On August 20, 2008, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) put forth proposed rules governing alternative and renewable energy sources.  The rules main purpose was to govern implementation of the State’s new Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) established in Senate Bill 221.  The AEPS is broader version of a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) adopted by other states which mandates a certain percentage of power come from designated renewable energy sources.

The PUCO set a very aggressive public comment period in an attempt to finalize the rules quickly.    The comment period closed on September 26, 2008.  In the short month long comment period, the PUCO received hundreds of pages of divergent comments on the proposed rules. (See my prior post: Issues with proposed rules governing the AEPS)  Since closure of the comment period, the PUCO has failed to developed a second version of the rules. 

Today, a company filed a new letter on the docket which discusses the real world impacts of the delay in finalizing the rules governing the administration of the AEPS in Ohio.  Until the rules are finalized, no one knows what the renewable energy credit (REC) market will look like in Ohio.   A REC is the certificate issued to generators of renewable energy sources.  The certificate can be sold to the utilities to meet their compliance requirements with the AEPS.  REC are seen as a way to encourage renewable energy development.

The problem is that there are so many questions left regarding the construction of the rules, no one can set a reliable price for RECs. S.B. 221 contained a cap on REC prices of $45 per megawatt which certainly is the ceiling on REC prices in Ohio.  However, that leave a huge range in potential prices that is highly dependent on the construction of the rules.

The compliance period for the AEPS in Ohio begins in 2009.  Without an established market projects will get delayed.  This will make it far more difficult for Utilities to comply with the AEPS mandates.  In 2009, Utilities must develop or purchase .25 % of their total generation capacity from renewable energy sources.  While a quarter of a percent may seem tiny, in an energy market as big as Ohio’s there will be a significant need for RECs.

In 2008 Ohio generated 13,000 megawatts of power.  A quarter percent means the REC compliance market in 2009 will be around 32,500 megawatts.  This is certainly enough to drive a significant amount of project develop in the State. 

Until the rules are established, the market for RECs will be uncertain.  Without this needed certainty many will delay moving forward with projects.  Of the states with an RPS, Ohio was one of the last states to establish an RPS.  This has meant Ohio has been late to the game in attracting investment and green jobs related to the renewable energy market.  The rules need to be finalized quickly so that Ohio doesn’t lag further behind. 

 

There has been major developments as a result of litigation, policy, rulemaking and legislation in the last few weeks relating to climate change and coal fired power plants.  Some changes are a result of outstanding litigation.  However, the most significant changes are indicative of the sea change that is occurring at the federal level under the Obama Administration relative to climate change. 

 Here is a review:

  1. EPA will not regulate mercury by cap and trade-  EPA Administrator Jackson announced today that the Agency will be moving forward with rulemaking to regulate mercury emissions from coal plants.  "President Obama’s EPA does intend to regulate mercury under section 112 of the Clean Air Act," said Jackson. Acting solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler will drop the prior appeal of the decision in New Jersey v. EPA which struck down the Bush Administration cap and trade proposal for regulating mercury.
  2. NEPA reviews of climate change impact required for oversees projects- The Obama Administration has settled an outstanding lawsuit which sought to compel NEPA reviews of climate change impacts for oversees projects financed with federal money.  Western cities and environmental groups alleged that Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation illegally provided more than $32 billion in financing and insurance to fossil fuel projects over 10 years without assessing whether the projects contributed to global warming or impacted the U.S. environment, as they were required to do under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The settlement will require NEPA reviews and will also require future reductions of greenhouse gases.
  3. BACT for coal plants does not mean IGCC–  A Texas Appeals Court rejected a challenge to a permit for a new 800 mw pulverized coal plant.  Appellants has argued the permit should have required IGCC technology as BACT instead of the proposed pulverized coal technology.  Consistent with other Court decisions looking at BACT, the Court said control technologies under BACT must be applied to the proposed project which in this case was a pulverized coal plant.
  4. No Climate Change Legislation This Year-  Senator Boxer released here principles for what must be included in the Senate version of climate change legislation.  Senator Boxer said “Copenhagen is December…That’s why I said we’ll have a bill out of this committee by then.”  However, any bill passing out the committee still must pass the full senate and be reconciled with the House bill.  This schedule renders it impossible that cap and trade legislation will pass Congress in 2009.
  5. EPA begins review of California Waiver Decision-  In a press release today, EPA announced they are beginning the review of the California waiver request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.  I think this quote from the EPA press release pretty much tells you what the outcome will be – "EPA believes that there are significant issues regarding the agency’s denial of the waiver. The denial was a substantial departure from EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the Clean Air Act’s waiver provisions. "

 (Photo: CJJohnson7/everystockphoto.com)

During Governor Strickland’s State of the State he made the "no new taxes" pledge.  However, the Governor did mention that to balance the budget he will propose "new fees, fines and penalties."  No specifics were provided, however, now that details are beginning to take shape the Governor Strickland has been criticized for his roll out of the nearly 120 fee increases.

