FOUR CENTURIES OF FUEL FORAGING IN PENNSYLVANIA

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Joseph Manko

For four centuries Pennsylvania has been at the epicenter of America’s search for growth-sustaining fuel, but not without paying an environmental price.  In the 18th century, Pennsylvania’s (literally “Penn’s Woods”) abundant forests supplied wood to fuel America’s expansive westward development.  In denuding its forests, however, Pennsylvania experienced enhanced erosion and sedimentation and other environmental detriments.

In the 19th century, 1859 specifically, oil was discovered in Oil City. Pennsylvania (and America) turned its attention from wood to oil.  Although primary oil production shifted eventually to the Gulf states, nevertheless, Pennsylvania, as an oil producer, enjoyed the benefits and suffered the environmental detriments created by laissez faire, unregulated drilling and transportation of petroleum.

By the 20th century, coal was king in Pennsylvania.  The residual impacts from coal mining, especially strip mining, remain to this day in the form of scarred landscapes, acid mine drainage and air emissions, albeit the impacts are now monitored amid a focus on environmental enforcement efforts.

In the 21st century coal remains a force in energy production in Pennsylvania, but again nature has put the state in the national discussion over domestic fuel protection as it has become a national leader in developing the natural gas entrapped in the Marcellus Shale underlying large portions of southwest, north central and northeastern Pennsylvania.  Natural gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale has become Pennsylvania’s (and increasingly, America’s) fuel of choice for the 21st century.  Will the environmental legacy be different this time?

In February, 2012, Pennsylvania enacted The Oil and Gas Act Amendments of 2012, known as Act 13, in an attempt to adapt Pennsylvania’s longstanding Oil and Gas Act to issues unique to the technique used to fracture layers of shale and release natural gas, commonly known as “fracking.”  The Amendments raise a number of new legal issues:

1.    By offering shale gas fees to host municipalities who are willing to accept them, the Act preempts accepting municipalities from enacting zoning ordinances to regulate fracking.  A recent Commonwealth Court decision held such preemption unconstitutional.  An appeal by the State is pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Briefs have been filed and oral argument is scheduled for October 17 in Pittsburgh.

2.    Despite mandatory setback distances from wells, required by the Amendments, instances of citizens claiming that or suing because their water supply was contaminated as a result of the recovery of shale gas, either through leakage, spillage, or other events will need to be resolved.

3.    Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has differed with EPA and the Delaware River Basin Commission regarding how much authority these agencies should have to regulate operations associated with Marcellus Shale gas production. 

4.    In a victory for the shale gas industry, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania invalidated a 2009 U.S. Forest Services Agreement with environmental groups that would have required the preparation of a NEPA environmental assessment prior to drilling in U.S. forests. 

5.    Some property owners who have leased their subsurface drilling rights for Marcellus Shale gas recovery have found themselves unable to refinance their mortgages.  Although the property owners argue that their land has become more valuable because of the potential recovery of fees from the Marcellus Shale gas recovery, some banks have refused to refinance claiming that the fracking lowers the value of the property because of the potential of pollution and/or the location of drilling rigs and other heavy equipment on the property, thereby making foreclosure more difficult. 

6.    Pennsylvania’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) is the collector under Act 13 of the “impact fees” from natural gas well operators – which have to date exceeded $200 million and will be distributed in large part to “accepting” host municipalities.  In accordance with Act 13, the PUC has also begun issuing advisory opinions on the legality of local zoning ordinances.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on the Commonwealth Court’s invalidation of the preemption issue could affect how the PUC approaches these matters going forward. 

While the sources of fuel and the techniques for obtaining it have changed much over the centuries in Pennsylvania, fuel production from forests, coal mines, oil rigs and fracking wells share a common legacy, initially attracting often environmentally insensitive wild catters, raising issues of local control versus the need for statewide uniformity, and creating the risk of potentially permanent environmental impacts if state-of-the-art environmental protections are not implemented.  In sum, notwithstanding changes in preferred fuel sources over the past four centuries, the issues, impacts and challenges remain similar; the need to balance energy production and environmental protection, or, as they say – “the more things change, the more they remain the same”.  Rather than be resigned to repeating history, however, the Commonwealth should rise to the challenge and use its acquired knowledge to inform our discussion as to how to utilize its resources, including natural gas, to provide energy solutions going forward.

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!