1 / 10

Point-to-Point Nutrient Trading A Follow-On Presentation

Point-to-Point Nutrient Trading A Follow-On Presentation. Robert J. Rose US EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs Assignment with Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Original Presentation ( www.chesapeakebay.net; Calendar of Events; December 3, 2003; Nutrient Subcommittee)

hera
Download Presentation

Point-to-Point Nutrient Trading A Follow-On Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Point-to-Point Nutrient Trading A Follow-On Presentation Robert J. Rose US EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs Assignment with Chesapeake Bay Program Office

  2. Original Presentation • (www.chesapeakebay.net; Calendar of Events; December 3, 2003; Nutrient Subcommittee) • Trading is a regulatory tool • Trading need not harm local water quality • Today’s Presentation • Regulatory flexibility • Population growth & capacity • Costs • Technology standards

  3. Regulatory Flexibility • Ozone Transport Commission hosts interstate NOx trading including NY, PA, MD, DE, DC • A simple tracking database ties the process together • A similar database could potentially allow nutrient trading using any regulatory mechanism • Jurisdictions could participate if interested • If a jurisdiction participates, wastewater facilities would not have to participate • Facilities could form trading associations, roll-up allocations, and establish internal rules

  4. What It Might Take • PA is motivated to develop infrastructure as part of a larger PA endeavor • CBPO committee(s) could develop common database criteria required • CBPO committee(s) could develop deliver ratios used for “Bay credits” and “tributary credits” that protect local and regional waters • Region III Bay permit workgroup will investigate legal aspects

  5. Example: 5-year permit renewal (or any overlay regulation/permit) • Facilities receive a Bay allocation and a tributary allocation where applicable, with reference to tracking database • Facilities may sign-up for an account and password • Nutrient loads are entered once each calendar year • Database calculates surplus/deficit Bay credits and tributary credits • Annually, accounts are electronically settled (i.e., trading) • Early upgrades earn credits

  6. Population Growth & Capacity • If building pipes were free, interconnecting facilities Bay-wide would allow 32 years of growth without expansion* • Delivery ratios are virtual pipes that interconnect nutrient treatment capacity Population Growth • Bay-wide Wastewater Treatment • Excess capacity 37% • (Source: CBPO) * Assuming 1% annual growth rate spread across Bay-wide 37% excess capacity

  7. Allocation Choices Example: 23 Mlbs TN annually; 62% decrease from 2000; 38 years of growth; $2.8B Bay-wide Years of growth, 3mg/L technology, ideal trading conditions UAA Cost Less 20%* * Engineering study of 66 MD facilities concludes costs would be 32 % lower than UAA; Hampton Roads Sanitation District study concludes 23% lower than UAA

  8. Costs • Trading spreads costs at least as equitably other policies • Local facility managers decide if upgrades and/or credits are ultimately cheapest for local ratepayers • Examples: • Some facilities could partially reduce nutrients by modifying operations for little cost, purchasing credits to make up the difference • Facilities with excess capacity could, and would have incentive, to operative below 3 mg/L, thus best leveraging capital investments • A facility initially not interested in trading might overshoot its allocation a given year, and could purchase credits as an alternative to penalties

  9. Costs • Trading is estimated to reduce costs 20%1 • 3 mg/L @ today’s design flow • 62% TN reduction from municipal wastewater • 38 years of growth • $2.24B Bay-wide • $2.33/household/month2 1 Study of 66 MD facilities; estimates and experience in Connecticut's Long Island Sound Trading (~79 facilities) 2 Spread over 4 million households, 20 years

  10. Technology Standards • No incentive to leverage excess capacity • No credit for low-cost and no-cost partial reductions • Less able to handle population growth • Less enforcement flexibility • Grants tied to technology standards suffer the same limitations • Highest cost option

More Related