Cumberland Chapter / Sierra Club

                                 Please reply to:

12907 Sunnybrook Drive

Prospect, KY 40059

573-636-6067

mcmulw@bellsouth.net

 

June 29, 2007

 

James Morse, Permit Review

Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet

Division for Air Quality

803 Schenkel Lane

Frankfort, KY 40601

 

 

In the Matter of an Air Quality Permit Issued to Cash Creek Generation, LLC for the Cash Creek Generating Station, Henderson Co., Kentucky.

Permit No. V-07-0177 Source I.D. 21-101-00134 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit.

 

These supplemental comments are submitted by the Cumberland Chapter of the Sierra Club, on behalf of its affected members. The public hearing on this permit is set for June 29, 2007.  The Division stated that it would accept both written and verbal comments at the hearing. These comments are therefore timely.

 

1. This Plant Will Aggravate Air Quality Problems

Although the Cash Creek permit is titled a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit, it will in fact exacerbate air quality problems in the surrounding area.

 

The Indiana counties directly north of the proposed plant location, Warrick and Vanderburgh, are already in non-attainment for fine particles.  This plant will aggravate the already existing air quality problems there.  Please note that both the Warrick County Commissioners and the Newburgh Town Board have passed resolutions opposing Cash Creek due to its impact on the Warrick County non-attainment area.  Nearby Evansville, Indiana, a metropolitan area with well over 100,000 residents will also be seriously impacted by proposed facility. It already is struggling with dirty air problems, which the Cash Creek plant will only aggravate.

 

Further, the EPA is the process of tightening the ozone standard.  When the standard is tightened to 70 or 75 ppm from 84 ppm, Warrick and Vanderburgh counties will be further from meeting clean air standards, and Daviess County in Kentucky will be in non-attainment. (at 70 ppm) Permitting this plant to pump 965 tons per year of CO, 700 tons per year of NOx, plus volatile organic compounds, plus hazardous air pollutants, plus sulfuric acid mist into the air in this region is just digging deeper into the hole that these counties and their residents are already stuck down in. 

 

2. This Plant Will Be Bad For Human Health

The pollutants this plant will emit will impair the air quality and thereby have an adverse impact on human health for people living within the affected airshed.  Pollutants such as NOx, SOx, and sulfuric acid mist will aggravate asthma problems, tend to increase cases of cardiovascular disease, and increase heart attacks. 

 

EPA's consultants estimate that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of 745 Kentuckians each year.  Kentuckians already have the second highest risk in the country of dying from power plant pollution.  Statewide, fine particle pollution from power plants also causes 16,440 asthma attacks every year, 798 of which are so severe they require emergency room treatment with associated lost workdays and school days.[1]

 

Based on EPA data, each year, 110 lung cancer deaths and 1,022 heart attacks in Kentucky are attributable to power plant pollution.[2]  The studies done by Abt Associates indicate that four premature deaths per year may result from the pollution emitted by this Cash Creek plant.[3]

 

3. No Customers Depend On Electricity From This Plant

This is a merchant plant, proposed solely for the speculative premise that by the time it is built, it can sell electricity on the open market for a profit.  ERORA does not have a defined service area containing customers for this plant.  If it is not built, no one will suffer a lack of electricity, and this fact should have been considered in the alternatives analysis in considering BACT limits.

 

4. BACT Limits on pollution

a. NOx BACT Limits

The Statement of Basis states at 4.5.3:

Cash Creek selected SCR and nitrogen diluent to control NOx emissions from the source. This combination of control processes with a NOx emission limit of 0.0246 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hr rolling average represents BACT for the Cash Creek IGCC combustion turbines when firing syngas and natural gas.

 

But the permit itself is not consistent with the explanation in the Statement of Basis, as it shows a NOx limit of 0.0331 lb/mmBtu, three-hour rolling average, for burning syngas, and the limit of 0.0246 lb/mmBtu only for firing natural gas, but on a three hour rolling average. 

 

A primary purpose of the statement of basis is to provide an explanation of the permitting authority’s decisions.  But when the statement of basis and the permit have completely different statements about the proper BACT limit, no one knows what is going on.

We expect that the Statement of Basis:

 

…is an explanation of why the permit contains the provisions that it does and why it does not contain other provisions that might otherwise appear to be applicable.  The purpose of the statement is to enable EPA and other interested parties to effectively review the permit by providing information regarding decisions made by the Permitting Authority in drafting the permit.[4]

 

In this case, that intent is completely violated.  We suggest that probably the correct limit is 0.0246 lb/mmBtu or lower, on a three hour average for all potential fuels, but a re-working of both the Statement of Basis (SOB) and the NOx limits in the permit is needed before a correct permit can be issued.

