (DEM)
Linda Butler (LAB)
D.D. (DDW)
Sally Weiss (SYW)
Ronald G. (RDG)
Ken F. (KNF)
Felicia M. (FAM)
Susan B. (SNB)
Tina Page (TAP)
Jeramy Wilson (JYW)
Jean Hanson (JNH)
J. Ray (JRY)
B. B. (BB)
Christine Hurley (CEH)
Robert Hurley (RTH)
Mathew Hurley (MWH)
Scott Lancaster (STL)
Isaac Page (ICP)
Erika Page (EAP)
I.Q. Page (IQP)
Sandi Skwor (SIS)
Wendy Gatlin (WYG)
Shannon Klee (SNK)
Keith Klee (KHK)
Kris Edmonds (KSE)
Jesse S. (JES)
Cheryl Thompson (CLT)
Steve Shaul (SES)
J.C. Lee (JCL)
Janet Marlatt (JTM)
Karen & Edward Lopke (KEL)
Angie West (AEW)
G.K. Mulholland (GKM)
Lindy Schultz (LYS)
Val O. (VLO)
James Williams (JSW)
Kathie Peck (KEP)
Elizabeth Morgan (EHM)
Sandy Allen (SYA)
Amanda G. (AAG)
Jeremy Small (JYS)
Shelly Bright (SYB)
P. Rhodes (PRS)
Andy Morrison (AYM)
Alice (A)
Amanda Hooper (AAH)
Danell Jones (DLJ)
Kelly S. (KYS)
Sheila M. P. (SMP)
Unidentifiable commenters (CT1 through CT215)
Following is a summary of the comments received thereto:
Comment: The department should adopt the federal model rule. The petition for rulemaking filed by HEC captures any Title V source that generates electricity and obtains greater than ten percent (10%) of its heat input from coal. The federal rule specifically excludes existing generators less than twenty-five (25) megawatts, and any source that does not sell power to the grid. The Indiana rule should only cover units as specified in the federal rule because an industrial boiler brought in by the HEC petition would not have the same economies of scale as an utility boiler and is already subject to the Industrial Boiler MACT (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDDDD). Also, no proven and reliable technologies exist for these smaller industrial boilers at the six-tenths pounds of mercury per trillion British thermal units (0.6 lbs Hg/TBtu) emission level specified in the HEC petition. (CTE) (PU)
Response: The department is proposing to adopt a rule that applies to the same units as the federal rule. Also, HEC amended their petition during September of 2005 to apply to units serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity greater than twenty-five (25) megawatts and produces electricity for sale.
Comment: It is essential that the state of Indiana engage in the study of the fiscal impacts of whatever mercury regulatory program it determines best protects sensitive population groups. The fiscal analysis contained in the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) report, "Getting the Job Done: Affordable Mercury Control at Control Burning Power Plants" is not thorough, nor representative of the issues the Indiana electric utility industry will be facing. As is evidenced by the assessment of this report by EPRI in October, 2004, "the data obtained to date, including those provided in "Getting the Job Done," show a wide range of mercury removal rates, suggesting that many plants would be unlikely to achieve ninety percent-plus (90+%) mercury control on a consistent, maintainable basis." EPRI's analysis of this report provided that, "While significant progress has been and is being made on developing and testing mercury controls – including activated carbon injection (ACI), commercial availability is still several years away, especially at the levels of control NWF indicates can be achieved." The commenter rejects that study as an appropriate basis for understanding the fiscal impact of mercury regulation and is prepared to assist in the development and implementation of an adequate fiscal analysis of a mercury program. (IEA)
Comment: The department is obligated to perform a fiscal analysis for whatever mercury rule that may be proposed, although adopting the CAMR rule will be the easiest to do by updating U.S. EPA's cost analysis. An independent analysis is necessary since the cost to Indiana utilities of mercury-specific controls will be well above the threshold required in Indiana law. Any rule proposals beyond CAMR would clearly require a new independent analysis based on specific provisions of the proposed rule. The department could not legally use the National Wildlife Federation report for the fiscal since the work may not have been peer reviewed and the department is required to supply detailed analysis to support the cost estimates. The department should engage the State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) for their input. (AEP)
Comment: The OUCC is the state agency charged with representing the interests of utility consumers before state and federal bodies. While environmental quality is important, the commenter asks that the department's deliberations on new rules also consider the effect of higher compliance costs on the consumers of electricity in the state. The department should conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis of its various alternatives prior to implementing rules more stringent than required by the federal government. The commenter is of the opinion that under the proposed federal standards, Indiana utilities can meet their mercury compliance needs until the year 2018 without the installation of baghouse technologies. Baghouses would add significantly to the capital and operational cost for meeting mercury targets. The concern is that a state rule that tightens mercury standards might tip the scales in favor of Indiana utilities needing to consider and build baghouses prior to 2018 with consequent costs for electric consumers in the state. (OUCC)
