Ohio Environmental Law Blog : Ohio Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Joseph Koncelik : Frantz Ward Law Firm : Environmental Regulation, Land Use, Compliance : Cleveland, Ohio

On February 18th another permit, Northern Michigan University Ripley Heating Plant, for a new coal facility was remanded by U.S. EPA's Environmental Board of Review.  The Board remanded the permit because the State (the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), in issuing the permit, failed to address whether CO2 was a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  The most interesting aspect of the decision is that the Board apparently gave absolutely no weight to former EPA Administrator Johnson's Memo which said CO2 was not a "regulated pollutant" and therefore new permits need not consider BACT controls for CO2.  Here is what the Board said on the issue:

For the reasons set forth in that decision (Deseret Power), we similarly remand the CO issue here, directing MDEQ, guided by our findings in Deseret, to undertake the same consideration whether the CAA’s “pollutant subject to regulation” language requires application of a BACT limit to CO emissions.

The Board does not elaborate or even address the Johnson memo.  Therefore, it is impossible to know whether new EPA Administrator Jackson's grant of the Sierra Club's petition for reconsideration rendered the Johnson Memo meaningless.  That seems like a difficult legal conclusion to reach given the fact Jackson's action specifically did not block the effectiveness of the Johnson memo while it was undergoing review.

The permit had authorized Northern Michigan University (NMU) to construct a new circulating fluidized bed (“CFB”) boiler at the Ripley Heating Plant on its campus in Marquette, Michigan. As permitted, the CFB boiler will function as a cogeneration unit that provides both electrical power and heat to NMU’s facilities through the burning of wood, coal, and natural gas

Another interesting aspect of the decision was the Board also remanded the BACT analysis for the SO2 limit.  The permit called for a mix of fuels- mainly wood and coal.  The Board found there was not enough information provided to justify the limited amount of wood which would lower SO2 emissions.  The Board also questioned the fuel choice relative to coal.  It said the MDEQ needed to provide more information as to why lower sulfur coal was not required to lower SO2 emissions.

The BACT requirements for fuel choice are interesting.  For instance, once (not if) CO2 is regulated would BACT require a coal and biomass mix which can lower emissions of CO2?  This could be very good news for biomass producers who blend biomass with coal to form briquettes or pellets. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

May you live in interesting times....Yesterday EPA Administrator Jackson issued a letter granting the Sierra Club's petition for reconsideration of a Deseret Power memo issued by former EPA Administrator Johnson.  The Petition seeks reconsideration of the Johnson memo which interpreted EPA regulations defining the pollutants covered by federal permitting under the Clean Air Act.  The Johnson memo said that CO2 was not a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for purposes of permitting. 

The memo was issued following the decision by the EPA's Environmental Board of Review in the Deseret Power case concluding the CAA was ambiguous and that EPA had discretion to determine whether CO2 was a pollutant subject to regulation.  Johnson, in one of his last acts before leaving office, tried to fill the void by issuing an interpretive memo determining CO2 was not a regulated pollutant.

There was tremendous pressure on new EPA Administrator Jackson to revoke, stay or invalidate the memo.  Such action would have effectively put on hold about a 100 pending permits for coal fired power plants.  In a prior post, I predicted that despite the pressure Jackson would take a more deliberate approach.  She has done exactly that by not issuing a stay and announcing EPA will embark on a formal rulemaking process.  (even I get one right now and then)

While Jackson has chosen to address the issue slowly, she did include language in her letter that cast a great deal of uncertainty regarding pending permits:

In the meantime, the Agency emphasizes a point noted in the memorandum itself: the memorandum does not bind States issuing permits under their own State Implementation Plans.  In addition, given the Agency's decision to grant reconsideration of the memorandum, other PSD permitting authorities should not assume that the memorandum is the final word on the appropriate interpretation of Clean Air Act requirements.

While this statement casts some uncertainty, the Johnson memo is still legally effective.  Unlike others in the blogosphere predicting stoppage of all permitting for new coal plants,  I believe permits will still move forward in State's willing to issue them. 

Yesterday, EPA Administrator Jackson also issued a statement regarding her decision to grant reconsideration:

“I am granting this petition because we must learn more about how this memo affects all relevant stakeholders impacted by its provisions,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson “This will be a fair, impartial and open process that will allow the American public and key stakeholders to review this memorandum and to comment on its potential effects on communities across the country. EPA’s fundamental mission is to protect human health and the environment and we intend to do just that.”