While there are more significant fee increases on vehicle registration and other health care related services, this being an environmental blog, I will focus on the new ODNR and Ohio EPA fee increases.  As discussed below, it is going to be more costly for businesses (and residents) to get rid of their waste.  This should create even a greater incentive for businesses to look at their practices and see if there are ways to reduce the amount of waste that has to be disposed of in solid waste landfills.   This could be through process changes that reduce the amount of waste generated or it could be recycling/re-use of waste materials generated.

However, the ability to recycle or re-use solid waste generated as part of business operations is dependent upon Ohio EPA’s beneficial re-use rules.  Unfortunately, those rules have not come forward which makes it more difficult for businesses to evaluate their options.  While the fee increases may push evaluation of "greener" alternatives to disposal, businesses face uncertainty as long as clear re-use standards are not established.

Here is a link to a spreadsheet put together by the Ohio Office of Budget Management which shows all the fee increases and the projected revenue (which reaches over $1 billion dollars). Here is a breakdown of the proposed fee increases as it relates to the environment:

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
While I was at Ohio EPA, the agency moved from general revenue (GRF) to fees to pay for its programs.  The municipal solid waste tipping fee was chosen because it was a broad based fee that touches residents and businesses.  Due to its broad based application, the Agency could use the funding to support various programs outside of the Division of Solid and Infectious Waste.  Sort of like a tax…right.

The proposed state budget will build upon past fee increases and further increase the MSW tipping fee by $1.25 a ton. This will bring the MSW tipping fee from $3.50 a ton to $4.75 a ton. Of the proposed $1.25 increase,  Twenty-five cents would go to ODNR for the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The remaining $1.00 will go to Ohio EPA to support various programs.

Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
The proposed budget will increase the CDD tipping fee by $2.70 a ton. This will bring the CDD tipping fee from $1.70 a ton to $4.40 a ton. This amounts to an 60% increase in the fees for CDD.  The $2.70 increase would be divided as follows:  $2.25 will go to ODNR for the Soil and Water Conservation Districts and .45 will got to Ohio EPA for operation costs throughout the agency.

Green building practices under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program award points for recycling and reuse of construction waste.  With this significant fee increase contractors and project owners should seriously contemplate recycling this material versus disposal even if they are not working on a green building project.

New E-Check Fee
Ohio EPA has proposed an increasing the fee for purchasing new tires by $2.30 per tire.  This fee is projected to generated $15 million in new revenue.  The previous tire fee was used to pay for programs to eliminate tire dumps around the State.  This has been one of the greatest success stories in Ohio.  This increase would be devoted to an entirely new purpose-paying for Ohio’s automobile emission testing program (E-check).

Energy Extraction Fees

ODNR for its part has proposed a new fee on oil, coal and natural gas extraction.  Together these fees are projected to generate over $7 million in new revenue.  The energy extraction fees have not been warmly received by industry who argue that raising costs on these energy related resources will simply result in increased costs for individuals and businesses around the state.  

As fees go up for use of resources and disposal of waste, businesses have further incentive to examine green alternatives.  This could be improved energy efficiency. establishment of a co-gen facility that could reduce electric fees, recycling, and reduction of waste streams.

(Photo:D’Arcy Norman/everystockphoto.com)

I am attending the 12th annual EUEC (Energy and Environment Conference) in Phoenix for the early part of this week.  I guess they had to move the conference from previous venues to the Phoenix  Convention Center to accommodate the large number of registrants.  There are over 450 different speakers and presentations. 

My observations from the first day have been as follows:

1)  Despite the terrible economy the interest in environmental, green energy and climate change continues to grow.  It is truly amazing to see the number of companies and organizations in attendance.  There is also a distinct feeling in the air that the change in Administration will mean explosive growth and new opportunities. 

2) The most interesting presentation on the first day was from U.S. EPA’s Frank Princiotti. He discussed the prospect of global climate change and the implications for the planet.  But even more interesting was his assessment of the world’s ability to meet this challenge.  Despite the many statements that we have the technology right now to address global climate change, his assessment was much more dire.  For example, he said carbon sequestration would not be ready until at least 2020 or 2030 saying his "DOE colleagues would back him on that statement." 

