Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved July 2025 AQC Meeting Minutes1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY July 9, 2025 Ground Floor Hearing Room of the Archdale Building 9:30 A.M. – 10:30 A.M. AQC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE Chair Charles (Charlie) Carter Ms. Elizabeth (Jill) Weese Mr. Michael Ellison Mr. Jared C. Wright Ms. Robin Smith OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE MEETING BRIEF During the July 9, 2025, meeting, the Air Quality Committee (AQC) of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) heard: 1. Agenda Item II-1: Request for Approval to Proceed to the EMC to Request Approval to Proceed to Public Comment and Hearing on the Proposed Rules and Regulatory Impact Analysis to Incorporate the Pre-Permitting Construction Activity Provisions of Session Law 2023-134, Section 12.11(e)-(g) as amended by Session Law 2024-1, Section 4.13 (566) (Joelle Burleson, DAQ) 2. Agenda Item IV-1: Concept on Title V Exclusionary Rule for Non- Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (569) (Brad Nelson, DAQ) 3. Agenda Item V-1: Overview of Recent EPA Actions Relating to Federal Air Quality Regulations (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) Note: Due to time constraints, Agenda Item V-2: Update on Hurricane Helene No Action Assurance (NAA) for Air Curtain Incinerator Title V Permit Requirements (Taylor Hartsfield, DAQ) was not presented at the AQC meeting and only presented the following day at the EMC. 2 I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS Agenda Item I-1, Call to Order and the State Government Ethics Act, N.C.G.S. §138A-15 AQC Chair Carter called the meeting to order and inquired, per General Statute §138A-15, as to whether any member knows of any known conflict of interest or appearance of conflict with respect to matters before the EMC’s AQC. None were stated. Agenda Item I-2, Approval of minutes from the Air Quality Committee meeting on March 12, 2025 AQC Chair Carter requested approval of the March 12, 2025, meeting minutes. Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the minutes, and Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item I-3, Approval of minutes from the Air Quality Committee meeting on May 7, 2025 AQC Chair Carter requested approval of the May 7, 2025, meeting minutes. Commissioner Weese motioned to approve the minutes, and Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Smith: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question about just the form of the minutes, which appears to have changed fairly dramatically, not just for this Committee, but for the Commission generally. I’m just curious as to how they're being generated. They almost look like artificial intelligence (AI) products from the transcript, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think they're including probably more detailed discussion than is absolutely necessary, but I was just curious about how they're being generated at this point because it's clearly a different process. Chair Carter: I don't know, and I'm going to look at the EMC Chairman. He doesn't seem to be acting like he wants to respond. Do we have anybody that knows the answer to that question? Ah, here we go. Katherine Quinlan (DAQ): Good morning. I know the answer to that. I am Katherine Quinlan with the Division of Air Quality (DAQ). Webex, when it's recording these meetings, does generate a transcript. We export that transcript and then review it and clean it up because it doesn't always get all the words exactly correct. It's pretty good, but we do have to do some cleaning up and try to make sure it reads like it was said and that it makes sense. So we clean up any sort of grammatical spelling errors that the transcript made. So it is from a transcript and that's my understanding of what change we were supposed to make, maybe a few meetings ago, for the minutes. Chair Carter: To further answer Commissioner Smith's question, do you know specifically if that's AI- generated? Katherine Quinlan: I'm not sure, but Webex generates it. It's auto generated from the recording itself. What the recording picks up as words, it translates into text and then we clean it up. It also doesn't tell you 3 who made the statements, so we do listen to the recording to add the names as well, to specify who was speaking at that point. Chair Carter: Sure. Of course, they wouldn't be identifying any members. EMC Chair Solomon: From a consulting perspective, they all claim to be AI at some point, so they’re probably claiming to be AI. It's really a word match and then a transcription type thing that happens. I don't want to get into the process or comment on the Department's processes except to say that AI could be used to reduce that down to maybe five or ten pages, or three pages, or something like that, to see how it would read instead of having a human try to reduce down to the essential part. That capability is there with tools, but again, that's up to how the Department wants to process the minutes and do whatever they want. Chair Carter: Any further thoughts or questions about the form or process? Commissioner Smith: Thank you. That answered my question. Chair Carter: I'm glad you asked because I had no idea. I did have something of the same reaction you had, though, that there was perhaps a bit more detail than I thought was entirely necessary. The minutes have gotten lengthy lately, or for a while now, and I wasn't sure that's really necessary. II. ACTION ITEMS Agenda Item II-1: Request for Approval to Proceed to the EMC to Request Approval to Proceed to Public Comment and Hearing on the Proposed Rules and Regulatory Impact Analysis to Incorporate the Pre-Permitting Construction Activity Provisions of Session Law 2023-134, Section 12.11(e)-(g) as amended by Session Law 2024-1, Section 4.13 (566) (Joelle Burleson, DAQ) Joelle Burleson (DAQ): Good morning, Committee members. I'm Joelle Burleson with the DAQ’s Planning Section, and I'm just going to give you a brief follow up to our May meeting on this topic. (Slide 2) On Slide 2, you'll find for your reference a series of acronyms that you may hear in the presentation or see in the materials associated with it. (Slide 3) As Chair Carter said, I'm here today to request approval to proceed to the EMC to request the full EMC's approval to proceed to public comment and hearing on proposed rules and regulatory impact analysis (RIA) to incorporate the pre-permitting construction activity provisions from Session Law 2023- 134, Section 12.11(e)-(g), as amended by Session Law 2024-1, Section 4.13. (Slide 4) For a brief recap, at the May meeting, the DAQ presented these rules to you to incorporate these provisions of the Session Law and the accompanying RIA that was approved by the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) on April 27, 2025, to proceed to the EMC to request to proceed to public comment and hearing. The package includes one new rule, 15A NCAC 02Q .0114, Activities Allowed Prior to Permit Issuance, proposed for adoption. 