Who Moved My Cheese?

Posted on August 31, 2016 by Michael Hardy

Spencer Johnson’s classic came to mind when I learned of new plans for the Burger power plant on the Ohio River.  The Burger plant has had a makeover from an electric generating facility to a massive chemical plant feasting on the abundant natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica regions of Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio.

When I returned from active duty, my employer said, you will practice environmental law. Because I was accustomed to taking orders, I said "yes sir". That led me to cooling towers for the Davis Besse and Perry Nuclear plants on Lake Erie. More dramatically, however, it led me to years of dealing with coal-fired generation in Ohio.  Rich with coal and numerous coal-fired plants on Lake Erie and the Ohio River (and other rivers as well), I thought Ohio would supply cheap, coal-fired energy for many people for years.  Unfortunately, I did not predict the obsolescence of coal-fired electric generation or the recent emergence of natural gas as the leading source of fuel for power. I saw clients invest billions of dollars in pollution control equipment only to see the emission reduction goal posts moved beyond reach as regulators adopted progressively more stringent measures to address new national ambient air quality standards, lake breeze fumigation, long range transport, acid rain, regional haze, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gas emissions.

When I started my  practice, virtually all of the Ohio base load units burned coal. And thousands of Ohio miners worked and their families prospered. Barges carried coal down the Ohio River or unit trains took coal to the Lake Erie plants.  I saw Little Egypt take big bites of coal and overburden in southeastern Ohio. I remember when an interstate (77) was closed to let the mammoth excavator proceed to the next seam of coal on the other side.

I have stood on the air pollution control deck of a massive Ohio River power plant that spans a highway. I have wiped the floor with white gloves of a coal fired plant on Lake Erie. I have worked with the dedicated professionals who took pride in maintaining those plants. So it saddens me to read that talented engineers are being laid off from engineering companies in Akron, and major utilities are selling megawatts on the Ohio River.  AEP and First Energy have announced plans to auction generating units.

Some of us remember that our success was measured in jobs retained while reaching a reasonable accommodation with the environment.  I hope my successors have that opportunity .

So with  sadness and regret – but also an appreciation that my career started in 1973, at the beginning of the burgeoning practice of environmental law, when "Coal Was King" and the Burger plant was alive and well – I hope you watch this short video of the demolition of the Burger coal-fired power plant to make way for a natural gas cracker.  Here is the demise of the Burger "tall stack." May Burger rest in peace.  

EPA’s New Coal Combustion Residuals Rule: A 745-Page Deferral With a 12,400-Ton Surprise

Posted on March 16, 2015 by Richard G. Stoll

(Reproduced with permission from Daily Environment Report, den, 03/12/2015. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com)

Another Environmental Protection Agency battle focusing on coal has recently ended—for now at least. While most recent coal warfare has been fought on Clean Air Act fronts, this battle was fought on the fields of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The target is coal combustion residuals (CCR) generated by electric utilities.

The EPA’s CCR rule will soon be published in the Federal Register. It has been a long time coming. The flash point for the rulemaking—the Archduke Ferdinand moment—was the December, 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston, Tennessee incident. TVA’s ash pond dike ruptured and millions of gallons of coal ash and water spilled into the surrounding waters and land.

The Kingston spill received extensive press coverage, and it occurred just a few weeks after President Barack Obama was elected. Obama had nominated Lisa Jackson to be his EPA Administrator, and at her Senate confirmation hearing in January 2009, Jackson committed to take aggressive regulatory action to minimize the chances of similar occurrences in the future.

The EPA first proposed the rule in 2010, and issued three supplemental notices along the way. In 2013, because it was starting to look as though the EPA would take forever to issue a final rule, both industry and public interest groups secured a ‘‘citizens suit’’ federal court order forcing a deadline.

Now that the rule is out, more battles are coming. In light of the intense and polarized advocacy during the rule’s development, both judicial review and attempts to amend RCRA are a virtual certainty. And remarkably, for the most pivotal issue of the battle, the EPA’s new rule simply kicks the can down the road—thus setting up a completely new round of rulemaking unless Congress intervenes...

Click here to continue reading

Energy Generation – A Classic Love-Hate Paradox of Choice and Conflict

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Sheila Slocum Hollis

“Elmer Gantry,” a noir classic novel by Sinclair Lewis and a 1960 film, features a tortured central character with the word “love” tattooed on the knuckles of  one hand and “hate” on the knuckles of the other hand.  The vision of the hands together intertwined as symbols of the dilemma of the conflicted protagonist’s internal battles is evocative of the disconnect between our deep and undeniable thirst for energy and our disdain for the manner by which it is produced and delivered to us.

