Response to Comments on HAR Amendments Clean Air Branch Greenhouse Gas Rules Stakeholders Meeting 10/18/2013

State GHG Requirements  In 2007, Act 234 was enacted.  Act 234 required: 1) Statewide GHG limit set to 1990 levels. To be achieved by ) DOH to adopt GHG rules to ensure GHG limit is met. Background

Federal GHG Requirements  In 2007, GHG emissions became regulated.  In 2009, Mandatory GHG Reporting Rules.  In 2010, Tailoring Rule regulates GHG emissions under PSD and Title V.  In 2013, President’s Climate Action Plan directs EPA to issue GHG rules for power plants. Background

Public Comment Period  Public hearings in November  Comment period extended from 12/7/2012 to 1/14/2013.  18 testifiers submitted oral testimony at the hearings.  23 commenters submitted written comments. Introduction

Results of Comments Received  GHG cap revised from 25% to 16%.  Public participation for GHG reduction plan approvals.  Deadline for GHG reduction plans extended to 12 months.  Landfills with controls exempt from GHG cap.  No retroactive GHG fees.  Revised definition of “subject to regulation” Introduction

Comments Addressed  Scope of Authority  Life Cycle Assessment  Facility Wide GHG Cap  GHG Emissions Reduction Plan  Partnering  MWC & MSW Landfills exemption  GHG Fees  BACT Threshold  Definition of “Subject to Regulation” Comments Addressed

Scope of Authority  Two separate sources of authority: 1) General powers under 342B-3, HRS and specific powers under 342b-12. 2) Subpart VI, 342B, HRS (Act 234). Scope of Authority

Act 234 Hawaii’s Global Warming Solution Law (2007)  Sets a Statewide GHG Emissions Limit to reduce GHG emissions from 2010 levels to 1990 levels by Scope of Authority

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)  DOH will not apply LCA at this time.  Neither EPA nor any other state nationwide applies LCA to stationary sources.  DOH recognizes the merits of LCA. LCA

Facility-Wide GHG Emissions Cap A. Cap changed from 25% to 16%. B. Alternate cap based on GHG Control Assessment. C. Alternate Baseline Year. Facility-wide GHG Cap

GHG Cap change from 25% to 16% (A) ParameterInitial 25% Percent Reduction Revised 16% Percent Reduction 2010 affected facility actual emissions Questionable DOH emission estimates for 3 facilities Used GHGRP values instead of DOH estimates 2010 affected facility actual emissions Questionable GHGRP value reported for 4 th facility Used EPA emission factors for 4 th facility State-wide 2010 emissions Based on 2007 estimated emissions Based on 2010 emissions projected 2010 affected facility actual emissions from MWC operations No 2010 affected facility actual emissions from MSW landfills YesNo Facility-wide GHG Cap

GHG Cap change from 25% to 16% (A)

Facility-wide GHG Cap GHG Cap change from 25% to 16% (A)

Alternate Cap and GHG Control Assessment (B)  Facility must conduct a GHG control assessment.  Similar to BACT analysis.  Director may approve an alternate cap.  Cap will be incorporated into facility’s air permit. Facility-wide GHG Cap

Alternate GHG Cap Baseline Year (C)  2010 is the default baseline year.  May propose an alternate baseline year  Methods to determine alternate baseline year are in HAR. Facility-wide GHG Cap

GHG Emission Reduction Plan A. Director’s Discretion and Public Participation. B. GHG Emission Reduction Plan Deadline. GHG Emission Reduction Plan

Director’s Discretion and Public Participation (A)  Provisions for public participation are in HAR  Provisions for contested case hearings are in HAR GHG Emission Reduction Plan

GHG Emission Reduction Plan Deadline (B)  Extended deadline to 12 months from the effective date of the rules.  Provisions for extending the deadline. GHG Emission Reduction Plan

Proposed Control Strategy – Partnering  Partnering sources propose emissions above or below the facility-wide cap.  Each partner agrees to a revised emission level.  Revised GHG emissions cap placed in permit.  Each partner responsible for meeting its own cap. Proposed Control Strategy - Partnering

MWC & MSW Landfill Exemptions  MWC operations 1) MWC reduce waste going into landfills. 2) GHGs from MWC have minor effect on reduction levels.  MSW Landfills with controls 1) Landfill controls significantly reduce GHG emissions. 2) GHG from landfills with controls have minor effect on reduction levels. MWC Operations and MSW Landfills

BACT Applicability Threshold  State BACT threshold remains at 40,000 tpy CO 2 e.  State threshold is lower than 75,000 tpy CO 2 e federal threshold.  Lower state threshold will regulate emission growth from new sources. BACT Applicability Threshold

GHG Fees  Draft rules were amended to charge fees only after rules adoption.  Fees for GHG starts in GHG Fees

Definition of “Subject to Regulation”  Consistent with federal definition  Temporary exemption of biogenic CO 2 emissions removed. Definition of Subject to Regulation

Where is Project Now ?  GHG Rules are being circulated for approval  DOH will send notification to all commenters after rules are adopted. Conclusion

Questions ?  Additional information Clean Air Branch (808) Conclusion

GHG Rules Emission Reduction Covered (EPA GHGRP & DOH Data)“Missing” 2010 Statewide Total Stationary (ICF) 1990 Statewide Total Stationary (ICF) Required Stationary Reduction S = Small Large (> 100k CO2e Short Ton/yr)S AffectedE = ExemptedE Key Input Revisions Large Covered 2010 Statewide Total Drives “Missing”ES X 12%= Uncontrolled Growth “Missing”ES X 12%+ Affected = Affected Source % Reduction Total Required Reduction