His basic theme was "we need a technology revolution" and even if that happens it will not  be enough to avoid significant impacts from global warming.   We are at best trying to avoid catastrophic impacts from global warming even with very significant mitigation efforts. 

He indicated that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be supplemented with other efforts.  Namely man made engineering to reduce the impacts of climate change.  Such as seeding clouds or creating a reflective layer in the earth atmosphere to deflect the suns effects on a warming planet-Now that is a scary proposition.  Man trying to effect the global temperature through quick fix engineering.  But he put up a slide of leading scientists from around the globe that say this must be under serious consideration.

3)  Another interesting presentation was made by Roger Martella, who is no with the law firm of Sidley Austin,  Prior to that he was EPA’s general counsel during the Mass v. EPA litigation.  His perspective was that despite the knocks on the Bush Administration the EPA had done a tremendous amount of work on climate change.  In essence, his perspective was the foundation was laid during the Bush Administration EPA for President Obama to move quickly on climate change. He predicted that April 2nd of this year (the 2nd anniversary of Mass. v. EPA) may be the date of a major announcement by the Obama Administration on Climate Change.  Perhaps the endangerment finding will move forward which will trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases. 

I look forward to the next couple days.  My first certainly has been enlightening.  My conclusion from the first day is that if President Obama is serious about addressing climate change (and I think he is) most still do not comprehend the magnitude of change that is upon us.

Governor Ted Strickland made his State of the State speech today.  While almost the entire speech was focused on education there were a few interesting nuggets relative to Ohio’s progress in developing green jobs. 

"Over the last three years, Ohio has led the nation with 350 new or expanded facility projects in the renewable energy sector.

 Take solar energy, for example. The Toledo area has become an international center for solar research and production, with more than 6,000 people working in the solar industry. First Solar and Xunlight (Zun-light) both launched major expansions just this past year.

 All across the state we’ve seen advanced energy creating opportunities."

Later in the speech Strickland discussed Ohio’s efforts to incorporate energy efficiency requirements into new government buildings:

Together we took the school building program that Governor Taft and the legislature created, and we expanded it to fund hundreds of new and renovated school buildings. And our new schools are being built to efficiency standards that will reduce our energy costs for the life of the building. In fact, Ohio has the largest energy efficient school building program in the nation.

The Governor should be commended for creation of a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (Ohio calls it an "Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard").  His initial proposal was greatly improved upon in the Legislature.  However, the rules governing implementation of the RPS seem to be currently stuck at PUCO after the Commission was flooded with comments on how to improve them.  Without improvement we stand to lose the momentum gained through passage of the energy legislation.

The Governor also included Advanced Energy Grant Funding in the Job Stimulus package passed recently.  However, the size of the grants ($250,000 for non-coal projects) seem to be too small to attract major new development to the State.

Is Ohio losing the momentum on attracting green jobs and economic development? 

President Obama has made clear his priority is renewable energy, climate change and green jobs.  Given Ohio’s importance in the election this seems like a perfect fit to start getting Ohio out of its economic crisis and create the jobs of the future. Unfortunately, the Governor included no new proposals or ideas for how to build on Ohio’s recent momentum in his State of the State address. 

Many states recognize the huge changes that are coming as a result of climate change and energy.  Unfortunately, Ohio lags these other states in developing and attracting the talent to truly lead in these areas.  As purely anecdotal evidence, when I attend national conferences that discuss these issues I will sometimes be the sole representative from Ohio. Meanwhile the New England States and West Coast dominate these conferences. 

Granted I don’t attend every conference in these areas, but Ohio has certainly not lead on renewable energy.  It was the 26th state to pass an RPS.  Ohio has not lead at all on climate change. Its efforts have been focussed on resisting rather than improving climate change proposals. 

When the major policy changes on climate change and renewable energy are put forward, where do you think the jobs will go? 

 

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…

 

Today, EPA Administrator-designate Lisa P. Jackson distributed a memo to all employees of EPA.  The memo outlines her and President Obama’s philosophy of environmental protection.  The memo is an interesting demarcation of the major changes that are coming in the realm of environmental protection. 

Some priorities Ms. Jackson is very upfront about, such as addressing Climate Change (which notably was identified as the number 1 priority in her memo).  Other policy perspectives are a little less straightforward, but inferences can be made.  Here are my take aways from the memo.