A History of Options:

Coal fired power plants are coming under heavy fire as the U.S. seeks to significantly reduce air emissions.  Global climate change, health impacts and a series of other negative effects on the ecosystem are cited as bases for accelerated retirements of these generation stations.  No doubt coal mining is a tough and dirty business; yet for two centuries it has provided the backbone of the development of electric power plants and the extraordinary benefits of electric energy.  How to reconcile this history with the current political climate?  How do we transition from coal as a major US fuel source, one that provides domestic supply and multiple benefits in employment, tax base, and economic activity? 

Likewise, hydroelectric generation is enshrined in the transformation of much of the West in the songs of Woody Guthrie, as a magnificent contribution to our development as a nation.  And, the desirability of hydroelectric generation is magnified when the only “issue on the table” is the greenhouse gas impacts of generation.  Yet, the impacts of hydroelectric development have had deleterious effects on fish, landscapes, and water supply.  And, as drought strangles much of the West, there is a struggle over whether to tear down the much admired, in fact almost “loved,” green dams of the New Deal Era.  The question at issue here is which side is good and which is evil, and the answer is “it all depends.”

Another love-hate relationship lies with the nuclear generation fleet.  From the standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions, the nuclear generation fleet is a winner.  Yet to some anti-nuclear interests, the nuclear stations (for the most part, forty years or older) are the devil incarnate, and subject to exorcism.  Yet, these facilities provide nearly 20 per cent of the electric power of the country.  So again, the desire for a clean electric supply and antipathy to the technology clash.  In this case, dealing with the aftermath of closing a nuclear generation station includes the significant and seemingly intractable problem of nuclear waste storage and disposal, leading to more profoundly difficult questions and concerns.

Another emotional “generation war” is centered on the role of natural gas fired generation.  Once again, there are epic clashes over gas.  Gas is ever more obviously abundant and relatively desirable from an environmental standpoint. However, extreme passions have been aroused by gas production-related issues like hydraulic fracturing, new pipeline capacity and fears about safety, and harmful environmental effects from natural gas drilling, production, transportation and distribution.  Despite the fact that natural gas fueled generation has filled approximately a quarter of the nation’s electric generation demand for many years, and is likely to be a major solution to the shift from coal, nuclear and some hydroelectric plants, the heated anti-fracking debate continues.  Thus, the struggle continues between “good,” (by those who see gas as a solution to the need for reliable generation) and “evil” (by those who oppose the drilling, development and delivery impacts of any form of hydrocarbon-related fuel).  Indeed, the politics, sophistication and interest of high profile opponents has elevated the bitter war of words and politics to a new level.

Finally, the role of renewables as a source of generation to replace nuclear, coal and other forms of generation would, superficially, seem to be uncontroversial.  Yet once the specifics of a project become known, opposition to the project grows.  Like politics, all projects are local.  Wind power towers, with associated land use, avian impacts, noise, reliability and transmission-related needs become the object of ire for interests that may not benefit from the projects.  Likewise, solar projects with land use, impact on wildlife water use and other hot-button issues may precipitate other battles.  The beauty of the project is in the eye of the beholder and beneficiary.

            The Paradox Ahead

Overarching all these projects are difficult issues associated with transmission capacity and cost, reliability, taxation, employment and overall local economic dependency.  And uncertainty about the need for new generation makes things worse:  why tolerate potentially disruptive technologies if efficiency increases and other factors means that new generation isn’t needed?  In light of the volatile, complicated, politically charged environment, the struggle for answers and stability will continue.  As long as our society remains conflicted, these issues will continue unabated to be “front page,” and lawyer and politician intensive.  The search for rational solutions to meet the needs of the country for reliable, safe, environmentally acceptable electric generation must continue for the nation to survive and thrive, despite the pain, cost and compromise necessary.  And like the soul of “Elmer Gantry,” we must ultimately cease to be at war with ourselves to survive.  

EPA Notches Another NSR Settlement: Is This The Most Successful Program That Shouldn’t Exist?

Posted on November 30, 2012 by Seth Jaffe

The following post is essentially a sequel to this morning’s post, which was originally intended to be posted in September.