My take on the statement is: a) EPA intends to move through a slow rulemaking process; and b) once EPA completes the rulemaking process you can pretty much count on the fact CO2 emissions will be regulated. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In remarks titled "from peril to progress", the President set forth bold action yesterday that will inevitably lead to full regulation of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions.  The President ordered a "vigorous review" of California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions which had been previously denied by the Bush Administration. [President Obama's memo ordering a review of the California Waiver]   While much of the media focus has been on the effect of the other aspects of the President's actions, such as raising mileage standards, in reality the California waiver request has far more reaching repercussions. 

California has been seeking EPA’s approval to waive federal preemption of state vehicle emission standards for several years.  California wants to enforce a state law that would require automakers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles by 30 percent by 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, U.S. EPA must concur that California has demonstrated a need reduce greenhouse gases in order  “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 7543(b)(1)(B). Former EPA Administrator Johnson denied California's "waiver" request last year.

The signs that President Obama would proceed in a radically different direction than the Bush Administration on controlling greenhouse gases have been building for some time. First, he mentioned climate change in his speech in Chicago the night he won the election.  Second, he appointed members to the cabinet and senior staff positions that are strong believers in aggressively tackling climate change.  Third, he made mention of climate change in his 20 minute inaugural speech clearly indicating it will be a major priority of his Administration. 

Yesterday, the President took bold action only a week into his Presidency with his issuance of an order to review the denial of the California waiver request.  After announcing his action, President Obama made a speech that contains a clear message- it the President's intention for the United States to lead on addressing climate change no matter how difficult the task may be.  His speech included some pretty bold statements.  Here is an excerpt from his speech: 

Third, the federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to forge 21st century standards, and over a dozen states have followed its lead. But instead of serving as a partner, Washington stood in their way. This refusal to lead risks the creation of a confusing and patchwork set of standards that hurts the environment and the auto industry.

The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts, we will be guided by them. We cannot afford to pass the buck or push the burden onto the states. And that's why I'm directing the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately review the denial of the California waiver request and determine the best way forward. This will help us create incentives to develop new energy that will make us less dependent on oil that endangers our security, our economy, and our planet....

Finally, we will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead. To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition. I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world. That's how we will deny leverage to dictators and dollars to terrorists. And that's how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.

It's time for America to lead, because this moment of peril must be turned into one of progress. If we take action, we can create new industries and revive old ones; we can open new factories and power new farms; we can lower costs and revive our economy. We can do that, and we must do that. There's much work to be done. There is much further for us to go.

But I want to be clear from the beginning of this administration that we have made our choice. America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet. We will not be put off from action because action is hard. Now is the time to make the tough choices. Now is the time to meet the challenge at this crossroad of history by choosing a future that is safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable.
 

California's waiver will almost certainly be granted.  Such action will tip the regulatory dominoes leading to full blow regulation of greenhouse gases from more than just tailpipes in California. As discussed on this blog before, the Supreme Court has already determined CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  Since the Court's decision the debate has centered on whether CO2 is a "regulated pollutant."  Once it is considered "regulated", then numerous provisions in the Act will be deemed to apply to control CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  

One way to make CO2 a regulated pollutant is for EPA to issue new regulations requiring control.  EPA started down that road slowly with the issuance of its Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking for regulation of greenhouse gases this summer.  However, environmental groups argued new regulations were not needed.  They argued the act already "regulates" CO2.  Specifically, the Clean Act includes monitoring requirements for CO2 from coal plants.

In waning months of the Bush Administration, the Environmental Board of Review issued a major decision in Deseret Power, finding that EPA had discretion to decide whether monitoring was enough to constitute regulation.  In the final days of his tenure, former Administrator Johnson issued an interpretative memo responding to the Deseret Power decision declaring monitoring was not enough. 

Since issuance of the memo, environmental groups have legally challenged the Johnson memo and pressured the Obama Administration to retract it.  However, granting California's waiver request would likely render the memo meaningless.  A grant of the waiver would not by itself be considered regulation of CO2, thereby providing the trigger for regulation of CO2 under other provision of the Clean Air Act.   And with that the dominoes will begin to fall...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With recent developments in climate change litigation, including the Deseret Power decision, it appears we are moving ever closer to requiring control of CO2 from coal fired power plants and other major sources of CO2.   Outgoing EPA Administrator Johnson may have delayed things temporarily by issuing his memo in response to Deseret Power. However, incoming EPA Administrator Jackson has pledged to quickly review the California waiver request that would allow the State to set CO2 emission standards for cars. If that happens, the dominoes will soon fall requiring controls for CO2 for all major sources under the Clean Air Act.