 

b. Particulate Matter BACT

 

The draft permit proposes a total PM limit of 0.0217 lb/MMBtu, based on a stack test.  This proposed total PM limit is higher than the total PM limit for Spurlock IV, which is 0.012 lb/MMBtu.  KDAQ indicates in the Statement of Basis that emission controls such as Wet Electrostatic Precipitators and Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (WFGD) are readily available to remove more particulate matter, but did not require them in the permit, and apparently did not require a full BACT analysis of more complete particulate control.  The limit for Spurlock IV establishes that 0.012 lb/MMBtu is technologically feasible, and therefore that should be the maximum possible limit for Cash Creek, pending a more complete BACT analysis. 

 

Electrostatic precipitators and WFGD are widely used as post-combustion controls on new and existing coal plants.  KDAQ has not identified any technical reason why such controls could not be used on an IGCC plant.  The PM BACT analysis must be redone with, at a minimum, a consideration of these controls.  KDAQ must propose new PM limits reflecting the use of post-combustion controls in addition to pre-combustion syngas scrubbing, as well as BACT limits shown feasible by other plants such as Spurlock IV..

 

c. PM_2.5 BACT.

The Draft Permit does not include a BACT limit for PM2.5 emissions. Nor does it appear that KDAQ even considered such a limit. This is unlawful and must be corrected before a PSD permit can issue. The federal PSD program requires a BACT limit “for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act that it would have the potential to emit in significant amounts.” [40 C.F.R. § 52.21(j)(2)].  PM2.5 is “a pollutant subject to regulation under the Act” because EPA established a NAAQS for PM2.5 in 1997.[5]  Moreover, PM2.5 will be emitted from this facility in a “significant” amount because it will be emitted at “any emission rate.” [40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23)(ii)]. For these reasons a BACT limit for PM2.5 is required.[6]  Nevertheless, the Draft Permit does not contain a BACT limit for PM2.5 emissions.  This is a deficiency that must be corrected before a final PSD permit can be issued.

 

d. Cleaner Fuels

There are at least two fuels that are cleaner than synfuel that must be considered in the top-down BACT determination for each of the regulated pollutants, including particulate matter.  The draft permit sets NOx and CO limits for when the facility is burning natural gas.  

 

 

These proposed limits when the project is firing natural gas are lower than the limits for firing synfuel.  Therefore, the top-down BACT analysis must consider the use of cleaner fuels, including natural gas, as available clean fuels.  Since the facility is specifically designed to be able to fire natural gas, alone or in combination with syngas, there is no argument that burning gas would “redefine the source.”

 

Similarly, by burning a mix of natural gas with syngas, the source could lower both the pound-per-MMBtu emission rate and the hourly emission rate for each of the regulated pollutants, including PM.  While natural-gas fired generation must be considered, as noted above, a BACT analysis must also consider mixing natural gas with syngas.  If the cost effectiveness of combusting gas, or a combination of gas and syngas, is within the range generally accepted as cost-effective for similar sources (i.e., under $10,000 per ton of pollutant removed), the BACT limit for PM must be established based on a BACT analysis that factors in natural gas.

 

Another available clean fuel that has received no discussion in the agency’s top-down BACT analysis is biomass.  There are numerous examples of coal plants co-firing biomass that should be considered in the top-down BACT analysis.  For example, the St. Paul heating plant burns approximately sixty percent biomass and forty percent coal.[7]  The biomass is primarily waste wood from tree trimmings in the Twin Cities and other industrial activities.  The Xcel Bay Point power plant in Ashland, Wisconsin, also burns large amounts of wood waste, consisting primarily of saw dust.

 

The U.S. Department of Energy has urged federal facility managers to consider co-firing up to 20 percent biomass in existing coal-fired boilers.[8]  In the Netherlands, the four electricity generation companies (EPON, EPZ, EZH and UNA) have all developed plans to modify their conventional coal fired installations to accommodate woody biomass as a co-fuel.[9]  The types of available biomass include wood wastes, agricultural waste, switchgrass and prairie grasses.[10]  In Kentucky one might conceivably consider tobacco as a biomass feedstock

 

The BACT analysis must consider the burning of biomass, natural gas, and syngas in setting the limits for PM, NOx, and CO. 