15A NCAC 02Q .0501 and .0507 are existing rules. We're amending them to cross reference this new rule to allow its provisions to be used. The AQC directed the Division to amend the RIA to reflect some specific additional uncertainties that you discussed 4 at your last meeting, return to the Committee in July for approval, and also to request a waiver of the EMC's 30-day rule to request to proceed to public comment and hearing on the rule package at the July EMC meeting. The revised RIA was amended in response to your comments and provided back to OSBM. They approved it on June 19, 2025. (Slide 5) To highlight the Uncertainties Section of the RIA where the revisions were incorporated in response to your comments, on page 21, in Subsection V.E.1, there was some uncertainty associated with whether the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would approve the submission, if it is finalized by the Committee and Commission and moves on through the process. We did add qualitative discussion acknowledging that uncertainty, as to whether it would be considered consistent with provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and be approvable into North Carolina’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). On page 23, in Subsection V.E.3, regarding applicant use of the pre-permitting construction option, we recognized and acknowledged that there is potential for citizen suit by adding qualitative discussion regarding how many applicants might choose to use the pre-permitting provisions given the potential for that third-party suit, if indeed there is considered a strong legal argument that the provisions are inconsistent with the CAA, even if they are approved into North Carolina's SIP. On page 24, in Subsection V.E.3, regarding applicant use of the pre-permitting construction option, we added discussion of the financial risks to applicants if an applicant chooses to begin constructing prior to receipt of a thoroughly reviewed application, such as the potential need to retrofit or take operational limits to comply with emission limits or applicability thresholds. On page 29, in Section VIII, which summarizes the cost benefit summary, we included and recognized these particular changes that were added throughout the discussion. (Slide 6) So with that, the Director is recommending that the Committee approve the proposed adoption of 15A NCAC 02Q .0114, proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02Q .0501 and .0507, and the accompanying revised RIA to proceed to the EMC to request approval to proceed to public comment and hearing. (Slide 7) If the Committee chooses to do that, depending on the pleasure of the Commission, here is the schedule under which we would see the rulemaking proceed. We're here today in July. Without a 30-day waiver, we would be back in September, assuming the Committee chooses to forward this to the EMC, and then back in the fall for a public comment period and hearing. In March, we would see adoption by the EMC. The slide should actually say March of 2026. In April, we would intend to go to the Rules Review Commission (RRC), and then either in April or May make a submittal to EPA. The effective date would be tentative based upon EPA's approval as prescribed in the Session Law. (Slide 8) So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Chair Carter: Any questions for Ms. Burleson? Well, I'll offer a couple of comments. Just to remind everyone, I think you're aware of this, but I’ll mention it again anyway. As Ms. Burleson mentioned, there may be a question with respect to EPA approval. We will not know that until the rules get there. But before that, we also have the question that Commissioner Smith had raised at least a couple of meetings back, I've forgotten which one it was now, maybe it's as far back as March, about putting text of a statute into a rule. 5 That's essentially what we've got here, and that has a potential issue at the RRC. Our Counsel has been discussing that with them. Do you have anything further to report on that? Elly Young (EMC Counsel): No, I submitted a request for pre-review of the new rule, 02Q .0114, as drafted, for the RRC to take a look and submitted an argument that it does comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to the Session Law requirement for a SIP amendment with the EPA. I have not heard back from them. That is largely my fault in delaying getting it submitted to the RRC. I have requested that they review our submission prior to the September meeting. Chair Carter: Alright. Well, since there's really nothing more we're going to be able to do there, at this point I would not propose to wait to move this to the Commission until September. I think we need to get these on. They've been delayed longer than they should have been at this point. That's why we've got the 30-day waiver indicated here. I've talked to EMC Chair Solomon about that, and it is on the agenda, at least tentatively, for tomorrow. That's at least the current plan, and I'm glad you put both schedules in here, with and without the waiver. I guess I’ll ask if there are any further questions or discussion? Commissioner Smith: I'll just say I appreciate the staff's work in adding the additional discussion of the uncertainties around the rule. I think