September 2006

Papers To wrte Letters to Editors

22/09/06/10:35

Helena Independent Record http://www.helenair.com/
Mailing Address:
The Independent Record
P.O. Box 4249
Helena, MT 59604

Billings Gazette http://billingsgazette.net/info/?h/letters
PO Box 36300
Billings, MT 59197-6300

Bozeman Daily Chronicle
Use this online form, or send letters to:
Editor, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, P.O. Box 1188, Bozeman, MT 59771. Or
email
citydesk@dailychronicle.com

Missoulian
Letters must contain the writer's name, address and telephone number
(phone numbers are for verification, not publication).
Mail to: Missoulian Letters, P.O. Box 8029, Missoula, MT 59807.
Fax: 406-523-5294.
E-mail: ped@missoulian.com">oped@missoulian.com.

Daily Interlake http://www.dailyinterlake.com/
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/forms/letters.php
727 East Idaho Street / Kalispell, Montana 59901 / 406-755-7000
PO Box 7610
Kalispell, MT 59904

Havre Daily News http://havredailynews.com/
PO Box 431
Havre, Montana 59501

Montana Standard (Butte, Dillon)
25 W. Granite St.
Butte, MT 59701
http://www.mtstandard.com/newsopinion/

Lewistown News-Argus
P.0. Box 900 . 521 W. Main St. . Lewistown, MT 59457
406-535-3401 . 800-879-5627 . Fax: 406-535-3405
E-mail: newsstaff@lewistownnews.com

Mercury Rule Summary

20/09/06/10:25

The mercury rule components that were voted on last week are as follows. I will tell you what the rule says, what it means and why it is a problem. The board seems enamored with the term “soft landing” so I will point out to you the myriad of soft landings being provided by the rule. I count at least 7 soft landings in the following rule. There are a few more, but I won’t bore you with those details. In short, the current problems with the rule are:

Gives agency almost unfettered discretion to establish emission limits
Does not require honest mercury controls until 2018 (or beyond if a company uses banking).
Sets a emission standard in 2018 that facilities could meet today.
Gives weaker limits to lignite coal, the dirtiest type of coal in Montana.
Encourages companies to burn lignite coal by giving them a weaker standard, despite the fact that Montana is loaded with higher quality coals.
Allows cap and trade in Montana in perpetuity. Companies can buy and sell their way out of complying with emission limits.
Establishes future limits based upon the weaker best available control technology standard and not the normal standard for hazardous air pollutants which is the stricter maximum achievable control technology standard. BACT is driven by economic factors. MACT is driven by what the best facilities in the country achieve.