A positive "endangerment finding" in response to the California Waiver request will trigger a host of other regulations. Those would include requiring emission controls from new major sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases under EPA's New Source Review permit program. 

If new or modified sources are required to control CO2, then as part of their permit they will be required to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce CO2 emissions if located in an area that meets federal air quality standards.  More stringent limits (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate- LAER) apply in areas that don't meet air quality standards. 

The focus of all the recent litigation has been on whether to require CO2 controls as part of a BACT permit review.  But that begs a very interesting question....What would BACT be for CO2?

I was asked this very question during a recent interview I had with a reporter from Inside EPA.  That sent me to research the issue.   My review shows to things:  1) there is a wide divergence of opinion among experts as to what BACT would likely be;  and 2) EPA has a fair amount of discretion to determine the BACT standard for CO2.  Once it is decided that BACT must be required to control CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), Industry insiders expect EPA would take at a minimum 6 months to decide the issue.

Reading the tea leaves, I think we can begin to decipher an answer as to what BACT may constitute.  We certainly can eliminates some suggestion offered by pundits based upon how EPA has applied the BACT standard in the past.  Here is what we know....

1. There are no current EPA endorsed technologies for controlling CO2.  EPA's current RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse doesn't have anything on CO2.  The clearinghouse is used to identify various control technologies that would be deemed to meet the various standards on specific industries or technologies. 
2. BACT is a site-specific, case-by-case decision which means uncertainty.  In testimony  House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, attorneys Peter Glaser and John Cline stated the following: "Since BACT determinations for CO2 have no regulatory history at this time, and can vary by type of facility and from state-to-state, businesses wishing to construct new sources or modify existing ones would have no basis for planning what the regulatory requirements will be."
3. Case law and regulatory decisions of EPA establish parameters for the BACT analysis.  As detailed below, case law in the context of BACT for coal plants can be extrapolated to CO2.  The same general guidelines used to evaluate controls for other pollutants (SO2, CO, mercury, NOx) will be used for CO2. 

Now lets turn to a review of experts who have offered their opinion as to which technologies should be considered BACT for CO2.  Here is one guess from the blog Cleanergy.org:

BACT for CO2 is unlikely to mean carbon capture and storage (yet), since it's not readily available, but it will probably mean some combination of co-generation (making use of waste heat from electricity generation), efficiency improvements, and/or fuel switching/co-firing with biomass. Ultimately, President-elect Obama's EPA gets to decide how BACT is defined for CO2, a process which will take at least a year. 

Joseph Romm, author of the blog Climate Progress, offered his opinion of what BACT for CO2 may look like.

Certainly it is going to slow down the permitting of any new coal plant dramatically, until the EPA figures out the answer to the $64 billion question: What is BACT for CO2 for a coal plant? That will probably take the Obama EPA at least 12 months to decide in a rule-making process. But from my perspective it could/should/must include one or more of:

a) Co-firing with biomass — up to 25% cofiring has been demonstrated
b) Highest efficiency plants
c) Cogeneration (i.e. recycled energy)
d) (possibly even) Gasification with, yes, carbon capture and storage (CCS)

Here are some other opinions as to possible technologies that would qualify as BACT for coal-fired power plants:

1. Solar Thermal at a Coal Power Plant- mix the steam from solar thermal with steam from the boiler to reduce emissions. 
2. Highly Efficient Boilers-  Jeff Holmstead, former Chief Air Official for U.S. EPA, has said he  BACT would be for CO2 right now given costs and development of other control technology.

But let's look at the legal guidance associated with BACT.  In doing so, some of the technologies suggested seem "not ready for prime time" or would not be considered a control technology but rather a different type of generation. 

BACT is determined through a case-by-case evaluation of control technology alternatives and involves a complicated weighing of economic, environmental, energy and other factors. BACT can even be no control measure if that weighing process fails to identify a technically and economically feasible technology for controlling the pollutant in question.