that is very helpful. Thank you. Chair Carter: I think as well that you raised those questions in May, we got that out, and we've got a full explanation here. I think it's definitely time to proceed with these rules. If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion to approve these rules to go to the Commission tomorrow. Commissioner Wright: Motion. Chair Carter: Commissioner Wright moves. EMC Chair Solomon: Point of order - I think we need to make the motion on this and then we can decide tomorrow whether to grant the waiver or not. Chair Carter: The waiver, if you'll look at the agenda, is mentioned as an issue for the Commission. This is not a motion on the waiver. It's a motion strictly to move the rules to the Commission. Period. EMC Chair Solomon: Okay. Can you put the motion back up there, if you will? Counsel Young: I think his concern is the language “EMC tomorrow”, just in case they choose not to do the 30-day waiver tomorrow. It would just be to approve it to go to the EMC. EMC Chair Solomon: That's what this is for today. Chair Carter: Alright. Are you concerned about the fact that it mentions tomorrow in there? EMC Chair Solomon: Yes, because I don't think the Committee should bind in this motion. The motion just clears the Committee to be considered, and they can take the waiver or not. 6 Chair Carter: Of course, but the rules are going to be there, and the waiver is going to be there. I don't care if you want to strike that word out, but I don't think it's terribly relevant, quite honestly. That's where we're going with it, if the Committee approves the rules. We're going there tomorrow, and you obviously have to take up the waiver first. If the Commission does not grant the waiver, then you won't be considering the rule anyway, even though it will be on the agenda otherwise. EMC Chair Solomon: Okay. Counsel Young: I think best practice would be to read the motion as is on the slide because it's the full Commission's decision whether to take up the matter tomorrow. EMC Chair Solomon: Correct. Counsel Young: Commissioner Wright, if you were going to make the motion. Chair Carter: We have the motion from Commissioner Wright. Do I have a second? Commissioner Ellison: Could we articulate the motion a little more thoroughly for the record? Chair Carter: If you want to read that back? Commissioner Wright: I'll paraphrase. I make the motion to take this to the full Commission tomorrow for consideration at that time, with or without the 30-day waiver. Chair Carter: Well, if there's no 30-day waiver, we wouldn't consider it anyway. I think the language we got right there is what we need. Is there a concern, or no? EMC Chair Solomon: If you could just pick it up after “Committee” and say “approve” and the rest of it, I think you got it. Commissioner Wright: Commissioner Wright makes a motion to approve the proposed adoption of 15A NCAC 02Q .0114, proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02Q .0501 and .0507, and the accompanying RIA to proceed to the EMC to request approval to proceed to public comment and hearing. Chair Carter: Great. Commissioner Ellison: Second. Chair Carter: Alright, I have a second. Alright, and the EMC Chair is satisfied. He's good. EMC Chair Solomon: Good. Record straight. Chair Carter: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying “aye”. Okay, any opposed? 7 Commissioner Weese: I oppose the motion. Commissioner Smith: I also oppose the motion. Chair Carter: I guess I'll break the tie because I think we should move to the Commission. You can, if you want to, discuss your opposition today or we'll do it tomorrow at the waiver, it's up to you. Commissioner Weese: I will say that I appreciate the staff's work between the May meeting and now to, I think, establish some transparency around the potential effects of this rule, which I don't think were apparent prior to that time. Personally, I am not comfortable with the EMC putting forward a rule that we know has so many potential obstacles. That practice seems foreign to me, and so those are some of my concerns, Chairman Carter. Chair Carter: I don't disagree with sort of your general statement, but the situation here is, I'd say, slightly different because we have a very explicit mandate from the General Assembly. I don't think we have a choice. We've got to put something forward. Now, will it get approved all the way through the process through RRC and EPA? That's a whole different question, but as far as our action, like I said, I don't think we really have a choice here. But that's fine, I understand your point. Anything else on this? Then we will proceed on the agenda. Thank you, Ms. Burleson. EMC Chair Solomon: One point of order. As a clarification, I think I would announce that nobody's changed their vote and it's three to two. Motion carries. Chair Carter: Okay. I’m sorry, yes. The vote was three to two in favor of proceeding with the rule. Motion: Commissioner Wright motioned to approve the proposed adoption of 15A NCAC 02Q .0114, proposed amendments to 15A NCAC 02Q .0501 and .0507, and the accompanying RIA to proceed to the EMC to request approval to proceed to public comment and hearing, and Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion passed three to two with Commissioner Weese and Commissioner Smith opposed. III. JULY EMC ITEMS Agenda Item III-1: Request for Approval of 30-Day Waiver on Proposed Rules and Regulatory Impact Analysis to Incorporate the Pre-Permitting Construction Activity Provisions of Session Law 2023-134, Section 12.11(e)-(g) as amended by Session Law 2024-1, Section 4.13 (566) (Joelle Burleson, DAQ) This item was presented at the full EMC meeting on July 10, 2025. Agenda Item III-2: Request for Approval to Proceed to Public Comment and Hearing on Proposed Rules to Incorporate the Pre-Permitting Construction Activity Provisions of Session Law 2023-134, Section 12.11(e)-(g) as amended by Session Law 2024-1, Section 4.13, and the Accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (566) (Joelle Burleson, DAQ) 8 This item was presented at the full EMC meeting on July 10, 2025. IV. RULEMAKING CONCEPTS Agenda Item IV-1: Title V Exclusionary Rule for