Comment: In the First Notice under "Potential Fiscal Impact" the costs of Alternative 1 are the estimates for the entire country, whereas the costs of Alternative 2 are the estimates for Indiana from the NWF report. What is the cost for just Indiana for Alternative 1 so that the costs can be compared? (HEC)
Response: IDEM agrees that it is important to evaluate the costs associated with CAMR and the HEC petition and has spent a considerable amount of time, along with IUG, on the fiscal analysis. Both IDEM and IUG have estimated costs associated with CAMR and the HEC petition for Indiana. Cost estimates for just Indiana for Alternative 1 (CAMR) can be found in the section on Potential Fiscal Impacts.
Comment: Simultaneous rulemaking and co-locating of the CAMR and CAIR rules in the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) is acceptable. The federal CAIR relies on the co-benefits of the CAIR emission controls to achieve many of the required mercury emissions reductions and both programs rely upon a cap and trade system. (AEP)
Comment: It would be helpful to the extent possible to consolidate the CAMR and CAIR rules into one location in the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC). Doing so would allow those affected by both rules to have their applicable requirements consolidated in one location within the
IAC and prove more convenient than if located separately. Changes to 40 CFR Part 75 for emission monitoring requirements can be addressed in Article 21, Acid Deposition Control. (NIP)
Response: IDEM is proposing to locate the CAMR in Article 24 where the CAIR rule is already located to keep both utility trading rules in one location. Article 21 incorporates by reference 40 CFR Part 75 monitoring requirements, which will be updated to include new requirements when the reference to the Code of Federal Regulations definition at
326 IAC 1-1-3 is updated.
Comment: Trading programs have been instituted by Congress, U.S. EPA, and the states to address a range of both long term and short term issues from acid rain to one-hour ozone concerns. Trading programs are particularly well suited for long term broadly defined regional air pollution problems like mercury. Recent history with cap-and-trade programs has shown sources reduce more emissions faster and at a lower cost, plus they do not result in an increase in emissions as energy demand grows. The federal CAMR will effectively address local risks. First, while modeling runs suggest that large coal-fired utility units will likely have larger local deposition footprints than smaller units, the trading of allowances will likely involve larger units controlling their emissions more than required and selling allowances to smaller units. This prediction arises from the basic economics of capital investment in the utility industry. Second, the types of mercury that are deposited locally, ionic mercury (Hg++) and particulate mercury (Hg[p]), are controlled by the same equipment that is being installed to control criteria air pollutants for other agency rules. The gaseous form of mercury (Hg0) that is more difficult to control is most likely to transported long distances from the utility units. (IEA)
Comment: Any Indiana mercury rule which uses switching of the current fleet of coal-fired power plants to natural gas in order to minimize mercury emissions is not a realistic option. (IEA)
Comment: There is currently a lack of a robust mercury emissions database because of limited technology to monitor mercury emissions. Any regulatory program that goes beyond the federal rule must be based on verifiable information and a comprehensive understanding of the issues. (IEA)
Comment: The technologies that will be used to control emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants are still in the formative stages. Flue gas desulfurization and selective catalytic reduction pollution control technologies designed to reduce SO2 and NOx, respectively, can produce mercury co-benefit reductions, however the specific reductions are not known with great certainty. The ability to consistently and reliably control emissions across a wide range of operating conditions, boilers and fuel types is an important issue for Indiana where there is a wide variation in boiler types and coals used as fuels. Mercury emission control technologies are not yet adequately tested for reliability, accuracy or representative application, nor reasonably available. Therefore it is essential that the department adopt U.S. EPA's two-phased approach that initially focuses upon the co-benefits of a multi-pollutant strategy and then mercury specific controls. (IEA)
Comment: In order to appropriately address the regional and national nature of the mercury issue, it is essential for all states, including Indiana, to participate in the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) trading program. This was the message delivered by Governor Daniels' when he stepped forward earlier this year in support of the Clear Skies legislation, which has served as the template for the U.S. EPA CAMR/CAIR rules. By participating in the U.S. EPA administered emissions budget and trading program, Indiana would be assuring consistency and accountability across the state, region, and nation. Indiana would also be demonstrating its support for the regulatory strategy of recognizing the co-benefits of a multi-pollutant approach supported by current science and sound economics. Furthermore, Indiana affected generating units, local coal mining operations, and ratepayers would not be disproportionately impacted. (IEA)