A detailed discussion of the permitting process and legal aspects of a BACT analysis is provided below.  The single biggest consideration is that BACT takes the project as proposed and establishes the lowest achievable emission rate for the various pollutants.

This means BACT cannot fundamentally change the design of the proposed project.  This is why EPA has rejected establishing IGCC as BACT.  If the permit applicant is proposing a traditional pulverized coal boiler, then limits must be established based upon what is achievable for that type of boiler.

This eliminates many of the control technologies suggested by pundits:

1. IGCC- would force a redesign and would be rejected
2. Solar Thermal Combined with a Coal Boiler- would be rejected as forcing a redesign
3. Carbon Capture and Storage- This one is interesting.  Under BACT you must take the geographical location of the project into consideration.  If the geologic considerations would make CCS infeasible for the project it could not be required.  In addition, CCS is certainly not ready for prime time and could not be required as part of BACT for any site right now.

Some other technologies are more likely to be considered BACT:

1. High Efficiency Boilers- this would likely be required to reduce emissions
2. Co-firing with biomass-  depending on the project, this could be required.  Co-firing reduces CO2 emissions.  BACT does involve consideration of "clean fuels", however co-firing biomass would likely be rejected if it caused a major redesign of the facility.
3. Coal Drying- By removing moisture from the coal you can reduce CO2 emissions.  Similar to co-firing biomass this could be required if it doesn't force a major redesign of the project.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 15, 2009 the Sierra Club filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA Administrator Johnson's memo in response to Deseret Power.  The petition seeks the Court to throw out the Johnson memo.  The memo would allow current permits to proceed without considering controls for CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

If the memo is revoked or thrown out it would clear the way for the soon-to-be Administrator Jackson to issue her own interpretation.  But would she likely take such an action?  I doubt it.

The petition filed in the Court is procedural in nature and does not contain any insight into the Sierra Club's arguments.  However, you can review the petition the Sierra Club filed with EPA Administrator Johnson first which contains twenty pages of argument as to why the memo is illegal.  The group summarizes their attack on the memo in the following fashion:

As discussed below, this final agency action was impermissible as a matter of
law, because it was issued in violation of the procedural requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and the Clean Air Act
(“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607, it directly conflicts with prior agency actions and
interpretations, and it purports to establish an interpretation of the Act that conflicts with  the plain language of the statute.

Many environmental groups are expecting that the future EPA Administrator will simply revoke the memo.  In the alternative, if their legal challenge is successful they expect future Administrator Jackson to issue her own interpretation which says CO2 is a regulated pollutant. 

I think they may be disappointed.  If such a memo were issued it would trigger an array of Clean Air Act regulations of CO2 emissions.  Many of these regulations are ill-suited for controlling CO2.  I would expect the future Administrator will get strong advice from her staff at EPA to proceed with caution in adopting new interpretations that could result in instantaneous regulation.  At a minimum, I believe they will advise that EPA construct a regulatory scheme in a deliberate fashion through a formal rulemaking process which could take at least a year. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(Image: CO2 Emissions in the U.S.)

Perhaps its obvious that the window of opportunity to obtain an air permit without CO2 controls is closing quickly.   Don't delude yourself that controls will wait for Congressional action on climate change.

The battle over requiring CO2 controls without additional rulemaking or legislation is being waged right now. The saga is being played out in the aftermath of the Deseret Power decision and the ensuing memo issued by EPA Administrator Johnson.  Here is a quick synopsis of what has transpired to date:

1. Deseret Power rejected EPA's basis for approving permits without CO2 controls.  However, the Environmental Review Board left the window open.  It said EPA could come out with a new position on the issue as to whether CO2 is a "regulated permit."
2. EPA Administrator Johnson quickly took advantage of the opening issuing a new interpretative memo saying the Clean Air Act's requirement to monitor CO2 was not tantamount to regulation of CO2.  Therefore, new permits did not need to include controls for CO2. 
3. In the latest round of the Deseret saga, the Sierra Club has filed a petition challenging the legality of the Johnson memo.  Citing Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, the group argues EPA's memo amounts to a new substantive rulemaking that must go through the notice and comment process.  If EPA denies the petition, the Sierra Club can appeal directly to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The hope is that if the memo is declared illegal an Obama Administration would issue a much different memo- one saying controls for CO2 are required.