  1. Climate Change is a major priority-  The President made reference to it in his inaugural speech.  It is no mistake that its the first bullet on EPA-designate Jackson’s list of priorities.  Notably, she includes the following statement:  "As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing Pea’s obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act"  STAY TUNED ON THIS ONE>>>
  2. Science will be at the forefront-  Many environmental groups felt that the Bush Administration put science secondary to their end regulatory goals.  The memo is a clear statement that this will change.  What could be the impact?  For one, look for even stronger federal air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particles. 
  3. Resurgence in Environmental Justice- A very thorny issue and one difficult to address through regulation.  However, the memo mentions making  "people disproportionately impacted by pollution" a priority.  Perhaps they will try to tackle this more aggressively.
  4. CAIR-  I may be out on a limb on this one.  In the "improving air quality" priority, Jackson states "we will plug the gaps in our regulatory system as science and the law demand."  I think this is a vague reference to a much stronger CAIR program.
  5. Brownfield Redevelopment-  U.S. EPA may put even more emphasis on brownfield programs as a means to accelerate clean up of contaminated sites.  Jackson was criticized in New Jersey for the slow clean ups.  I think the statement -"turning these blighted properties into productive parcels and reducing threats to human health and the environment means jobs and investment in our land" -can’t be anything other than a reference to a strong brownfield program.
  6. Money for the Great Lakes?-  In the memo, Jackson says the "Agency will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay."  I am intrigued at the term "robust use of our authority" in connection with the Great Lakes.  Is this a reference to enforcement rather than the Great Lakes Restoration Plan?
  7. Don’t underestimate the amount of change coming-  President Obama’s buzz word was change.  I don’t think there is any area that is about to see more change than environmental regulation in the next four years.  Fasten your seat belts…

 

On January 13, 2009, Judge Lacy Thornburg of the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued a major decision in case of North Carolina v. TVA.  When filed, this case was seen as another chapter in the on-going battle between downwind and upwind states over cross-border pollution. 

However, the decision and implications are somewhat surprising.  The Court declared that emissions from four of eleven TVA power plants in upwind states created a public nuisance in the State of North Carolina.  Even though these sources apparently comply with environmental permits and regulations, the Court ordered hundreds of millions of dollars in new pollution control equipment on those plants.

Downwind states suing upwind states over coal power plant pollution is nothing new.  The Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States have sued Midwestern and Southern States over pollution under a number of theories. 

  • They successfully participated in New Source Review enforcement cases with U.S. EPA. 
  • They filed Section 126 petitions under the Clean Air Act. Those petitions were later resolved by U.S. EPA by creating the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)- a cap and trade pollution control program. 
  • They have sought new federal legislation tightening emission standards on coal-fired power plants

What makes this suit so different is that the State of North Carolina went outside the typical Clean Air Act tool box in asserting its claims.  Instead the State relied upon common law theories.  The decision will certainly bring a waive of new rounds of litigation.  Especially with the remand of CAIR after the successful challenge by North Carolina. 

Here are some of the significant implications of this decision. 

1. The Court found that significant health effects occur as a result of exposure to pollution at levels even below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM 2.5 and Ozone. The Courts said:

"After reviewing the totality of evidence, the Court is convinced that exposure to PM 2.5-even at or below the NAAQS of 15 ug/m3- results in adverse cardiopulmonary effects, including increased or exacerbated asthma and chronic bronchitis…these negative but non-fatal health effects result in numerous social and economic harms to North Carolinians, including lost school and work days…"

2. The Court found that sources in upwind states can still have significant impacts on a downwind state’s air quality. However, in this case, the Court drew the line at distance of 100 miles. TVA plants within 100 miles (4 plants) were deemed a nuisance and plants outside 100 miles (7 plants) were not.

3. The Court created a new definition of “significant contribution.” TVA plants that were contributing 3% of the emission responsible for PM 2.5 pollution in North Carolina and roughly 5% of the ozone problem were deemed to significantly contributing. On that basis, these plants (ones roughly within 100 miles) were deemed a nuisance.  Sources that contributed less than 1% were deemed not a nuisance. 

4. The Court required installation of SCRs and scrubbers on a number of units because those units were contributing to the nuisance.

5.  Even though these plants were apparently in compliance with all federal and state environmental permits and regulations, they will be putting on additional controls.

6. The Court included emission rates for each plant in a spreadsheet in the opinion. However, the decision is somewhat vague as to whether these are simply expected emissions post controls or in fact legally enforceable limits.

7. From a legal perspective, I found it interesting that a federal judge in North Carolina found sources in other states to be causing a nuisance by applying the State nuisance law from Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee where the sources are located.

 

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.

Continue Reading What Would BACT be for CO2?