Comment: The cap-and-trade approach is the best method for reducing emissions at the lowest cost and encourages the continued development of mercury control technologies through economic incentives. (IEA)
Comment: The commenter recommends that the department adopt the federal CAMR. U.S. EPA has determined that a carefully designed "multi-pollutant" approach is the most effective way to reduce emissions from the power sector. Accordingly, U.S. EPA has designed this program to control NOx, SO2, and mercury at the same time (i.e., CAIR implementation with CAMR). One key feature of such an approach is the interrelationship of the timing and cap levels for NOx, SO2, and mercury. U.S. EPA's analysis shows that the use of FGD (to reduce SO2 emissions) and SCR (to reduce NOx) also has the effect of controlling mercury emissions at the same time. EPA has designed the CAIR and CAMR approach to take advantage of this so-called Hg "co-benefit." Based on the results of sophisticated economic and environmental modeling analyses, the Phase I mercury cap should be set at a level that reflects these co-benefits, and the additional controls designed specifically for mercury should not be required until after 2010. A multi-pollutant approach that focuses first on SO2 and NOx reductions will also achieve significant reductions in oxidized mercury. Reductions in this mercury species are the most beneficial to reductions in local and regional mercury deposition. The commenter supports the Indiana
adoption of the federal CAMR because of this very important "co-benefit". (IEA)
Comment: U.S. EPA has concluded that it is not necessary to have the 2018 mercury cap mirror the mercury co-benefits achieved in CAIR Phase II cap because the 2018 cap ensures those reductions. The Phase II cap is timed such that the mercury specific control technologies currently being developed can be tested, installed and operational for all plant and coal types. In light of the developmental stage of reliable mercury specific control technologies, the commenter supports the phased approach U.S. EPA has finalized. (IEA)
Comment: The commenter supports the monitoring and reporting of emissions using 40 CFR Part 75 to ensure that emissions will be accurately and consistently monitored. (IEA)
Comment: The most recent U.S. EPA mercury deposition modeling using the national scale CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air Quality) model indicates that the CAIR reductions, combined with the CAMR reductions, would have the same effect on mercury deposition as would the complete elimination of power plant emissions of mercury by 2020. In the evaluation of the CAMR rule, U.S. EPA conducted extensive modeling using the latest mercury deposition modeling techniques. These techniques were not available for the 1997 Mercury Report to Congress. U.S. EPA chose CMAQ because it is a three-dimensional grid-based Eulerian model designed to estimate pollutant concentrations over large spatial scales and because it accounts for spatial and temporal variations as well as differences in the reactivity of mercury emissions. The results of this modeling are described in the March 2005 EPA "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule", (EPA-452/R-05-003). The CAMR is well-developed and supported by state-of-the-art modeling analysis. (IEA) (DM)
Comment: There have been ongoing discussions during the Indiana Mercury Workgroup process regarding the merits of the ninety percent (90%) control proposal. As has been stated numerous times previously, neither U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) say that there is mercury specific control technology that is readily available for implementation. A program more stringent than the federal national mercury program would only result in mercury reductions that would produce marginal, if any, benefit to Indiana residents. The costs to Indiana customers for a ninety percent (90%) control program would be enormous while creating minimal environmental benefit. Finally, the ninety percent (90%) control proposal is unachievable. Even assuming one could get ninety percent (90%) mercury reductions by July 2008, and you could install all of the controls in the next three (3) years, which also presumes sufficient craft labor and materials were available, it would require all the construction work on every Indiana power plant to occur simultaneously. That would dictate that every coal fired power plant in the state, which is ninety-seven percent (97%) of the electric energy produced in the state, would then have to be shut down simultaneously for an extended period of time between January and July 2008 to make final connections between the new control equipment
and the rest of the power plant. Therefore, the commenter strongly supports the federal program and urges the department to not adopt the ninety percent (90%) control by 2008 option as it is premature and unsupportable by science, technology, or cost-benefit analyses. (IEA)