Last week, EPA announced that it had reached yet one more – its 24th – settlement under as a result of its NSR enforcement initiative.  This time, it was Louisiana Generating’s Big Cajun II plant, in New Roads, Louisiana.  By now, the contours are familiar, including a penalty of $14 million and injunctive relief estimated to cost approximately $250 million.  Changes will include:

    - Installation of SNCR (not SCR) on all units to control NOx.
    - Installation of dry sorbent injection as a short term SO2 reduction measure
    - Retirement, refueling, repowering, or retrofitting of Unit 1 in the long-term
    - Refueling of Unit 2 to natural gas
    - Limitations on sulfur content
    - Plant-wide limits on SO2 emissions
    - Installation of electrostatic precipitators to control PM on units 1 and 3

It sure sounds great.  EPA estimates reductions of 20,000 tpy in SO2 emissions and 3,000 tpy in NOx emissions.  Still, I question the value of this settlement in the big picture.  I sense some double-counting here.  EPA is predicting significant reductions in emissions as a result of its industry-wide rules, including the transport rule (last known as CSAPR, but presumably awaiting a new acronym for its replacement) and the air toxics rule.

Add to that the cost pressures on coal resulting from the lower natural gas prices caused by the fracking boom, and it is quite possible that Louisiana Generating would have ended up in the same place even absent a settlement.  Throw in concerns about whether individual units were in fact violating the rather ambiguous NSR provisions or were engaging in what they truly considered routine maintenance, and the obvious economic issues raised by trying to implement command and control regulations on a plant-by-plant basis pursuant to litigation, rather than through nationwide market-based caps, and I say again that, to me, the NSR program is still spinach, and I say, to heck with it.

Transboundary Water Quality Disputes -- What Once Was Old Is New Again

Posted on February 11, 2011 by Allan Gates

There is nothing new about transboundary water quality disputes under the Clean Water Act. Introductory classes on environmental law commonly trace the history of Supreme Court decisions arising from Milwaukee’s battles with Illinois over sewer discharges into Lake Michigan, the challenge Vermonters’ raised against New York paper mill discharges into Lake Champlain, and Oklahoma’s objections to a permit EPA issued to a sewage treatment plant in Arkansas. Given the length of time that the Clean Water Act program has been in place and the large number of instances in which upstream discharges drain into and therefore arguably affect water quality in downstream states, one would expect that most of the relevant legal questions would be well-settled. Recently, however, transboundary water quality disputes have arisen with increasing frequency.


Coal bed methane development in Wyoming has given rise to disputes with Montana over salinity impacts in the Powder and Tongue Rivers. Efforts by the state of Washington to protect dissolved oxygen levels in Spokane Lake have prompted a dispute over Washington’s attempt to impose wasteload allocations that would limit nutrient discharges by upstream sources in Idaho. Oklahoma’s efforts to restore the Illinois River to pristine scenic river conditions have resulted in recurrent and steadily intensifying disputes with agricultural interests on both sides of the border and point sources located predominantly in the headwaters on the Arkansas side. EPA’s imposition of nutrient water quality standards in Florida could have direct effects on discharges originating in Georgia; and the agency’s showcase multi-state TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay has recently precipitated challenges by state and national agricultural interests. In what undoubtedly is the most dramatic transboundary claim under the Clean Water Act, environmental groups have filed a petition with EPA asking the Agency to impose nutrient water quality standards and adopt TMDLs for the main stem of the Mississippi River, all of its tributaries, and certain related coastal waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
 

These recent disputes have recurring themes that arise out of weaknesses or unresolved questions regarding the Clean Water Act program. The statute empowers each state to exercise sovereign independence in adopting water quality standards that apply within the state’s own borders (so long as minimum federal standards are met), but the statute does little to address or even give consideration to the interests of other states that may be directly affected by those standards. Transboundary disputes frequently involve situations in which the regulatory burdens fall disproportionately on interests in one state while the resulting environmental benefits are realized largely or entirely in another state, but the Clean Water Act does nothing to address questions of transboundary fairness. Transboundary disputes frequently involve regulatory decisions that have enormous financial and long term planning consequences, but the decisions are often based upon limited factual data, imperfect scientific analysis, and less than comprehensive computer modeling. The Clean Water Act offers no process for seeking to assure that the quality of the decision making will be commensurate with the gravity of the consequences at stake. Indeed, the program largely makes the magnitude of financial consequences simply irrelevant. Disparities between the magnitude of the consequences and the limited quality of analysis and data supporting the regulatory decision are particularly problematic when the regulatory decision is being made by one jurisdiction that has no political accountability to the other.


It is perhaps no surprise that most of the recent transboundary water quality disputes are arising out of efforts to regulate the discharge of nutrients. Nutrient pollution is the largest unresolved water quality issue nationally; and the adverse effects of excess nutrients frequently occur at locations far downstream from the original source. The fact that most of the current transboundary water quality disputes involve nutrient pollution probably makes the disputes even more difficult than normal to resolve. Nutrient pollution has no simple, universally accepted means of measurement. It is costly and time consuming to establish a clear causal link between a given discharge of nutrients and an observed adverse effect; and many of the most important sources of nutrient pollution are non-point sources which are beyond direct control under the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, this appears to be a recipe for increased frustration and controversy.
Transboundary water quality disputes may not be a new phenomenon, but it does not appear that we are any closer to finding a good way to resolve them.
 