To me the saga over the Deseret Power decision is a simply good theater.  The fact is CO2 will be a regulated pollutant and soon.  In my mind, if you are seeking an air permit for a source with significant CO2 emissions you may have less than a year or so to get your permit before the whole playing field changes.   We should look to clues from President-elect Obama's pick to head the EPA as to what may happen in the near future.

President-elect Obama named Lisa Jackson to head U.S. EPA.  Ms. Jackson was the former Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  According to some national news organization she brings a mixed record.  U.S. News and World Report stated the following:

She is credited with helping put New Jersey in a leadership role on the issue of climate change and with encouraging the state to adopt a moratorium on building new coal plants. Yet she also has made choices that have been applauded by industry, including an effort earlier this year to use private companies to clean up thousands of contaminated sites around the state.

In recent days, when Jackson's name emerged as Obama's likely pick, some of these issues resurfaced. A few New Jersey-based environmental groups have put out press releases criticizing Jackson's record, and their comments have gotten national attention. But many observers say the criticism is overblown and that Jackson, though having at times taken stands the groups didn't fully agree with, has largely been an ally.
 

Jackson's background shows EPA is likely to take some form of quick action on CO2 shortly after January 20th with Obama is sworn into office.  New Jersey participates in RGGI which is the cap and trade program for CO2 emissions from power plants in the Northeast.  Is no surprise Jackson and the rest of the Obama team strongly supports a national greenhouse gas cap and trade program.  However, such legislation is likely a year away at a minimum. 

What may happen in the interim?  There are several issues pending before U.S. EPA that could result in regulation of CO2 in the near term.  

1. The "endangerment finding" on CO2- EPA still needs to take action in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.  This is the case regarding California's request for a waiver to set standards for CO2 from vehicles.  While the Court said CO2 is a pollutant, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act vehicle emission of greenhouse gases are not regulated until the EPA determines CO2 from cars would "endanger  public health and welfare."
2. Deseret Power interpretive memo-   An Obama Administration could also try and retract the memo issued by EPA Administrator Johnson in response to Deseret Power. 
3. Comprehensive Rulemaking on GHG Regulation-  EPA has issued its Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking seeking comments as to whether to comprehensively regulate CO2 and other GHGs under the Clean Air Act.  An Obama Administration could accelerate action on this rulemaking effort. 

One of these three course of action will happen.  The question is just how soon.  New Jersey declared CO2 an air contaminant back in 2005.  In order to make such a declaration, New Jersey had to go through a formal rulemaking process declaring CO2 "injurious to human health and welfare."  Take a look at the conclusions in the NJ rulemaking, don't they appear to be exactly what would be need for an endangerment finding?

This interpretation (declaring CO2 an air contaminant)  is consistent with the statutory definition of air pollution at N.J.S.A. 26:2C-2 and the Department’s regulatory definition of “air pollution” at N.J.A.C. 7:27-5.1, which states that “’air pollution’ means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as are, or tend to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life or property, or would unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property throughout the State ….”

The exclusion of CO2 as an air contaminant is no longer valid, given the intent of the Department’s definition of air contaminant throughout N.J.A.C. 7:27 and the definition of air pollution at N.J.A.C. 7:27-5.1, because scientific evidence has evolved to the point that adverse environmental and human health impacts due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are now clear.

Also, New Jersey passed the New Jersey Global Warming Response Act which committed the state to returning global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 and cutting global warming pollution levels by 80 percent by 2050.  New Jersey is only one of three states to make greenhouse gas reductions state law. 

The pressure on Jackson to take action to block new coal plants and regulate CO2 will be enormous.  She will have a hard time defending a slow and deliberate pace when her State has already taken significant action, including a State-like "endangerment finding."  This means some type of action to regulate CO2 will likely come in the first year of the Obama Administration.  As a result, the window of opportunity to avoid CO2 controls in a permit is closing quickly.   

The most likely course of action could be peeling the endangerment finding away from the ANPR and proceeding with a finding CO2 does endanger public health.  The other option that could have a quick and dramatic impact would be to retract the Johnson memo responding to Deseret Power.  A Jackson EPA could declare the memo was issued illegally and issue a new interpretive memo. 