 

5. Monitoring and enforceability Issues

a. Combustion Turbine Flu Opacity

The combustion turbine flu opacity has a limit of 20% (6 minute average), except for one 6-minute period per hour of not more that 27 %.  However, no recordkeeping or reporting is called for in the permit, and there is not monitoring of the turbine exhaust opacity required in the Specific Monitoring Requirements section (Permit, pages 5 through 8).  We do see a Testing Requirement with wording that seems to imply that compliance with the limit will be ignored, as there is no requirement for action if the limit is exceeded.  Testing Requirements, p. 4:

The permittee shall determine the opacity of emissions from the stack by U.S. EPAReference Method 9 weekly, or more frequently if requested by the Division.

 

The opacity limit is not practicably enforceable without monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.  These requirements need to be added before the permit can be issued properly.

 

b. PM Compliance Assurance Monitoring and CEMS.

The permit is required to have Compliance Assurance Monitoring for PM10, as the facility will emit over 100 tpy of the pollutant. See 40 CFR Part 64.  The draft permit, however, makes no mention of CAM for PM10.  This omission must be fixed before a final permit can be issued.

 

KDAQ recently required the use of a PM CEMS in the PSD permit for the EKPC Spurlock 4 CFB project, and there is extensive experience of PM CEMS on coal plants as a result of numerous NSR settlements around the country.  Therefore, KDAQ must also require the use of a PM CEMS in this permit.

 

Also, a PM CEMS will be required for determining continuing compliance with the permit’s PM filterable limit. The permit must be revised to include these requirements before the permit can be issued properly.

 

6. Bulk Handling, Storage, Processing and Loadout Operations.

A. Emissions Limit

KDAQ did not include an emission limitation for Unit 7 (coal pile).  Instead, the agency specified the use of use of certain controls and cites an approximate expected removal efficiency.  (See the SOB at p. 19).  BUT, BACT is an emission limitation.  Controls like baghouses and methods such as “compaction” and “water suppression control methods” therefore do not constitute BACT, but are descriptions of how a source might reach a BACT limit.  The permit should include specific numeric limits on material handling emissions.  (The permit for Indeck-Elwood contains examples).  Also, vague permit language regarding “reasonable precautions” as an operating limitation for Unit 7 is not a practicably enforceable requirement. (Permit at p. 24 of 51).[11]

 

B. Compliance Terms Should Be Clearly Defined

The term “reasonable precautions” is vague and not practicably enforceable.  Therefore, the conditions in which the term is used must be modified to explicitly state what the applicant must do to be in compliance. These conditions include Unit 07 (coal handling), Condition 1(a); Unit 08 (cooling tower), Condition 1 (a) and 2(b); and Unit 10 (roadways), Condition 1(a).

 

7. The IGCC Plant And Coal Mine Should Be Permitted As A Single Facility

The Statement Of Basis states that “the primary coal supply is expected be provided by the Patriot Coal Company, which operates an existing underground and surface mining and processing operation adjacent to the Cash Creek location.  The coal will be delivered by a conveyor from the mine to an onsite receiving transfer-house.”[12]  KDAQ issued the Patriot coal processing facility a construction and operating permit, Permit No. S-06-333, on December 6, 2006. Due to the increased production at Patriot necessitated by Cash Creek[13], and the interdependence of the two facilities, the mine and plant must be jointly evaluated as one major emissions source for the purposes of the PSD permit for Cash Creek. This means that in evaluating whether the Cash Creek source’s emissions will be significant for determining incremental impacts and required controls, both facilities must be modeled together. Further, in determining the Cash Creek source’s impact area for each pollutant and the impacts on visibility, plants, soils, and air quality related values of Class I areas, the two facilities must be modeled simultaneously to predict the overall impacts from the Cash Creek source.

 

Any attempt to model only impacts from the Cash Creek nominal 770 MW facility must be considered circumvention of the PSD permitting regulations and must not be allowed by KDAQ.

 

8. The emissions from this plant will pollute the surrounding water

Wabash River, IN, is one of the few IGCC plants that has been in operation for a number of years.   It is approximately a third the size of the proposed Cash Creek plant.  The waste streams from the gasification processes have created significant problems in the nearby water systems there.  Operating the gasification process system at Cash Creek is likely to do the same, maybe three times worse, which will threaten the Green River.

 

The expected waste streams from an IGCC plant include, but are not limited to: un-recycled condensed water from the process, cooling tower blowdown; gasification plant process waste water; regeneration waste water from the demineralizer system in the power block; rainwater collected in the process blocks for both gasification and the power block; and equipment purges (blowdowns) and water wash-downs during maintenance procedures. 