When Do EPA BACT Requirements "Redesign the Source"? Not When EPA Says They Don't

Posted on January 7, 2010 by Seth Jaffe

Shortly before the holidays, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an Order in response to a challenge to a combined Title V / PSD permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant. The Order upheld the challenge, in part, on the ground that neither the permittee nor KDAQ had adequately justified why the BACT analysis for the facility did not include consideration of full-time use of natural gas notwithstanding that the plant is an IGCC facility. 

The Order may not be shocking in today’s environment – all meanings of that word intended – but the lengths to which the Order goes to avoid its own logical consequences shows just what a departure this decision is from established practice concerning BACT. BACT analyses have traditionally involved the proverbial “top-down” look at technologies that can be used to control emissions from a proposed facility. In other words, EPA takes the proposal as a given, and then asks what the best available control technology is for that facility

In EPA’s own words – from its New Source Review Workshop Manual (long the Bible for BACT analysis):

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT requirement as a means to redefine the design of the source when considering available control alternatives. For example, applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

Apt example, don’t you think? (In case you are wondering, EPA’s decision does not discuss or refer to this text from the NSR Manual.)

What was the basis for EPA’s decision here? Largely, it is that the IGCC facility will be designed to burn natural gas as well as syngas and the permittee specifically stated that it planned to combust natural gas during a 6-12 month startup period. On these facts, EPA concluded that the permittee and KDAQ had to do a better job explaining why full-time use of natural gas should be considered “to redefine the design of the source.”

As noted above, EPA went to great lengths to minimize the scope of the decision. It states that the Order:

should in no way be interpreted as EPA expressing a policy preference for construction of natural-gas fired facilities over IGCC facilities.

should not be interpreted to establish or imply an EPA position that PSD permitting authorities should conclude … that BACT for a proposed electricity generating unit is … natural gas.

does not conclude that it is not possible or permissible for the permit applicant … to develop a rationale which shows that firing exclusively with natural gas would “redefine the source.”

EPA does not intend to discourage applicants that propose to construct an IGCC facility from seeking to hedge the risk of investing in … IGCC technology by proposing … utilizing natural gas for some period….

Methinks EPA doth protest too much. If I may say so, this is a freakin’ IGCC facility. Isn’t it obvious that one doesn’t plan or build an IGCC facility if one plans to burn natural gas? Don’t you think that EPA could have taken administrative notice of what IGCC technology is?

All of EPA’s protestations about the Order’s limits may be designed to mollify IGCC supporters, but what does its rationale mean for all of the existing facilities – coal and oil – that are already capable of firing on natural gas? Next time they are subject to NSR/PSD review, must they evaluate the possibility of switching completely to natural gas? As I’ve said here before, yikes!

When Do EPA BACT Requirements "Redesign the Source"? Not When EPA Says They Don't

Posted on January 7, 2010 by Seth Jaffe

Shortly before the holidays, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an Order in response to a challenge to a combined Title V / PSD permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant. The Order upheld the challenge, in part, on the ground that neither the permittee nor KDAQ had adequately justified why the BACT analysis for the facility did not include consideration of full-time use of natural gas notwithstanding that the plant is an IGCC facility. 

The Order may not be shocking in today’s environment – all meanings of that word intended – but the lengths to which the Order goes to avoid its own logical consequences shows just what a departure this decision is from established practice concerning BACT. BACT analyses have traditionally involved the proverbial “top-down” look at technologies that can be used to control emissions from a proposed facility. In other words, EPA takes the proposal as a given, and then asks what the best available control technology is for that facility

In EPA’s own words – from its New Source Review Workshop Manual (long the Bible for BACT analysis):

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT requirement as a means to redefine the design of the source when considering available control alternatives. For example, applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

Apt example, don’t you think? (In case you are wondering, EPA’s decision does not discuss or refer to this text from the NSR Manual.)

What was the basis for EPA’s decision here? Largely, it is that the IGCC facility will be designed to burn natural gas as well as syngas and the permittee specifically stated that it planned to combust natural gas during a 6-12 month startup period. On these facts, EPA concluded that the permittee and KDAQ had to do a better job explaining why full-time use of natural gas should be considered “to redefine the design of the source.”