Comment: Reduction of the overall state cap, inconsistent with that established by U.S. EPA's CAMR would result in a scramble by Indiana to reduce mercury emissions in a manner that is neither technologically reliable, nor economically responsible particularly as both of those important factors relate to environmental benefit. There is no health benefit justification available that would support a decision to implement a program that is more stringent than U.S. EPA's CAMR program. There has been no discussion offered in support of reducing the overall state mercury cap that justifies departure from the national approach. (IEA)
Comment: An earlier compliance date for Phase II has absolutely no support as indicated by U.S. EPA in its decision to set a later compliance date for Phase II. There is significant concern over the availability of mercury control technology that is proven to be effective and efficient at an earlier date. Filed testimony on behalf on the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor in the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Cause Nos. 42622 and 42718, Petitions of PSI Energy, Inc., is supportive of the conclusion that "many emerging mercury emission reduction technologies will become commercialized and prove to be more economical than ACI and baghouse technology for PSI units under consideration by year 2018. It would be prudent to wait and watch." Testimony of Giriraj Sharma, March 2005. It is unclear how Indiana could justify taking a more stringent approach understanding the uncertainty that clearly exists with regard to mercury specific controls. (IEA)
Comment: The assignment of individual unit emission limits could seriously frustrate the national cap-and-trade program relied upon by U.S. EPA in the CAMR. There is data supporting the conclusion that cap-and-trade programs result in air quality improvement (i.e. Acid Rain, NOx SIP Call). The commenter strongly objects to individual emission limits. The commenter supports a national mercury cap-and-trade program as presented by U.S. EPA as an effective program that would create a baseline against which future monitored mercury data could be measured. Such a baseline could be an effective tool to allay concerns about backsliding as it relates to mercury. (IEA)
Comment: The commenter believes that the adoption of the federal model Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is appropriate. Mercury is a global pollutant and the U.S. EPA has found that while coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about one percent (1%) or about forty-eight (48) tons. (IPL)
Comment: An accelerated compliance date and more stringent reduction in emissions is not a viable option for Indiana and could potentially reduce the reliable supply of electricity. The U.S. EPA has found that the availability of mercury-specific pollution control technology has not been proven on a large-scale long-term basis. (IPL)
Comment: Indiana adopting a rule with modifications from the federal rule would require valuable resources by the department and interested stakeholders. An earlier compliance date is not possible since U.S. EPA has found that the availability of mercury-specific pollution control technology has not been proven on a large-scale long-term basis. Also, U.S. EPA's modeling shows that the CAIR will significantly reduce the majority of the coal-fired power plant mercury emissions that deposit in the United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury deposition is currently the highest. CAMR is expected to make additional reductions in emissions that are transported regionally and deposited domestically, and it will reduce emissions that contribute to atmospheric mercury worldwide. A state-specific rule would place Indiana industries at an unfair advantage due to increased costs without commensurate environmental benefits. (IPL)
Comment: The commenter is committed to reducing mercury emissions. Mercury emissions have been reduced by about forty percent (40%) at the Petersburg Generating Plant Units 2 and 3 as a result of having both a scrubber and SCR and there have been similar reductions at the Harding Street Generating Plant Unit 7 this past spring. (IPL)
Comment: The commenter encourages the department to adopt the CAMR for the utility sector as finalized by the U.S. EPA. Allowances should be allocated for the longest reasonable period of time, five (5) to (10) ten years at a minimum, be based on fuel types, and by using heat input as the allocation metric with no set asides. (AEP)
Comment: The HEC petition is technically infeasible at this time at the levels and within the time frames proposed in the petition. The HEC petition does not take into account the differences in the various coals being used in Indiana at this time. The federal program takes these differences into account and also more properly acknowledges that mercury emission controls have not been developed and/or demonstrated to be effective across the variety of fuels in use. In addition, there is a large amount of new FGD systems being installed regionally for compliance with the CAIR rule and engineering or labor needed to meet the 2008 compliance date may not be available. (AEP)
Comment: The commenter does not support adopting a mercury rule with different limits or compliance dates than those in the CAMR. The commenter is puzzled by the department's discussion on antibacksliding. There are no current emission control requirements for mercury imposed on the utility industry and there is no ambient standard for mercury that has been used to develop an underlying SIP. Therefore, there could be no backsliding as the term has been classically used. (AEP)