(Image:  flickr Tom Raftery)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Senator Barbara Boxer sent a letter to the Department of Justice demanding withdraw of what she calls a "blatantly illegal memo" issued by EPA Administrator Steve Johnson in response to the Deseret Power decision. The memo says that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases-GHGs) are not yet regulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  As a result, federal air permits will not require installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce GHG emissions.  Here letter states:

Administrator Johnson issued the document without legal authority under the Clean Air Act, and in spite of the clear opinion of the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board in In re: Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal No. 07-03 (EAB November 13, 2008). Johnson’s guidance also flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).

The Johnson document presents as arguments against including carbon dioxide emissions in a Clean Air Act permit the same kind of transparent excuses for inaction on global warming pollution that both the Supreme Court and the Environmental Appeals Board flatly rejected in their respective opinions. In addition, the EPA’s issuance of the Johnson document completely disregards the public’s right to participate in EPA decision making.

Senator Boxer goes too far in calling the memo "blatantly illegal."  In fact, the Environmental Appeals Board recommended that the EPA issue an interpretative memo to decide whether CO2 is considered a regulated pollutant. 

What I take away from the fact the letter was sent is how different things will begin to look come January 20th.  President-Elect Obama has already nominated members of the Cabinet that will have a 180 degree different view point of tackling Climate Change than the Bush Administration.  Most people know action will be taken, but I still don't think people fully grasp the magnitude of the change to move toward a low carbon economy.

My other observation is that many on the Internet who have been commenting on the events surrounding the Desert Power case don't fully grasp the implications of regulating CO2 under the current structure of the Clean Air Act.  (See Joe Romm's Post on his blog Climate Progress).  I have discussed this implications in prior posts.  There is a right way to do things and rushing to regulate CO2 without the proper regulatory framework would be a disaster.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When the Environmental Review Board (EAB) issued its decision in Deseret Power, the Sierra Club and many others across the Internet declared victory claiming the decision would block permits for new coal fired power plants for the immediate future.  Looks like they may have been premature...  

The EPA issued a significant interpretive memorandum in response to the Deseret Power case which states CO2 is not a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act.   While more litigation will ensue, the permitting process can move forward on pending permits for new coal plants.

Background on Deseret Power

At issue in Deseret Power was whether controls were required (BACT) for CO2 for new coal-fired power plants.  Under the Clean Air Act, controls are required for CO2 if it is a "regulated pollutant." The Sierra Club pointed to provisions requiring monitoring of CO2, arguing those provisions were sufficient to be deemed "regulation."  EPA said monitoring requirements were insufficient and that past interpretations dictated a conclusion that monitoring was not enough to qualify as regulation.

As indicated in my post on the decision, the EAB in essence punted on the issue.  They rejected the Sierra Club's argument that the plain text of the Clean Air Act required regulation.  They also rejected the EPA analysis that past interpretations required it to conclude monitoring was not enough to trigger the need for controls.  However, the EAB said EPA has discretion to decide whether monitoring is enough to trigger the need to control through a new binding interpretation of what is sufficient to be considered a "regulated pollutant."

EPA Fills the Vacuum Left By the EAB

Here is Administrator Johnson's review of the EAB order, recognizing the discretion his agency retains:

The Board agreed with the Region and OAR that the statutory phrase "subject to regulation under this Act" is ambiguous. However, as discussed above, the Board also concluded that the Region's reason for not including a BACT limit for C02 in the permit - that it was bound by a historic interpretation of the phrase "subject to regulation" - was not supported by the administrative record for the permit. Id. Thus, the Board remanded the permit to the Region to "reconsider whether or not to impose a C02 BACT limit in light of the Agency's discretion to interpret, consistent with the CAA, what constitutes a 'pollutant subject to regulation under this Act."' The EAB also encouraged EPA offices to consider whether to undertake an action of nationwide scope to address the interpretation of the phrase "subject to regulation under the Act."

After citing to EPA's discretion, EPA concludes monitoring is insufficient to trigger controls for CO2:

EPA interprets the definition of "regulated NSR pollutant" in 40 C.F.R. 8
52.21(b)(50) to exclude pollutants for which EPA regulations only require monitoring or reporting but to include each pollutant subject to either a provision in the Clean Air Act or regulation promulgated by EPA under the Clean Air Act that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.  This interpretation is supported by the language and structure of the regulation and sound policy considerations.