Non-Emergency Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (569) (Brad Nelson, DAQ) Brad Nelson (DAQ): Good morning. I'm here to present the exclusionary rule concept for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). (Slide 2) Just a list of some acronyms that you may see in this presentation. (Slide 3) Just to give you some background, the 02Q .0800 rules are what we call “exclusionary rules” which establish an exemption for certain facilities if they're below the major source thresholds of 100 tons per year of regulated pollutants, ten tons per year of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and 25 tons per year of all HAPs combined. If their emissions are below these major source thresholds, they are excluded from the requirement to get a Title V permit. (Slide 4) Then we have another set of rules, the 02Q .0900 rules, which provide exemptions from the need for a facility to obtain a construction and operation permit (i.e., a non-Title V permit) as long as they meet the criteria of the applicable 02Q .0900 rule. (Slide 5) Rule 02Q .0903 exempts emergency generators and non-emergency stationary RICE from the requirement to obtain a permit if their emissions are below the major source criteria, if they meet the criteria of the rule, which includes not being a Title V major source. (Slide 6) At issue is that the emergency engines have exclusionary provisions in the 02Q .0807 rule, but the non-emergency engines do not. So technically under the provisions of the 02Q .0903 rule, we shouldn't be able to exempt many of the non-emergency engines as originally intended because they're not covered under the 02Q .0807 provisions. What we're trying to do is close that technical gap. (Slide 7) What we're proposing is to amend the 02Q .0800 rules to include non-emergency stationary RICE. This may involve amending Rule 02Q .0807, but we haven't quite landed on the final approach we're going to take to button this issue up. The exemption will base the potential emissions on actual fuel consumption, which is what Rule 02Q .0807 currently uses for emergency engines, and it just requires an annual submittal of their fuel consumption for that year to show that they were under those consumption limits. (Slide 8) We are presenting the concept here in July, we're planning on presenting some draft rules to the AQC in September, and then move forward from there. Does anybody have any questions? Commissioner Ellison: Is there a requirement from EPA to do this, or you just caught something you're trying to clean up? 9 Brad Nelson: This is something that some of the regional offices pointed out as maybe being an issue if somebody went and looked at these rules closely. As the rules are currently written, you shouldn't be able to be excluded from non-Title V permitting in the 02Q .0900 if you're not excluded from Title V permitting, either by being a true minor source or by qualifying for one of the 02Q .0800 rules. Commissioner Ellison: Okay, I'm cogitating on this. Chair Carter: Well, let me follow then. Does that mean that you're actually doing it even though the rule doesn't explicitly authorize it? That is, excluding them from permitting? I'm just trying to understand the practice now. I may have misinterpreted something that was said, so that’s why I asked the question. Taylor Hartsfield (DAQ Deputy Director): We have the 02Q .0800 rules, which allow you to redefine your potential to emit based on actual emissions versus potential emissions. For engines, for example, you can use your actual hours of operation versus basing it off of 8,760 hours per year. Chair Carter: Right. Taylor Hartsfield: That allows those categories of engines to avoid Title V permitting by redefining their potential-to-emit. Then you go to the 02Q .0900 exemption rules, which allows categorically for engines, when they’re the only source at a facility, to be completely exempt from permitting altogether. So that would get them out of any small or synthetic minor permit that may apply. Well, sorry, I’ll correct that to just small, because they're redefining their potential-to-emit as their actual emissions, and their actual emissions are less than major source thresholds. It's really just a technicality that we're trying to catch up to because we have a 02Q .0900 exemption rule that says all stationary RICE, regardless of whether you're emergency or non-emergency, can be permit exempt, but we don't have an exclusionary rule under the 02Q .0800 provisions for non-emergency engines. We do have exclusionary rules for emergency engines and peak shaving engines. Chair Carter: Okay, so basically, you're just adding this third category to the existing set of exemptions. Taylor Hartsfield: Correct. Just to clean it up and make sure that we're also allowing those non- emergency engines to use the benefit of the exclusionary rule and the exemption rule to get out of permitting when that's the only source at a facility. Commissioner Ellison: What happens if the Committee and the Commission do not indulge you in this pursuit of another rule? Taylor Hartsfield: We would have kind of an issue with our rules then. We'd have to go fix the 02Q .0900 rule because that allows all stationary engines to be exempt from permitting. Commissioner Ellison: Okay, and what's so bad about that? Taylor Hartsfield: Because there's not an allowance for them to redefine their potential-to-emit. 10 Commissioner Ellison: Okay, so if we do go forward with this, who specifically, what types of people, businesses, and entities would be affected? Taylor Hartsfield: Yes. It could be facilities that have non-emergency engines that are the only emission source at that facility, where their actual emissions are below Title V major thresholds. What we're trying to do is allow them to take advantage of being allowed to get out of permitting by redefining their potential emissions based on actual fuel throughput rather than saying we have to calculate their potential- to-emit based on 8,760 hours per year. Commissioner Ellison: What would be the burden on these entities? Taylor Hartsfield: They would have to get a permit. Commissioner Ellison: They would have to get a