With Congress frozen by the election cycle and economic recovery being the administration's top priority, it seems inevitable that the utility industry will find itself within the cross-hairs of the US EPA's existing greenhouse gas rules in a few short months. As such, energy generating companies need to take a hard internal look to evaluate how the rules will impact their operations. This operational assessment should review whether the necessary tools and business processes are in place to effectively monitor, evaluate and assess the regulations impact on your enterprise.
The following provides a summary of the scope of next year's rules.
The US EPA Clean Air Act (CAA) Greenhouse Gas Rules are set to become a new set of permitting rules that will bring a broad segment of US industry within the scope of the regulations. The US EPA GHG tailoring rules states that "Entities affected by this action include sources in all sectors of the economy, including commercial and residential sources. Entities potentially affected by this action also include States, local permitting authorities, and tribal authorities."
Under the GHG Tailoring Rule, as of January 2, 2011, PSD or Title V requirements will apply to sources' GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD or title anyway due to their non-GHG pollutants. The implementation of the full rules will occur in a staggered approach. The First Step involves the initiation of the best available control technology (BACT) requirement, which will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), but only if the project also significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant.
For the Title V program, only existing sources with, or new sources obtaining, Title V permits for non-GHG pollutants will be required to address GHGs during this first step.
The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources as well as existing sources not already subject to Title V that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy CO2e will become subject to the PSD and Title V requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e and that undertake a modification that increases net emissions of GHGs by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e will also be subject to PSD requirements.
To evaluate CO2e, utilities must track ''the six well-mixed GHGs'' that fall under the scope of the EPA's rules. These gases are: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The emission factors for the EPA's mandatory GHG reporting rule have been codified by 74 FR 56395, Table A–1 to subpart A of 40 CFR part 98--Global Warming Potentials. Those factors will be used to calculate the emitted CO2e short tones of the six well-mixed GHGs. Tracking enterprise wide emissions, converting to CO2e, reporting, and obtaining CAA permits will fall on the shoulders of compliance personnel within the organization.
If you would like to know more, feel free to contact Foresite Systems' environmental compliance team's manager Travis Miller, travis.miller@foresitesystems.com or (408) 377-7400.
By way of example, I understand that methane (CH4) is equivalent to 21 units (molecules?) of CO2. Presumably it has 21 times the sun-blocking capabilities of CO2.
So, authors, journalists, writers, pundits, and "experts" far and wide, please take note, and let us all strive to keep the record straight! It is quite possible that the figures for actual CO2 releases are significantly lower than those quoted.
Secondly, many thanks for clarifying which of the different units of weight we use here in the USA. The terms "ton", "tonne", and "metric ton" at times seem to get used interchangeably. In the US we use the short ton which is a convenient 2,000 lbs even. But the tonne, equivalent to the metric ton and often used in Europe, is a full 204.6 lbs heavier than the short ton. Nickel and diming? Not really. For the largest figure quoted by Mr. Miller (100,000) specified as tonnes or metric tons, the difference would amount to an extra 10,230 short tons.
Regarding your note on how the EPA is reaching their emission factors for the various greenhouse gases, the EPA has utilized the six well-mixed greenhouse gases respective global warming potentials (GWP) in establishing their emission factors. The designated GWP for each of the monitored gases is set to the ability of an individual molecule of the regulated gas to warm the earth as compared to the base unit of measure over a 100-year life cycle. The selected base unit of measure in this case CO2.
From my understanding, the most difficult part of the CAA compliance process will be the required implementation of BACT tracking and emission control equipment. As the standard currently applies, I foresee considerable costs in implementing the best monitoring and control equipment to meet the regulated standards for GHG emissions, particularly once new (expensive) technology begins to emerge on the market, as typically happens in response to CAA regulations. Any thoughts?
I should point out that I have a vested interest in these issues insofar as the technology we are offering avoids BACT scrutiny, but this is going off-theme as regards your original post. I would be pleased to send you a copy of my white paper describing our technology and its current status, and you could then pass this on to any of your interested clients.
I think you are right about the pending litigation, particularly concerning the first permits. I noticed that the EPA Tailoring Rule has predicted that the industrial permit process will require 866 hours to complete, to the tune of $84,500 and commercial/residential permits will require approximately 606 hours, which the EPA estimates will cost $59,000. Those are some sizable cost estimate for permitting, particularly when considering the estimates must be considering internal personnel, as few outside consultants who are CAA permitting specialist would bill out below $100 per hour.
I can say that my industry, enterprise environmental compliance software and services, is certainly gearing up to address the need to reduce the manpower required to centralize, gather, and report the required emission data.