As noted above, EPA went to great lengths to minimize the scope of the decision. It states that the Order:

should in no way be interpreted as EPA expressing a policy preference for construction of natural-gas fired facilities over IGCC facilities.

should not be interpreted to establish or imply an EPA position that PSD permitting authorities should conclude … that BACT for a proposed electricity generating unit is … natural gas.

does not conclude that it is not possible or permissible for the permit applicant … to develop a rationale which shows that firing exclusively with natural gas would “redefine the source.”

EPA does not intend to discourage applicants that propose to construct an IGCC facility from seeking to hedge the risk of investing in … IGCC technology by proposing … utilizing natural gas for some period….

Methinks EPA doth protest too much. If I may say so, this is a freakin’ IGCC facility. Isn’t it obvious that one doesn’t plan or build an IGCC facility if one plans to burn natural gas? Don’t you think that EPA could have taken administrative notice of what IGCC technology is?

All of EPA’s protestations about the Order’s limits may be designed to mollify IGCC supporters, but what does its rationale mean for all of the existing facilities – coal and oil – that are already capable of firing on natural gas? Next time they are subject to NSR/PSD review, must they evaluate the possibility of switching completely to natural gas? As I’ve said here before, yikes!

Kentucky Action on PM 2.5

Posted on November 19, 2009 by Carolyn Brown

As has been reported, EPA granted in part petitions to object to the merged PSD construction/Title V operating permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality for the addition of a 750 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler at the Trimble County facility owned by Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E). EPA’s action occurred more than three years after the proposed permit and final PSD determination authorizing construction to commence. One ground for the grant of the petition was that the state permitting record did not contain adequate justification of use of the PM10 program as a surrogate for PM2.5 for PSD analysis.

 

Following submittal of additional information by LG&E, Kentucky issued its preliminary determination that many have argued was an attempt to regulate by Title V objection rather than by rulemaking.   Regardless, the Division for Air Quality determined that use of the PM10 Surrogate Policy has been shown to be reasonable for the Trimble County project. In short, DAQ concurred with LG&E that there was a lack of test data regarding the particle size distribution of the particulate matter for the combination of controls on the unit and noted that the control train was state of the art. DAQ also noted that PM2.5 is always a subset of PM10 and that PM10 BACT analyses implicitly include consideration of reductions of PM2.5 emissions. After considering the elements of the control train, DAQ concluded that there were “no known base technologies available” for a PC Boiler that would provide additional reduction of PM2.5

 

LG&E also addressed fugitive emission sources, the emergency generator and cooling tower in its submittal to demonstrate that use of PM10 as a surrogate was reasonable. Although a Class II Cumulative PM2.5 NAAQS analysis was not conducted, LG&E provided information from modeling exercises to further support its position that it was reasonable to rely on the PM10 surrogate policy. DAQ noted that in the absence of a final rule on significant impact levels for PM2.5, a PM2.5 emissions inventory and regulatory dispersion modeling system, it was not possible to conduct a cumulative PM2.5 NAAQS analysis. 

Kentucky Action on PM 2.5

Posted on November 19, 2009 by Carolyn Brown

As has been reported, EPA granted in part petitions to object to the merged PSD construction/Title V operating permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality for the addition of a 750 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler at the Trimble County facility owned by Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E). EPA’s action occurred more than three years after the proposed permit and final PSD determination authorizing construction to commence. One ground for the grant of the petition was that the state permitting record did not contain adequate justification of use of the PM10 program as a surrogate for PM2.5 for PSD analysis.

 

Following submittal of additional information by LG&E, Kentucky issued its preliminary determination that many have argued was an attempt to regulate by Title V objection rather than by rulemaking.   Regardless, the Division for Air Quality determined that use of the PM10 Surrogate Policy has been shown to be reasonable for the Trimble County project. In short, DAQ concurred with LG&E that there was a lack of test data regarding the particle size distribution of the particulate matter for the combination of controls on the unit and noted that the control train was state of the art. DAQ also noted that PM2.5 is always a subset of PM10 and that PM10 BACT analyses implicitly include consideration of reductions of PM2.5 emissions. After considering the elements of the control train, DAQ concluded that there were “no known base technologies available” for a PC Boiler that would provide additional reduction of PM2.5

 

LG&E also addressed fugitive emission sources, the emergency generator and cooling tower in its submittal to demonstrate that use of PM10 as a surrogate was reasonable. Although a Class II Cumulative PM2.5 NAAQS analysis was not conducted, LG&E provided information from modeling exercises to further support its position that it was reasonable to rely on the PM10 surrogate policy. DAQ noted that in the absence of a final rule on significant impact levels for PM2.5, a PM2.5 emissions inventory and regulatory dispersion modeling system, it was not possible to conduct a cumulative PM2.5 NAAQS analysis.