How is my recollection of how the board voted and issues still open before the board: • The Board voted against requiring stronger standards for lignite. Robin Shropshire made the motion, but instead of voting the board directed DEQ to provide it with the basis for the weak standards on lignite. The Board was not satisfied with the industry lignite experts testimony showing these facilities can reach 90% control. • Robin Shropshire made the motion to give lignite the same trading credits as cleaner coals. The board rule gives them nearly double of cleaner coals. That motion failed. Robin Shropshire was the only vote in favor. • Robin Shropshire made a motion to prohibit banking. That motion failed unanimously with Don Marble abstaining and Joe Russell not finishing the vote since it was clearly going down. • Bill Rossbach made a motion to direct DEQ to establish some criteria by which the agency will make permitting decisions. That motion passed unanimously. Unfortunately, the rule still allows for little to no oversight by the board or courts for the decisions DEQ makes. • Joe Russell made a motion to establish a maximum emission limit after 2018 of no more than 1.1 lbs/Tbtu. Motion passed with only Kim Lacey dissenting. She was concerned it might hurt Great Northern’s proposal to build a 500 MW lignite plant near Circle. Summary of current rule: 1. All facilities have to submit an application to DEQ on Jan. 1. 2009 that demonstrates the ability to meet a 0.9 lbs/Tbtu emission limit. This provision is good. If facilities were indeed required to meet this limit it would be acceptable. 2. All facilities can violate the 0.9 standard at any time. As long as over the course of the year, their average annual emissions are not higher, they will not be penalized. SOFT LANDING. 3. If a facility fails to achieve 0.9 lbs/Tbtu over the course of the year they must submit a permit modification 18 months after they start operating. As currently written DEQ has no discretion in issuing that new permit for a higher limit (this new limit is known as an alternative emission limit). No enforcement action can be taken against them if they fail to meet their initial emission limit provided that DEQ determines they tried to meet the 0.9 lbs/Tbtu emission limit. SOFT LANDING. The Board asked DEQ to amend the rule to come up with criteria by which DEQ will decide whether and how an alternative emission limit will be issued. 4. DEQ has complete discretion as to whether a facility gets an alternative emission limit and they have almost complete discretion on what that new limit should be. DEQ cannot set the limits above a certain level though. But these levels are arbitrary, extremely weak and differ by coal type. For example, new facilities like the Highwood Generating Station near Great Falls would have an upper limit of 1.5 lbs/Tbtu (which happens to be the same level as DEQ put in its draft permit) which is only only 26% control of mercury. Existing lignite has a limit of 4.8 lbs/Tbtu. The Great Northern lignite plant in eastern Montana which hasn’t even applied for a permit yet, will have an upper limit of 3.6 lbs/Tbtu. New lignite after 1/1/2009 will have an upper limit of 2.16 lbs/Tbtu. The board or courts have have no ability, or at best and extremely limited ability, to review any agency decision on emission limits. SOFT LANDING. The numbers are completely arbitrary. The industries lignite expert who testified in Billings showed test results on lignite in which most results showed 90% reductions. These upper limits are more in the range of 30-50% reduction. DEQ argues that these are maximum limits they can set, but DEQ has gone along with industry on every power plant permitting decision to date. And with no oversight, there will be tremendous pressure on the agency, and incentive for the companies to convince the agency, that the weakest limit is the best they can do. 5. Facilities are not required to ever install mercury control equipment. If a facility can convince DEQ that its boiler can reduce mercury to the limit, it will not be required to install mercury controls. It can then get an alternative limit (weaker limit) even though it has NEVER installed mercury controls. This is troublesome because despite the fact that two facilities have already agreed to install mercury controls, DEQ is still saying those controls are not best available control technology and is therefore not requiring the Great Falls power plant to install mercury controls. If a company can convince DEQ that it doesn’t need to install mercury controls in the initial permit, it won’t have to install those controls until 2018, if ever. 6. Alternative limits (weaker limits) are good from the time DEQ establishes them (probably late 2011) until 2018 – approximately 7 years. SOFT LANDING. This provides an incentive for companies to convince DEQ that a cheap technology can meet 0.9 lbs/Tbtu and then for them to fail to meet that limit and therefore delay investment in mercury control technology. 7. If a company has an alternative limit (weaker limit) it will have to submit a permit application to DEQ in 2014 showing what “best available control technology” is for that facility. Hazardous air pollutants are supposed to be regulated under a maximum achievable control technology standard. A BACT standard is MUCH weaker than a MACT standard. The BACT standard is driven by economic factors. A MACT standard is driven by what the best facilities in the country are able to achieve. This is why EPA is being sued by 15 states and numerous public health organizations. MACT standards are required for hazardous air pollutants like mercury. 8. A facility that is operating under an alternative limit has to comply with a BACT limit by Jan 1, 2018. The limit set by DEQ must be no worse than 1.1 lbs/Tbtu. SOFT LANDING. The 1.1 lbs/Tbtu limit is 20% higher than the limit they are supposedly required to meet in 2010. 9. Trading of mercury credits is allowed. From 2010 until 2018 all nonlignite facilities will receive credits up to 0.9 lbs/Tbtu. Lignite facilities will get more credits, or credits up to 1.5 lbs/TBtu. If the plant can do better than those limits it can sell credits. If it cannot achieve those limits it has to buy credits down to that amount. So if Great Northern has an emission standard in its permit of 3.6 lbs/Tbtu but is actually able to achieve 1.1 lbs/Tbtu, it can sell those credits it received between 1.1 lbs/Tbtu and 1.5 lbs/Tbtu. It will profit off of failing to meet its supposed required emission rate of 0.9 lbs/Tbtu. SOFT LANDING. 10. Banking of mercury credits is allowed. That means that if a company does better than its limit, it can save those credits until after 2018 and instead of meeting its emission limit after 2018, it can apply those unused credits it accumulated before that date to its emissions to show that on paper (although no in practice) it is meeting its emission limit. SOFT LANDING 11. All facilities must go through BACT review every 10 years. Again, BACT is an analysis that is driven by how economical it is to control pollution. The standard should be MACT. ********************** Anne Hedges Program Director Montana Environmental Information Center P.O. Box 1184 Helena, MT 59624 (406) 443-2520 fax: (406) 443-2507 ahedges@meic.org http://www.meic.org