permit. You're going to change the rule and make more people have to get permits? Taylor Hartsfield: No, the rule change is to get them out of needing a permit. Commissioner Ellison: Okay, that's what I'm trying to clarify because I'm not especially familiar with these rules, and I'm trying to see how this makes sense. Taylor Hartsfield: We're trying to get facilities that only have non-emergency engines out of having to get a Title V permit, which then allows them to get out of needing any type of permit. Commissioner Ellison: What reporting will they be required to do? Taylor Hartsfield: They just have to monitor their actual fuel usage and make sure that it's below the limits in the exclusionary rule to be exempt. Commissioner Ellison: And they self-report that to DEQ? Taylor Hartsfield: They just have to maintain records on site. Commissioner Ellison: Okay, thank you. EMC Chair Solomon: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I think some examples would be good when they come back to the Commission. I've dealt with this in several places, New Orleans being one of them, where 2 megawatt (MW) emergency generators were being brought in, like 100 of them, and they said no permit was needed because they were emergency. There is an argument for that, but when they looked at the hours these things actually run, the amount of fuel they consume, they could have gotten caught in the back-end trap where they should have had them permitted as Title V or synthetic minor. I don't know if that's the same case, but once you see this play out, like in an emergency situation where people are redesigning things and say “just because it's emergency I don't need a permit”, it really helps to have that defined up front so that you don't get people caught in a trap of “do I have to get a permit or not?” when 11 they're trying to redesign emergency stuff. I may be way off base, but this reminds me of that, and I think examples would probably help the Committee, from a North Carolina perspective, help people consider what we're talking about here. Taylor Hartsfield: Yeah, we can certainly do that. Commissioner Smith: Let me see if I've got this straight. It sounds like the change wouldn't actually affect emergency engines. Those are already covered by both rules. Taylor Hartsfield: Already covered, correct. Commissioner Smith: The conflict we potentially have is that the 02Q .0900 rules exempt entirely some non-emergency engines that if we don't do something that allows or requires them to do this demonstration under 02Q .0800, they may be in violation of Title V. Taylor Hartsfield: Correct. EMC Chair Solomon: That's right. Commissioner Smith: That's what we're trying to fix. We're trying to eliminate a situation where some non-emergency engines think they can claim an exemption without demonstrating that they are actually below the Title V thresholds. Taylor Hartsfield: That is correct. EMC Chair Solomon: I think you're right, but I do think there are some people that say just because something is considered emergency-generated by classification, they think they're automatically classified as exempt. I don't know if this relieves that or not, but we need examples to help us see this. Taylor Hartsfield: Thank you. Happy to do so. V. INFORMATION ITEMS Agenda Item V-1: Overview of Recent EPA Actions Relating to Federal Air Quality Regulations (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) Mike Abraczinskas (DAQ Director): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all Committee members. Again, I am Mike Abraczinskas, Director of the DAQ, here to give an update on EPA and federal air regulatory announcements. This is a bit of a newsy type of presentation. In fact, I’d say 90% of the information in these slides was generated in April. Very little has changed since then, but this is our first opportunity to update the Committee on these things. I'll provide you with some additional insights on things that have occurred over the course of 2025 and especially in the last couple of weeks. (Slide 2) Okay, so starting off at the top at EPA, you all know that Lee Zeldin was sworn in as EPA Administrator and confirmed by the Senate in January. There are other principal deputy assistants and 12 assistant administrators that have started to go through the confirmation process. The most important to air is Aaron Szabo. He is nominated as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation. He went through an initial confirmation hearing, but he's waiting on an actual confirmation vote, which has not yet been scheduled, so he's currently serving as Senior Advisor to the Administrator until which time he is confirmed as the Assistant Administrator of Air. Chair Carter: Is there anything you can provide on his background or prior EPA experience or whatever? I don't remember that name. Mike Abraczinskas: He does have a little bit of prior EPA experience, and I'm drawing a blank on which office. It was not the Office of Air and Radiation, but I can follow up with you and get you that specific information later. Also, here in Region IV in the southeast, Kevin McOmber has been appointed as the Region IV Administrator. He has four decades of experience in environmental planning, water resources, stormwater management, and sustainable urban development. Now, shortly after Administrator Zeldin was confirmed, he unveiled a new initiative entitled “Powering the Great American Comeback”, and with this initiative, he announced Five Pillars for EPA. First was clean air, land, and water for every American; second was restore American energy dominance; third was permitting reform, cooperative federalism, and cross-agency partnerships; fourth was to make the U.S. the AI capital of the world; and fifth was protecting and bringing back American auto jobs. (Slide 3) Now, Administrator Zeldin's initiatives in his Five Pillars were designed to align with a number of executive orders coming from the White House, including the recission of prior executive orders, mainly some of those that were issued in 2024, and a regulatory freeze which included withdrawal of rules that were sitting at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the