EPA Orders Coal-Fired Portland Generating Station to Reduce Sulfur Dioxide Interstate Air Pollution

Portland Generating Station

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered the coal-fired Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, PA to put an end to its interstate air pollution. In a 95-page decision issued on October 31, 2011, EPA ordered the plant, operated by GenOn REMA LLC (GenOn Energy), to reduce its sulfur dioxide emissions by 81 percent within three years.  The decision also establishes interim emission rate limits which the plant must meet within one year. The decision constitutes final rulemaking, and adds a new rule at 40 C.F.R. Section 52.2039. It has been reported that this is the first EPA rulemaking directed at a single pollution source. 

The EPA found that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the Portland plant significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. The decision provides a detailed analysis of EPA's authority under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act to provide a remedy to downwind states subjected to pollution from out-of-state sources.  It also reviews the emissions data, air pollution dispersion modeling, available control technologies, and other technical issues supporting its decision.

UPDATE: The EPA decison was published in the November 7, 2011 Federal Register (76 Fed. Reg. 69052, et seq.) and is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-07/pdf/2011-28816.pdf.

EPA Proposes Finding Northampton County PA Coal Power Plant Causes SO2 Air Pollution Violations in NJ

Portland Coal Power Plant

UPDATE

: On October 31, 2011 the EPA Issued its final response to the New Jersey Petition, finding that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station in Upper Mount Bethel Township, PA is emitting air pollutants in violation of the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act. EPA found that the plant's SO2 emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. The EPA is establishing emission limitations and compliance schedules to ensure that the plant will eliminate its significant contribution to SO2 pollution in New Jersey. See

our post of November 4, 2011

.

The U.S. EPA is proposing to formally find that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, is causing interstate air pollution in violation of the federal Clean Air Act.  It also proposes to impose emission limitations to force substantial reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions from the plant.

In its "Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions from the Portland Generating Station", EPA proposes to issue a finding that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the Portland Plant significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. This finding is proposed in response to a petition submitted by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on September 17, 2010. EPA is also proposing emission limitations and compliance schedules to significantly reduce SO2 emissions from the plant.

According to the NJDEP petition and the proposed EPA finding,emissions from the Portland plant are causing SO2 concentrations far in excess of the NAAQS of 196 micrograms/m3.  EPA states that these violations require an

81 percent reduction

in emissions from the Portland plant to reduce SO2 concentrations below the NAAQS.

EPA will receive comments on this proposed finding, which must be received on or before May 27, 2011. Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, online at 

http://www.regulations.gov

, by email to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, or mail to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC  20460.

A public hearing will be held on April 27, 2011, in the Pequest Trout Hatchery and Natural Resources Education Center located in Oxford, Warren County, New Jersey 07863.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Coal & Gas Industries Attack EPA's Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

In a predictable legal free-for-all, industry groups joined the state of Texas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce late last week in filing challenges to EPA's "endangerment" finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean AIr Act, while sixteen states and several environmental groups joined the fray by seeking to intervene in the industry challenges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear the cases.  All of the various petitions for review will almost certainly be consolidated. Background:  On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities  See EPA's background materials supporting its greenhouse gas endangerment findings under section 202 of the Clean Air Act.

The industry challengers include Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association. Ten other petitions were filed by the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation on behalf of 13 House Republicans and business associations, and the so-called "Coalition for Responsible Regulation".

The state and environmental groups seeking to intervene to support EPA's endangerment finding include a coalition of 16 states and New York City, and groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.

In a statement reported by the New York Times, Environmental Defense Fund Texas regional director Jim Marston said: "The lawsuit filed by Governor Perry is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. vs. Massachusetts. Their action invokes memories of a sad time in Texas history from the '50s, when Texas politicians sought to nullify decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future."

NRDC Offers Updated Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Projects Mapping & Profile

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has posted (December 5) new and updated information on Pennsylvania renewable energy projects. See NRDC Switchboard.  In its web-page "Renewable Energy for America - Harvesting the Benefits of Homegrown, Renewable Energy", NRDC provides an interactive mapping tool showing the location, developer and energy production of existing and proposed renewable energy projects throughout the United States.NRDC sums up Pennsylvania's renewable energy status: "Though Pennsylvania has one of the nation's largest coal-mining industries and second-largest nuclear industry, parts of the state are in the national vanguard of clean, green energy use." In its Pennsylvania Renewable Energy Profile, NRDC offers details about Pennsylvania's existing renewal energy facilities and potential future expansion, including wind energy, solar power, biomass fuels and cellulosic ethanol, and biogas (methane) production.  

Funding and economic incentives for Pennsylvania renewable energy projects. Perhaps most importantly, the Pennsylvania profile also includes information about project funding sources and economic incentives for renewable energy projects in the state. For example, businesses, non-profits, universities, and municipalities can apply to the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) for assistance with capital costs on a variety of advanced energy projects, including solar energy, wind, biogas and biomass. Awards are made once a year. 

The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency lists federal, state and local government incentives for renewable energy projects in Pennsylvania. The database includes project grant and loan application details, including eligibility criteria, loan and grant terms, application guidelines and other information useful to applicants.  Many of these Pennsylvania programs are administered through the Department of Community and Economic Development. You can download the Pennsylvania DCED Alternative and Clean Energy Program Guidelines by clicking the link below: 

Download Alternative And Clean Energy Guidelines (Nov. 2009)

Pa. Supreme Court Gives Victory to Mercury-Emitting Coal Power Plants; Invalidates State DEP Mercury Emission Limits

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed a victory this week to coal-fired electric generating facilities when it invalidated Pennsylvania's regulations limiting their emission of mercury.  In its December 23, 2009 decision, the Court found that the Pa. regulations could not stand after the legal basis for the rule - a federal EPA decision which provided for state regulation of mercury emissions from oil and coal-fired electric generating units - was invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.Background. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a final "Delisting Rule" which removed oil- and coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) from the list of mercury pollution sources regulated under the hazardous air pollutants provisions of section 112 of the Clean Air Act. (70 Fed. Reg. 15994-01 (03/29/2005)). However, the EPA did not abolish regulation of mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired EGUs. Rather, it shifted the responsibility for the mechanics of the regulation to the states. To accomplish this shifting to the states, the EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (“CAMR”). 70 Fed. Reg. 28606 (5/18/2005). CAMR was predicated on the Delisting Rule and it established a mercury emission budget for each state and required each state to develop a program to regulate the mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired EGUs.  Pennsylvania opted to develop a mercury regulation program that would keep emissions within the mercury budget set by the EPA and developed the PA Mercury Rule as the Pa. state response to CAMR. The PA Mercury Rule required, among other things, coal fired power plants to reduce their mercury emissions by 80% by January 2010.

EPA's decision to delist coal-fired electric generating stations from section 112's list of mercury sources was challenged in federal court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately invalidated that delisting decision because EPA failed to follow the required delisting procedures. New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The effect of that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision was that EGUs remained listed as mercury sources under federal law, Section 112. The court also found that once the Delisting Rule was declared invalid, CAMR no longer had a legal basis and it vacated CAMR as well.

Because under the Pa. Air Pollution Control Act, DEP generally cannot regulate hazardous air pollutants which are federally regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and the very basis for the Pa. Mercury Rule was EPA's delisting decision, the Pa. Supreme Court held that once the EPA delisting decision was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania state rule could not stand. 

Case: PPL Generation, LLC, et al., v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No, 7 MAP 2009 (Pa. Supreme Court, December 23, 2009