Mercury Hearing Comments

19/09/06/10:07

From Hilary

In fact the Board was so annoyed by all the phone calls that I was not allowed to make my comments at the hearing. Board Chairman Joe Russell said he had already had two days "wasted" by all the phone calls coming in and he wanted to finish the business on their agenda and go home for dinner, they already knew mercury was a poison. My message was not specifically about mercury being a poison, but I wasn't allowed to continue. My time is also precious and I could have been at home harvesting my produce in advance of this storm instead of "wasting" my time trying to give these people my honest comments. It was apparent to me that the rule being considered was not adequate, since it contained cap and trade provisions, the timelines were too long for compliance, there was no hard rule to even require compliance, and the burning of lignite coal was actually encouraged because of extremely limited emission limits. Anne must feel pretty badly about the way they have messed up the rule she proposed. When I heard the industry people praising the Board on producing a rule that was beginning to look like something they could live with, I wanted even more to give these people a piece of my mind. Bill Rossbach, Don Marble, Ms. Shropshire, and Mr. Russell did in fact engage in lots of discussion with the DEQ personnel to try to pin down the ins and outs of this unwieldy rule, and so I had hope they would not entirely buy into it. I was not prepared for the hostility I received from Mr. Russell and since I am not experienced with these things I was totally nonplussed and ineffective, and felt put down and embarrassed. I am guessing there is a great deal of pressure from the Governor's office, and if that is the case, I am afraid Mr. Schweitzer is a turncoat and I am very disappointed in him.

It would seem there is no hope for the right thing to be done short of litigation to tie things up until a change in administration and the makeup of the Legislature will make a more favorable environment for our issues. I am feeling very discouraged.

Hilary

Thompson Falls Coal Plant

16/09/06/22:57

The Coal Burning Plant in Thompson Falls just got a permit to run again. This time with fewer restrictions.

CCE Potluck

12/09/06/15:44

PARTY! FIESTA!
Ken Thornton is an engineer who built a home 80% off the grid with solar and wind. He is also on the Climate Change committee. Lisa

We are looking forward to having people out next Sunday.

When: 1:30 pm, Sunday, Sept. 17th

Where: 31 Paradise Lane [ take Flood Rd. going South from town (Flood Rd. runs parallel to Fox Farm Rd about a half mile west of Fox Farm- it can be accessed off Exit 0 by Market Place, just after Tony Roma's turn left over RR tracks and continue South Or/ Take Fox Farm Rd. to Dick Rd, turn right. Dick Rd dead-ends into Flood Rd, take a left and continue South. ) Take Flood Road all the way to the "road closed" sign. Turn right over RR tracks, veer left on Paradise Lane. We are the first house on the right with the windmill

]

Bring: Something to share for eating, BYOB and a lawn chair if the weather is nice

Please call Ken at 452-1909 to let him know if you are coming and give him a head count.

See you then!

Ken

Mercury Rule

12/09/06/11:35

Hi, I am sorry I haven’t had a chance to split the email list yet. I have taped this morning from KUFM that DEQ wants mercury from coal fired plants reduced by 2/3 in the next 12 years. This would cost the industry in MT $500 million and the industry is pushing through Allen Olsen of Roundup (state rep) for a full economic review through MEPA. It is reported that the Colstrip plants alone profit 4 billion dollars a year. Also letters on comment on the DEIS will be posted on our web site in the next few weeks. Lisa

Citizens For Clean Energy, Inc.

Wind, Water, Solar, Hydo...Future is ecat