transition, not to propose any new rules in that time window, and postponing effective dates and comment deadlines for some of those that were caught in limbo during the transition. EPA staff were directed to not communicate outside the agency on those actions. There are other executive orders listed here, and you all can do some of your own research and Googling on some of those, but I will say that across all of the executive orders that have come across thus far, not a lot of them have immediate legal impacts to the work that we do day in and day out in the DAQ. (Slide 4) However, after the initiative and the pillars that aligned with the executive orders, came an announcement of 31 deregulatory actions that Administrator Zeldin announced on March 12, and so really the meat of my presentation here today is to walk through all of those. I've highlighted and asterisked some, and I'll annotate along the way here. I've highlighted in yellow the items that have impacts to North Carolina, and then I've also included in red text ones where the DAQ has deadlines relative to the prior federal rule that is now being reconsidered or revisited. Let's work through these. The first grouping was under the subcategory titled by EPA as “Energy-Related”, and that included a reconsideration of the greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations on power plants. Now, there is a little asterisk here, to note that EPA recently proposed repeal of those Biden-era regulations, and the comment period on that proposal ends on August 7. The next item on the list is a reconsideration of the oil and gas regulations. I didn't have time to put an asterisk by that one, but in some late-breaking news, that rule set is sitting at OMB, so we will find out soon what “reconsideration” of that rule set means. In just a moment I'll talk about what some of those potential outcomes could be. The third one on the list is a reconsideration of the recently tightened Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. Again, there are two asterisks by that one, with a footnote indicating that EPA proposed to repeal certain amendments 13 from the 2024 version of that final rule, and the comment period ends on that proposal on August 11. Next is a reconsideration of the GHG reporting program, reconsideration of the recent 2024 Risk Management Program (RMP) rules under section 112r of the CAA, reconsideration of Power Plant Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), and reconsideration of oil and gas ELGs. I didn't highlight those ELGs obviously because those do not have impacts to DAQ. The ones I highlighted in in the red text at the top of the slide were our items where the prior final rule put the agency on a deadline to develop a state plan. You heard us present the concept for that very first one on the list here back in January, but we’ve since paused that work. Likewise, for the second item on the list highlighted in red text, we've paused work on that, given these reconsideration actions at EPA. (Slide 5) The next subcategory by EPA on the deregulatory agenda was under “Cost of Living”. That begins with a reconsideration of the vehicle GHG rules, where EPA is going to reconsider the light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicle emission standards for model years 2027 and beyond, as well as reopen the GHG Phase 3 standards and the heavy-duty NOx rule. That's all wrapped up in that first bullet. The second bullet, Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding for regulation of GHGs and related rules, is a pretty big item on this list. Keep in mind that that Endangerment Finding was really the foundational piece that declared that GHGs endanger both public health and the environment, and it was critical for the following regulations of GHGs as air pollution and really the legal foundation for various climate policies, including the vehicle emission standards from EPA at the federal level. I don't know exactly where that one's going, but that is certainly one to highlight here on the list. Third on the list is a reconsideration of technology transition rules. These are refrigeration rules that are not delegated to the state, but that authority is retained by EPA. Then the final one on this slide is a revisiting of the fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). You'll note that there's a different term here for the first time on this list, and that is “revisiting” rather than “reconsideration”. Those in the air quality regulatory community are trying to figure out why a different term is used here, and so I'll share with you some of the insights and the thinkings of those amongst state and local air quality regulators across the U.S. The thought there is that EPA may take a pathway of considering the prior reconsideration of the PM2.5 NAAQS as having been done illegally, in that EPA did not follow the CAA process for reviewing NAAQS, when they moved the annual standard from 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 9.0 µg/m3. Obviously, there's a significant body of work and a record created about what some of the costs and significant benefits are of moving that standard from 12.0 to 9.0, and so the thinking is that the “revisiting” is more of a signal of the angle that EPA is going to take, which is a legal challenge to that standard being moved in the manner that it was. We'll find out for sure. Don't take what I just said to the bank, but I'm just sharing a little bit of insight amongst our colleagues across the U.S. (Slide 6) Next in the “Cost of Living” subcategory is a reconsideration of a number of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). There's a number of sub-bullets here for different source categories. I've highlighted in yellow the ones that impact us here in North Carolina and then put in parentheses at the beginning of the sub-bullet the number of facilities that are subject to those federal regulations. As you can see on this list, we're not significantly impacted in the grand scheme of things, but again, we don't know anything more than what's on this slide with regard to the reconsideration of these NESHAPs. Also continuing