Comment: The department should adopt the federal rule while considering the advantages and disadvantages of the various elements of flexibility provided by the federal rule. This would reduce the department's effort needed to accomplish the desired rule changes and assure the regulated community that they would not be subject to any additional requirements beyond those in the federal rule. This would not disadvantage the Indiana regulated community with respect to industry in other states that choose to adopt the federal rule without modification. The U.S. EPA cap and trade program, in conjunction with the CAMR timelines and tonnage caps, will allow for the most cost effective method to reduce emissions to be selected at the affected plants, and provide the time needed to develop control technology suitable to reach the tonnage limits that are below what would be achieved otherwise. (NIP)
Comment: The commenter opposes the HEC petition that includes the ninety percent (90%) control requirement, an earlier compliance date (2008) compared to the CAMR, and no emission cap and trade program. The petition does not account for the technical difficulties that will frustrate the best efforts of facilities to reach the proposed reductions levels and schedule. The difficulties include: the wide variation in mercury species and concentrations within the exhaust stream to be controlled; variations in the mercury content of the various coals used in Indiana; boiler type and configurations; and the ability of a control technology to control the specific form of mercury emitted from the specific fuel combustion process. Information presented by utilities and EPRI during the IDEM Mercury Workgroup process shows that the mercury specific controls are not commercially demonstrated and fully evaluated regarding their ability to meet the reduction requirements proposed by HEC. U.S. EPA's CAMR information indicated that reductions beyond the CAMR phase 1 level (CAIR co-benefits level) produce limited additional benefit, despite increased controls and costs. The CAMR is supported by state-of-the art modeling analysis. No such modeling and analyses has been provided to justify the HEC petition. (NIP)
Comment: The number of fish consumption advisories in Indiana compared to other states is a major concern of comments made in support of the HEC petition. However, there are discrepancies among the differing sampling and reporting methodologies used in different states, and these comments disregard the U.S. EPA disclaimer in the U.S. EPA fish advisory fact sheet that states it is inappropriate to make a comparison between states based on the number of fish advisories. The supporters of the HEC petition have not shown that the number of advisories is due to Indiana sources that would be affected by these rules nor have they shown that the proposed limits in the HEC petition would lessen the number of these advisories, and disregard the contribution from non-Indiana and non-utility sources to Indiana mercury concentrations. (NIP)
Comment: The commenter opposes the department imposing additional requirements to those found in the federal rule. The compliance date can not be accelerated for the same reasons as the compliance date for the HEC petition is not possible, i.e., the need for commercial development and demonstration of the mercury specific control technologies. There is no justification for individual emission limits and the commenter opposes any effort by the department to seek unit specific limits under the guise of anti-backsliding. First, there is no limit to measure backsliding against nor any measurement technique or data for which to make any comparisons. Second, there is no technical data to support the need for individual unit emission limits. Third, the imposition of unit specific limits would be in direct opposition to the principals of a trading program, threaten the very existence of an Indiana trading program, and be counter-productive to any attempt to seek cost effective emission controls, based on economies of scale for expenditure of limited capital on an individual company basis. Unit specific limits would also penalize any units that were under-utilized during the baseline period which allocations and limits were based, and could prevent their ability to return to operating levels more representative of their normal generation. (NIP)
Comment: The department should adopt the federal model rule. This approach will allow affected facilities to comply with the new emission reduction requirements in the most effective way and participate in the cap and trade program. Past history with the Acid Rain and NOx SIP Call programs has shown that this approach is more cost-effective than the traditional command and control approach. While Dominion needed to reduce sulfur dioxide by about forty thousand (40,000) tons annually during the 1995-1999 period, early reductions resulted in a surplus of more than four (4) times that amount by 2000 for the Acid Rain program. Through early installation of nitrogen oxides controls, Dominion was eligible to receive more than nine thousand (9,000) early reduction credits, real reductions that were achieved well ahead of the May 2004 start of the NOx SIP Call program. In the NOx SIP Call rule facilities were "rewarded" with "early reduction credits" that eased the emissions reduction burden once the deadlines kicked in. (DM)