 

Trace elements from the coal feedstock are volatilized in the gasification process, and later condensed from the syngas.  The processing of this sour condensate to remove dissolved gases will not remove all trace elements in the processed water stream

 

The experience at Wabash River indicates elevated levels of selenium, cyanide, and arsenic are to be expected in any of the gasification process water which leaves the plant, as the process wastewater there has routinely exceed permissible daily maximum levels.[14]

 

Removal of trace elements, such as selenium, arsenic and cyanide can be effectively accomplished through the use of evaporation systems, but such control systems are not mentioned in this permit.  If the pollution from the coal gasification process at this plant is to be effectively contained, pollution in the wastewater streams need to be controlled.  Otherwise, the future quality of the Green River is seriously threatened by the Cash Creek plant.

 

9. A Decision To Grant This Permit Must Consider Global Warming Impacts

Carbon dioxide emissions and ensuing global warming effects clearly pose a threat to the health and welfare of humans, animals, and plants, as discussed below. The permit thus must ensure that emissions of carbon dioxide from the proposed facility are adequately controlled to avoid such impacts, under 401 KAR 63:020, “Potentially Hazardous Matter or Toxic Substances.” However, neither KDAQ nor the applicant considered the impacts of carbon dioxide from the Cash Creek project. [See Statement of Basis p. 12 of 51, and Application, Section 8].

            As the permit states, the proposed project is subject to 401 KAR 63:020, [See Permit p. 2 and 12 of 51], which defines "potentially hazardous matter or toxic substances" as “matter which may be harmful to the health and welfare of humans, animals, and plants, including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, bismuth, lead, silica, tin, and compounds of such materials.” Section 2(2) (emphasis added). According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “matter” is “[s]omething that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.”[15] Carbon dioxide clearly fits this definition. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that carbon dioxide emissions and the ensuing acceleration of global warming pose serious danger to humans and the environment. The U.S. EPA has concluded that “[a] few degrees of warming increases the chances of more frequent and severe heat waves, which can cause more heat-related death and illness,” as well as “more frequent droughts, … greater rainfall, and possibl[e] change[s in] the strength of storms.” [16]  These are only a few of the threats posed by global warming.

The international scientific consensus has indicated that the earth’s climate is changing and that human activity is a major factor.  [International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers, hereinafter IPCC 2007, available at www.ipcc.ch]. The IPCC 2007 report goes on to note that:

 

·         The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 180 ppm to 279 ppm in 2005. 

·         The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180-300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. 

·         The annual carbon dioxide concentration rate of increase was larger during the last ten yerrs (1995-2005 average: 1.9 ppm) than it has since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year).   IPCC 2007. 

 

Fossil fuel burning is the primary contributor to increasing concentrations of CO2 (IPCC 2007).

 

“Warming of the climate system is now unequivocal.”  IPCC 2007.  Eleven of the past twelve years (1995 – 2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperatures (since 1850).  Id.  

There can be no doubt that accelerating global warming will pose a serious danger to humans and the environment.  Emissions of global warming pollutants have already doubled the risk of extreme heat waves, according to a team of scientists led by Peter Stott at the British MET Office.[17]  As the scientific journal Nature reported, global warming pollution is linked to the European heat wave of 2003 that killed more than 15,000 people.  Similarly, the U.S. EPA concludes that “[a] few degrees of warming increases the chances of more frequent and severe heat waves, which can cause more heat-related death and illness,”[18] as well as “more frequent droughts, … greater rainfall, and possibl[e] change[s in] the strength of storms.”[19]  These are only a few of the threats posed by global warming.  The IPCC identified the following impacts as either “likely” or “very likely” to occur as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase:

• Higher maximum temperatures over most land areas;
• Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas;
• Higher minimum temperatures and fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas;
• Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas;
• More intense precipitation events over many areas; and
• Increased summer dry conditions and associated risk of drought over most mid-latitude continents.[20]

 The National Academy of Science (NAS) and EPA make similar predictions. [Climate Change Science; CAR, 106]. The IPCC quantifies these predictions as between 66 and 99% probable, depending on the specific environmental impact.[21]  By any measure, global warming will cause serious negative impacts for humans and the environment.

The extent of negative global warming impacts will depend on the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. The NAS similarly found that the “risk [to human welfare and ecosystems] increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.”[22].  Simply put, the more CO2 humans release into the atmosphere, the more serious the impacts on the environment. 