under the “Cost of Living” subcategory of the EPA's deregulatory agenda, they've committed to evaluate many other NESHAPs and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and to restructuring of the Regional Haze Program. We've actually been a little bit in the loop and providing some constructive feedback to EPA on that particular item for a number of years now, so we're 14 hopeful that we'll have a seat at the table in whatever that restructuring of that program looks like. Also in the list is the overhauling of the social cost of carbon, redirecting of enforcement resources to revise the National Enforcement Compliance Initiative (NECI) and the termination of federal environmental justice (EJ) programs. (Slide 7) Next on the list under the subcategory of “Cooperative Federalism” was an announcement of ending the Good Neighbor Plan. This is the ozone transport issue, or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), that North Carolina proudly is not subject to, so that is not highlighted in yellow, but certainly a significant item for many other states around us, mainly to our north and northwest. Next on the list is resolving the SIP backlog that exists in each of the EPA regional offices. For North Carolina, that is not a major issue at all, but it is on their list to prioritize. Next was to improve the Exceptional Events Rule to allow prescribed fires. This one was a little bit of a head scratcher for us given that the Exceptional Events Rule already allows the consideration of prescribed fires. I think the thought here is that it would be an action to make it more explicit or clearer or maybe lower the hurdles for demonstrating impacts from prescribed fires. Next on the list is to reconstitute EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In some late breaking news, I just saw an announcement yesterday online where the nominees are posted for those boards and committees. On this list is also an update to coal ash regulation enforcement discretion. Also impacting North Carolina, Hurricane Helene recovery is listed. That was a unique one on the list and very specific and narrow in its scope, and that is the exact topic that we have updated you on for a number of meetings since Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina. Deputy Director Hartsfield will give more specific remarks on that item in just a moment when I finish. Then the final one under “Cooperative Federalism” was a reassessment of 40 CFR, Part 60, Subpart Ba. These are the regulations that apply to the state when we have to develop a state plan, for example, in response to those GHG emission standards for electric generating units. Subpart Ba tells us our timeline for developing that plan with you, and the things that we need to consider in that plan. So that Subpart is on the list to be reassessed. (Slide 8) Okay, so there are a lot of questions here, about how this might all evolve. That centers on the use of the term “reconsider” or “reconsideration” on many of these, “revisit” in some other instances, and “reassess” in other instances. Could this mean a full repeal and replacement following the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA)? Well yes, it absolutely could, and it appears that they're proceeding down that road for both the GHG standards and the MATS rule. Following the APA, obviously, is the most durable pathway for many of these reconsiderations, but it takes time. Could “reconsider” mean that there's some targeted or surgical amendments to certain regulations following the APA? Yes, that's also possible. Could “reconsider” mean that some of these are simply reviewed and then delayed or upheld? That's possible. I also think judicial review is possible under all of these scenarios and items. I think there's going to be many meetings where we're discussing and giving updates on any one of these as time moves on. Again, we’re paying very close attention to those terms when something different than “reconsideration” is used. Alright, so the bottom half of the slide here highlights an action from the White House, where a presidential memo was issued on April 9 directing the repeal of “unlawful regulations” as determined by the Administration under recent high court rulings. The memo urges federal agencies to bypass the APA’s typical notice and comment requirements relying on the APA's “good cause” exception, which allows agencies to promulgate rollback rules if the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment would be impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. However, I will note that on May 2, so about a month after that came out, Aaron Szabo, the nominee for 15 Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, stated that the agency is committed to following the APA and avoiding any procedural errors for all actions. (Slide 9) Okay, I have a little bit more. They also announced the use of a sparsely used provision in the CAA that allows the consideration of some compliance extensions or exemptions. This is under CAA Section 112(i)(4), where facilities were notified of an opportunity to request exceptions in late March. States were not notified directly. We actually found out through news reports that sources we regulate and permit in North Carolina could apply for these exemptions. It is our understanding and EPA staff's understanding that only one group and one source category of exceptions have been acted on thus far, and those were certain facilities subject to the MATS rule. Additionally, on April 8, the White House announced that 47 coal-fired power plants across the U.S. would receive a two-year compliance extension, or essentially an exemption from the rules, for the time period noted there. The important part of this slide is that none of those facilities are in North Carolina. (Slide 10) This is my favorite slide. When 2025 started, we fully anticipated that due to the federal transition, there would be some regulatory whiplash at the federal level. It was very predictable. This has happened before, it has happened now, and it will happen again. I'm hopeful that states have a role to be a partner in this process when EPA