Clean Air Interstate Rule

A more effective approach to clean air policy, and one example of a sensible program being implemented by the federal government, is the Clean Air Interstate Rule or CAIR, intended to reduce emissions of particulate matter and NO in the eastern United States. EPA finalized the CAIR rules on March 10, 2005 in response to a finding of non-attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter and ozone formation. CAIR requires reductions in SOj and NOj emissions from coal-fired power plants the emissions limits spelled out in the CAIR plan affect electric utilities in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. Emissions reductions are to be achieved through a market-based cap-and-trade system similar to other air pollution programs EPA has put into practice over the last few decades. 

Assumes an annual allocation of 8.9 million tons and an allowance price of 250/ton. (Note SO allowance prices have recently increased dramatically from this level in anticipation of the significantly tighter cap that will be required under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reduce fine particulate matter. See http //www.epa.gov/cair/ for information on CAIR. 

In 2005, the EPA passed the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which requires a 61% cut in nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants by 2015. This level of emissions reduction requires a different technology. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) both convert NOx into water (H2O) and nitrogen (N2). SCR is capable of reducing NOx emissions by approximately 90%. SNCR is a simpler and less expensive technology than SCR, but it also provides a lower level of NOx reduction. 

USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air interstate rule 2005. URL http //www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/... 

A major test of the Clean Air Act came in 1980, when New York State used the provisions governing interstate transport of pollution to attempt to hold the line on SO2 emissions in the Midwest. The focus of the case was a 1980 ruling by the E.P.A. that allowed several midwestern states to increase their SO2 emissions by a total of nearly two million tonnes a year. The Agency reasoned that the increased pollution would not unduly affect local air quality in the Midwest. But New York State feared that much of the pollution would be carried downwind to the Adirondacks and other parts of the state, would interfere with the state s air quality, and would aggravate the state s already severe acid rain problem. Accordingly, New York s Attorney General, Robert Abrams, petitioned the E.P.A. to revoke approval for the increased pollution. 1 ... 

---