Comment: The recently finalized Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) requires large reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from utility boilers in a twenty-nine (29) state region by 2010. The add-on control technologies that most effectively reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are, in many cases, very effective controls for emissions of mercury as well. Companies subject to both the CAIR and the CAMR will need to integrate planning for compliance for these two rules. The department should adopt a mercury emissions reduction program that is coordinated with the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides reductions under the CAIR. (DM)
Comment: The HEC petition is not technically feasible at this time because mercury specific control technologies are not yet commercially available. U.S. EPA has recognized that mercury specific technologies such as activated carbon injection have not been demonstrated in practice on full-scale power plants for extended periods of time and are not considered commercially available in the preamble to the final CAMR. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from the May 2005 Clean Air Act report titled "Emerging Mercury Control Technologies Have Shown Promising Results, but Data on Long-Term Performance are Limited" confirms this conclusion. Test of sorbents lasting from several hours to several months have yielded average mercury emission reductions of thirty (30) to ninety-five (95) percent, with results varying depending on the type of coal used and other factors, according to the Department of Energy (DOE) and other stakeholders surveyed for the GAO report. The GAO report also recognizes that a number of factors complicate efforts to estimate the costs of installing mercury controls and that costs are expected to decline. (DM)
Comment: Adopting the federal rule with additional reductions or an earlier compliance date is not necessary given the results of the CMAQ modeling. The CMAQ modeling concludes that the mercury reduction required by the CAMR, combined with the co-benefit mercury reduction achieved through the CAIR, will have a dramatic effect on mercury deposition by 2020. (DM)
Comment: The department has proposed that one option in implementing the mercury rule is individual unit emissions limits as a potential "anti-backsliding" measure. Indiana utility companies have been very supportive and cooperative of the department's effort to develop these new emission reduction requirements, even before the final federal CAMR. There has not been any suggestion or attempt at "backsliding" from the utility sector. (DM)
Comment: The department should adopt the federal CAMR. This would ensure that Indiana facilities would not be penalized as compared with facilities in other states. The commenter opposes adopting a ninety percent (90%) control and no cap and trade rule or the federal CAMR rule with reduced overall state caps and earlier compliance dates. Only the federal CAMR rule is justified since it was developed by U.S. EPA after years of study and analysis. (IMPA)
Comment: The commenter supports the comments submitted by the Indiana Energy Association. (CTE) (IPL)
Response: IDEM has drafted rule language that incorporates the federal model CAMR with changes to the allocation methodology. IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking.
Comment: The department should provide free distribution of allowances. Charging for allowances would place an unnecessary additional economic burden on the affected parties who will be devoting considerable financial resources to controlling emissions to meet the emissions budget. (NIP) (IEA)
Comment: Allocations should be updated periodically as is done in the NOx SIP Call. The federal model rule provides a workable program to transition from a fixed phase 1 allocation to an annual updating methodology. This will provide an opportunity to react to the ongoing evolution of the power generation market and avoid creation of an additional economic barrier to the installation of newer, potentially cleaner and more efficient units. (NIP)
Comment: If the department does not utilize the current NOx budget trading program allowance allocation method, then the department should consider allocating allowances on an output basis, or at a minimum, create a set-aside to encourage development and implementation of clean efficient generation methods. (NIP)
Comment: The department should establish, within the Indiana rules, the baseline adjusted control period heat input allocation methodology that utilizes the heat input adjustment factors based on different coal ranks consistent with the CAMR model rule. (NIP)
Comment: A mechanism for encouraging energy efficiency and for managing the inclusion of new sources in the CAMR trading program should be accomplished with new unit set asides and set asides for energy efficiency or renewable energy in a manner similar to the NOx SIP Call. (NIP)
Comment: The rule should include proactive economic incentives to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, as in the NOx