In 2001, the US Global Change Research Program released Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,[23] (National Assessment Overview) predicting effects of climate change for each region in the U.S.  The report was authored by scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Forest Service, and numerous universities across the nation.  According to the National Assessment, effects on Kentucky are expected to be significant and severe.  Increased average temperatures and increased evaporation are expected, potentially leading to net soil moisture declines. The National Assessment shows that “the changes in the simulated heat index for the Southeast [including Kentucky] are the most dramatic in the nation.” [National Assessment Overview, p. 48]. With the increased heat, air pollution is also likely to worsen.[24]  “Without strict attention to regional emissions of air pollutants, the undesirable combination of extreme heat and unhealthy air quality is likely to result.” [National Assessment Overview, 55]. In other words, harmful air quality will accompany the heat increases predicted for Kentucky as a result of global warming.

These types of weather conditions, which will increase as global warming worsens, have already caused serious health, welfare, and economic problems in the region.  For example, “[a] short-term heat wave in July 1995 caused the death of over 4,000 feedlot cattle in Missouri.  The severe drought from Fall 1995 through Summer 1996 in the agricultural regions of the southern Great Plains resulted in about $5 billion in damages.”  Id. at 61.

According to the National Assessment, effects on Kentucky, as with the rest of the Southeast, are expected to be significant.in terms of human health: “of concern…are the effects that elevated surface temperatures have on human health as a result of prolonged or persistent periods of excessive summertime heat events coupled with droughty conditions.”[25] Heat is not the only expected cause of health problems in Kentucky’s region. Decreases in water quality are also expected, and “effects on surface waters of changes in precipitation have important health implications in the region. Increased precipitation promotes the transportation of bacteria as well as other pathogens and contaminants by surface waters throughout the region.” Id. at p. 159. Unless releases of global warming pollution are curbed and then significantly decreased, global warming pollution will pose significant threats to the health, welfare, and economy of Kentucky.

Additionally, increases in global temperature may also cause flooding, which poses a direct threat to human health. [TAR: Impacts, 762].  Such floods pose a danger due to rising flood waters, but also due to the health threat posed by the agricultural and other non-point source pollution washed into surface water and groundwater supplied during floods.  [National Assessment Overview, 54].

Kentucky agriculture is particularly sensitive to the degree of warming because of the existing threats of heat waves, flooding and drought.  Unless releases of global warming pollution are curbed and then significantly decreased, global warming pollution will pose significant threats to the health, welfare, and economy of Kentucky. 

Thus, KDAQ must make an individualized determination as to the proposed project’s carbon dioxide emission potential and the adequacy of controls and/or procedures for controlling carbon dioxide pursuant to 401 KAR 63:020. The agency must do its part to prevent these dire health and environmental threats by prohibiting, or at a minimum mitigating, the 3-4,000,000 tons of CO2 pollution that would result from the proposed project annually.  (Said another way, this project would add the carbon emissions from adding approximately 500,000 cars per year for each of the next fifty years.)[26]

In light of the serious adverse impacts of carbon dioxide emissions on human health and welfare, property, and the environment, KDAQ cannot lawfully refuse to exercise its authority in 401 KAR 63:020 to eliminate or limit carbon dioxide emissions in taking action on the proposed Cash Creek project permit. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA decision makes clear that KDAQ may rely on 401 KAR 63:020 to eliminate or limit carbon dioxide emissions from the Cash Creek permit. [127 S. Ct. at 1455]. The Supreme Court also acknowledged “the enormity of the potential consequences associated with man-made climate change.” Id. at 1458.

There are numerous opportunities for mitigating the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the proposed project.  First, the project could be designed to expeditiously capture and attempt to store underground in geologic formations a significant portion of the project’s proposed CO2 emissions.  The current proposal to have the project “capture ready” does nothing to deal with the critical questions facing the entire coal industry – whether large scale carbon sequestration can work, and if coal can have a future in a carbon-constrained world.

As another possibility, this new source of carbon dioxide could be conditioned on the closure of existing sources of carbon dioxide.  Third, the project’s efficiency (and reduce the need for fossil fuels generally) could be improved by co-locating an industry that could utilize the waste heat/steam, such as a new ethanol or bio-diesel plant.

KYDAQ must consider the global warming impacts from CO2 emissions associated with this proposed project: A) as a non-regulated criteria pollutant in the BACT analysis, and B) in the alternatives analysis under CAA Section 165.