reviews, revisits, and reconsiders matters on the list here. Interestingly, there's not been a universal industry response or manufacturing response to a lot of these items on this list. Transitioning off of the regulatory actions and onto other pieces of the federal picture, one thing we did not anticipate when the year began was finding ourselves in a situation of reacting to our federal grant money being frozen or now potentially significantly cut or eliminated. For the DAQ here in North Carolina, 12 percent of our overall budget comes from two recurring CAA grants authorized under the CAA. There's a lot of uncertainty about how much those grant programs are going to produce. We are working with our national media-specific organizations, in air, water, waste, and the Environmental Council of States, to make sure Congress understands that state and locals implement 90 percent of the environmental rules, laws, and programs out there, and federal funding to support our agencies and programs has to keep pace with inflation and the rising cost of meeting their obligations during a period of proposed energy expansion in the U.S. You may have seen the news that some of the proposed cuts to EPA's budget suggested by the White House, which have enacted in federal fiscal year 2026, would significantly impact state and local air agencies, including our two CAA recurring grants. How this goes is going to be uncertain, but I want to raise it here today as a significant potential issue for us moving forward. These state and local air quality management grants fund between 11.5 and 50 percent of the total state and local quality programs in the southeastern U.S. Some of those agencies that are at the higher end of that spectrum are going to have to consider returning some elements of the program implementation back to EPA, including but not limited to ambient monitoring, implementation of some federal regulations, and permitting and compliance activities, if the White House budget is followed by Congress. There is still a long way to go on that, but it will be an interesting month or two of Appropriations Committee meetings in Congress to see how this goes. Communications are key, and those communications are occurring through our Secretary's office to our delegation in North Carolina. That is all I have for you this morning. (Slide 11) The crystal ball is most certainly cloudy, but we'll continue to give you all updates as things impact our division as EPA continues to roll out a number of proposals throughout the remainder of the year. Glad take any questions for you. 16 Chair Carter: Any questions? Alright. Commissioner Smith: I have one question. I know you don't have a crystal ball, notwithstanding the final slide, but on the GHG Endangerment Finding, I just want to confirm I'm remembering this correctly. The Endangerment Finding was litigated, and if I recall correctly, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Endangerment Finding as being consistent with the CAA. We're at the point now where there shouldn't be a legal challenge to the GHG Endangerment Finding, and anything to reconsider that finding would have to be technical and scientific in nature. They would have to actually make findings in opposition to those that supported the GHG Endangerment Finding to begin with. Is that correct? Mike Abraczinskas: I think so. I think it's ultimately a heavy lift for all the reasons you mentioned. I think maybe that the sequence was reversed slightly. I think it was the 2007 Supreme Court decision that established that GHGs are air pollutants, and then the Endangerment Finding followed in 2009, I believe. Regardless, yes, you're correct. Both of those things occurred. Commissioner Smith: Just one other comment. The apparent enthusiasm for toxic air pollutants is notable in the list of things that will be reconsidered, which is unfortunate. There are also some areas, particularly with respect to toxic air pollutants like mercury, where it'll be interesting to see how what happens at the federal level matches up to what we've done at the state level because North Carolina did get out ahead on a number of issues, including mercury. I hope that's where we stay. Mike Abraczinskas: Yes ma'am, and I think by the next time we meet, we'll have a much better analysis of the impacts of at least the two proposals that are already out there today. We're reviewing those currently. For the MATS rule, we were already very well-positioned in North Carolina regardless of that rule. There was very little that needed to occur as a result of that rule to comply, but we're still analyzing all of this, and we can remark on that further at a subsequent meeting. Chair Carter: Well, let me just add, I believe the Director correctly identified that the 2007 decision was on whether or not carbon dioxide was regulable as a pollutant under the CAA. I don't know that the following Endangerment Finding ever got to the Supreme Court, though. I’m not sure about that. Commissioner Smith: No, you're correct. I think the point I was trying to make is that the legal authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA has been established in the Supreme Court. When you get to the Endangerment Finding, that's a technical decision, essentially, that has to be backed up by the science and technology to show that that particular air pollutant in fact endangers public health and welfare. That would require the current EPA to lay out the case for reversing the conclusion of the earlier endangerment. Chair Carter: I'm confident they'd have to go through a full rulemaking process and public hearing if that's where they're going on this. I know that they've indicated they're at least going to revisit it, but we'll see what happens. 17 Agenda Item V-2: Update on Hurricane Helene No Action Assurance (NAA) for Air Curtain Incinerator Title V Permit Requirements (Taylor Hartsfield, DAQ) Due to time constraints, this information item presentation was deferred to the EMC meeting the following day, as already scheduled. Agenda Item V-3: Director’s Remarks (Mike Abraczinskas, DAQ) None. CLOSING REMARKS AND MEETING ADJOURNMENT Chair Carter adjourned the meeting.