EPA supports its interpretation by looking at the dictionary definitions of the words "subject to regulation."  However, this justification is pretty close to the one put forward to the EAB in the appeal which the EAB rejected.   EPA further supports this interpretation by arguing it amounts to sound public policy:

Furthermore, an interpretation that preserves the Agency's ability to gather information to inform the Administrator's judgment regarding the need to establish controls on emissions without automatically triggering such controls in no way limits the Agency's authority to require controls on emissions of a particular pollutant when the Administrator determines they are warranted. This
interpretation preserves the Administrator's authority to require control of individual pollutants through emissions limitations or other restrictions under various provisions of the Act, which would then trigger the requirements of the PSD program for any pollutant addressed in such an action.

EPA also attempts to create a better record in support of its interpretative ruling by citing to a series of previous permitting decisions that are consistent with this approach.  The permits arguably "demonstrate that EPA has not in practice issued PSD permits establishing emissions limitations for pollutants that are subject to only monitoring and reporting requirements."

Observations

1. More Litigation to Follow:  This interpretative memo will be challenged.  EPA certainly builds support for its interpretation, most notably by citing to a series of prior permit decisions that are in harmony with its interpretation. However, it is principally relying on a similar textual interpretation of the phrasing of the Clean Air Act that had, in part, been rejected by the EAB in Deseret.
2. EPA Rushed to Issue the Memo Before the Change in Administration:  The EAB recognized EPA had discretion to go either way in deciding to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.  The Bush Administration did not want to allow this decision to be made by the next Administration, so it issued the memo without allowing for public comment which would have delayed finalization of the memo.  Administrator Johnson justifies cutting out public comment by citing to the need to keep the permitting process moving forward because a large number of permits put in limbo following Deseret. 
3. The Bush Administration's action ties the Obama Administration hand for the short term:  Administrator Johnson's memo cites to a series of cases that "recognized that an Agency has the flexibility to establish an initial interpretation of a regulation without engaging in a notice and comment process."  This memorandum is meant to be that "initial interpretation", which means the Obama Administration could not change it without going through a formal rulemaking process with a public comment period.  In the short term, this action keeps the permit processing moving forward for nearly 100 pending permits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

It didn't take long for the Deseret Power Decision to come back to Ohio.  The debate is over whether a permit for the proposed coal to liquid fuel plant proposed by Baard Energy and AMP Ohio's new coal power plant can move forward in light of the decision.  Here is a sampling of the debate over the Baard project as it appears in the local paper The Vindicator:

The statements came as the state EPA is on the brink of issuing an air permit for the proposed $5.5 billion Baard Energy plant that would turn coal into liquid fuel. Settles said a decision is expected to be made within the next two weeks.

The air permit would be the final permit needed to begin construction that would be a boost to the local economy. Permits regulating the plant’s effects on water and wetlands have already been approved.

In a statement, the Sierra Club said it went before the EPA Appeals Board in May of this year to request that the air permit for Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s proposed waste coal-fired power plant in Utah be overturned because it failed to require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution.

The Sierra Club’s statement said the decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.
 

AMP Ohio's permit is facing an equal challenge.  In today'sDaily Sentinel, AMP Ohio was a bit cautious in its statements:

Carson (AMP Ohio) also pointed out, the decision was not in Ohio, which has a fully approved state permitting program, and that AMP-Ohio has worked for over a year in cooperation with Ohio EPA in meeting all requirements of Ohio law in regards to getting the plant online. Carson also pointed out the permit for the Utah plant was not denied but sent back to a regional office for reevaluation.

In a press release, the Sierra Club stated: “Two of the largest new coal proposals for Ohio, the AMP-Ohio power plant in Meigs County and the Baard liquid coal plant in Columbiana County, are likely to face setbacks from the ruling. Both companies had previously insisted that carbon dioxide should remain unregulated — an argument rejected in today’s ruling — and had resisted attempts to establish carbon limits in their air permits.”

Obviously there is a disagreement between the Sierra Club and Ohio EPA on how the decision will affect the permits at issue.  While Ohio EPA is correct that it is one federal court decision, the two cases that have had final decisions issued on whether C02 must be evaluated as part of federal New Source Review (NSR) have certainly been more in favor of requiring controls.  The Georgia State court held CO2 is a regulated pollutant and the pollution control analysis (BACT) for the new coal plant had to include controls for CO2.