 

(a). Carbon Dioxide Must Be Considered In the BACT Collateral Impacts Analysis

Even in the current absence of USEPA regulating carbon dioxide, KYDAQ must still consider carbon dioxide as a non-regulated pollutant in the BACT analysis.  This “collateral impacts” analysis is intended to target pollutants that are otherwise unregulated under the PSD provisions.

 

i. A Stringent Output-Based Standard Would Minimize CO2 Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions are directly related to the amount of coal burned.  The more coal (or syngas) burned to produce a megawatt of electricity, the more carbon dioxide emitted.  Similarly, the less coal burned the lower the emissions of regulated pollutants.

In the top-down BACT analysis for each regulated pollutant KYDAQ must consider output based limits. 

As part of the new NSPS standards USEPA adopted output-based standards as a step towards minimizing inefficient and unnecessarily polluting boilers.  In the analysis for the new NSPS standards USEPA identified that boiler efficiency can vary enormously.  See Memo from Christian Fellner USEPA to Utility, Industrial and Commercial NSPS File, Gross Efficiency of New Units (February 2005).  The following table from that same memo and identified as Table 2 describes the range of efficiencies:

 

USEPA further explained that the highest efficiency subbituminous, bituminous, and lignite facilities are 43, 38, 37 percent efficiencies respectively. 

 

In a paper presented by three USEPA combustion experts at the 2005 Pittsburgh Coal Conference they detailed the enormous difference in the efficiency (i.e. the CO2 emissions per ton of coal burned) between sub-critical, super-critical, ultra-supercritical and IGCC coal plants.  See Sikander Khan et al, Environmental Impact Comparisons IGCC vs. PC Plants (Sept. 2005) (attached).  Following is Table 2 from that paper:

 

To minimize the emissions of carbon dioxide KYDAQ should insert a permit provision requiring the project proponent to maintain a net thermal efficiency at or above 41 percent.  Such a term would minimize both the emissions of regulated pollutants and the collateral emissions of carbon dioxide.   

 

ii. Clean Fuels Can Reduce Regulated Pollutants and CO2

Contrary to the plain language of the Act, the agency has not considered clean fuels in its BACT analysis.  For some inexplicable reason the agency sets two BACT limits, one for syngas and one for natural gas.  If the proposed facility can burn natural gas then it must be considered an available clean fuel in a top-down BACT analysis and may only rejected in favor of syngas in accordance with the procedures detailed in the 1990 NSR Manual.  Similarly, there is no discussion of the feasibility of blending biomass into the fuel mix as a way to mitigate the emissions of criteria pollutants and “non-regulated pollutants,” such as carbon dioxide.  Every increment of additional natural gas or biomass that displaces syngas means less regulated pollutant emissions associated with the burning of syngas and less carbon dioxide emissions.

 

iii. KYDAQ May Not Increase Emissions of Global Warming

KYDAQ is prohibited from granting this permit without mitigating the global warming impacts because it would allow the project proponent to emit carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide) in such quantities that the carbon dioxide emissions and ensuing global warming effects clearly pose a threat to the health and welfare of humans, animals, and plants

Based on the discussion above, carbon dioxide constitutes air pollution and adding more global warming pollution will accelerate global warming and cause further harm human, plant and animal life.  KYDAQ may not issue a permit that will cause additional injury to human health and the health of animal and plant life.  Further, this is a merchant plant, which has no assigned block of customers dependant on electricity it generates.  The CO2 it will generate will create unneeded harm with no countervailing benefit to the Commonwealth.

As demonstrated in the recent Springfield, IL, and Great Plains Energy settlements, it is possible to approve the construction of a new source of carbon dioxide conditioned on achieving overall carbon reductions through strategic investments in the retiring of existing sources, adding clean renewable generation, and boosting spending on energy efficiency measures.     

 

(b). KYDAQ Must Consider Global Warming Under the Alternatives Analysis 

CAA Section 165(a)(2) provides that a PSD permit may be issued only after an opportunity for a public hearing at which the public can appear and provide comment on the proposed source, including “alternatives thereto” and “other appropriate considerations.”  42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(2).

There are numerous options to building a new coal plant.  As the City of Springfield, IL, and Kansas City Power & Light have demonstrated, it is possible to build new coal and through a combination of closing old, inefficient boilers, and investing energy efficiency and clean renewable energy curb overall carbon dioxide emissions.

If KYDAQ does elect to issue this permit, we urge the agency to condition approval of the proposed permit on agreement by the project proponent to curb overall CO2 emissions associated with providing electricity to its customers by 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2012 (i.e. meet the Kyoto Protocol reductions).