The Sierra Club is a certainly overstating the decision in Deseret (see their Press Release) by claiming that all new coal plants must address CO2.  As discussed in my last post, the Environmental Appeals Board remanded the permit to U.S. EPA.  The Board said U.S. EPA has discretion to go either way- determine CO2 is a regulated pollutant or decide monitoring requirements are not enough to trigger requirements to control CO2. 

The Board did reject U.S.EPA's basis for saying historical precedent tied its hands from determining monitoring was enough to trigger regulation of CO2.  However, the Board did not say U.S. EPA couldn't develop a defensible position.

What is certain, is there is tremendous uncertainty.  From these comments we can anticipate Ohio EPA will issue the permit (known as "The Ohio River Clean Fuels LLC") without requiring analysis of CO2.  The Baard permit will be challenged and it is totally uncertain as to whether the permit will be invalidated by either a State or Federal Court in Ohio. The AMP Ohio Permit faces similar uncertainty.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Talk about your pro-bowl quality punts...U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board made a major one this week on the issue of climate change.  All eyes were fixated on the Board waiting for their decision on whether the Clean Air Act requires immediate regulation of greenhouse gases  (GHGs-which include CO2).  The Board's answer?  We would rather let the Obama Administration decide.

Others on the web point out this may hold up permits for coal plants while EPA deliberates on what to do next.  There is uncertainty after the decision, but other Courts don't have to follow the EAB ruling.

-See Coal Plant Stop Orders and Power Landscape Changes After Ruling

Background:  For those not keeping up to date on the latest litigation over regulation of GHGs, a major decision was issued yesterday- Deseret Power Electric Cooperative (Bonanza).  At issue in the case was whether the current language of the Clean Air Act requires immediate regulation of GHGs.

The Sierra Club appealed a federal permit that would have allowed construction of a new coal fired power plant.  The Sierra Club argued the permit was illegal because it did not require control of CO2 and the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates regulation of the pollutant. 

Under the CAA,  EPA would have to require controls for CO2 if it is a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the Act.  The issue turned on the amount of regulation necessary to trigger this provision.  The Clean Air Act does require monitoring and reporting of CO2 for some sources.  But EPA argued monitoring is not enough, claiming that it has interpreted "subject to regulation" as meaning the Agency has set a standard requiring reductions, not just monitoring of emissions.

Implications:  A win for the Sierra Club would have had immediate and dramatic impacts on business across the country.  Hundreds of thousands of businesses, even commercial buildings may have needed a federal air permit to control CO2 emissions.  The EPA would have been overwhelmed with a tidal wave of new work. Why?

As discussed in a prior post, the permit thresholds in the CAA are extraordinarily low in the context of greenhouse gases.  Just how low?  The Act requires federal regulation for sources that emit 100 or 250 tons of a pollutant, depending on various factors.  That's fine for traditional pollutants like sulfur dioxide and soot, but ridiculous when viewed in the context of greenhouse gases.  As a comparison, California's Climate Change Program (AB-32) uses a threshold of 25,000 metric tons. 

On the other hand, if the Board sided with U.S. EPA then regulation of GHGs would be delayed until either U.S. EPA completed its lengthy rulemaking process or legislation is enacted by Congress.

Decision:  The Board definitely punted.  It did not agree with the Sierra Club that the plain text of the CAA requires CO2 to be regulated.  However, it rejected the EPA's position that an analysis of its historical interpretations forecloses the possibility that monitoring requirements are sufficient to trigger the need to regulate GHGs as a pollutant. 

The Board returned the permit to the Agency for further deliberation.  The Board said it is within EPA's discretion to begin regulating GHGs because the CAA includes monitoring requirements.  The Board concludes with the following paragraph:

Accordingly, we remand the Permit to for the Region (U.S. EPA) to consider whether or not to impose a CO2 BACT limit in light of the Agency's discretion to interpret, consistent with the CAA, what constitutes a "pollutant subject to regulation under this Act."  In remanding this Permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, we recognize that this is an issue of nation scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding.  The Region should consider whether interested persons, as well as the Agency, would be better served by the Agency addressing the interpretation of the phrase "subject to regulation under this Act" in the context of an action of national scope, rather than through this specific permitting proceeding.  (emphasis added)

In otherwords, we want the Obama Administration to decide this through a regulatory interpretation that will apply universally and not by us requiring it in the context of a single appeal of a permit.

(Photo: Tostie14/everystockphoto.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)