'Reasonable' the crux in views on EPA's haze-pollution plan

LITTLE ROCK -- The debate on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for Arkansas to comply with a 1999 rule on haze centers on what federal, state, industry and environmental groups find "reasonable," according to public comments published by the EPA last weekend.

The plan to reduce haze pollution in national wilderness areas involves millions of dollars of investments in electricity generation and emissions-reducing controls -- costs that could be passed on to consumers. It also recently prompted Entergy Arkansas to propose phasing out the use of coal at its 1,700-megawatt White Bluff plant near Redfield.

The Regional Haze Rule is part of the Clean Air Act, and it targets visibility in "Class I" wilderness areas across the country and the sources of haze at those places -- sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, often from coal plants.

The rule sets interim visibility goals to meet a certain mark by 2064. In Arkansas, officials must address the haze at four wilderness sites: Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo in Arkansas, and Mingo and Hercules-Glades in Missouri.

After partially rejecting an Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality plan to implement the rule in 2012, neither the EPA nor the department submitted a new plan within a two-year deadline.

The Sierra Club sued the EPA, which resulted in a consent decree that required the EPA to submit a federal implementation plan this year, and it did so in March.

Industry and government officials have noted that the state and federal plans are largely similar with a few exceptions, notably the federal inclusion of a 1,700-megawatt coal plant in northeast Arkansas.

The plan analyzes electricity-generating facilities across the state and suggests ways to reduce emissions and meet "reasonable progress goals" for reducing haze. The EPA proposal carries nonbinding suggestions on how the state could comply with the haze rule.

Various interests have disagreed on the merits of the proposal. State and industry groups argue it goes too far, and environmental groups hope it will lead to the shutdown of some coal operations and improve public health along with visibility.

The EPA has posted comments from industry, state and environmental groups on its website, and hundreds of comments remain to be posted.

In the comments, industry groups and state officials made many of the same points. Comments noted the approach the EPA used in Arkansas is different from its approach in other states, the state is already on pace to meet visibility goals by 2018, cost estimates don't account for everything and the proposed visibility improvements are minimal.

Environmental groups also argued the plan would help preserve the state's tourism industry in wilderness areas that stand to benefit from the Regional Haze Rule.

The groups also have noted that research indicates high levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that are linked to deaths and hospitalizations in Arkansas and across the country. But EPA officials have said they likely wouldn't consider those comments because the haze rule does not target public health.

Among the comments was an Entergy Arkansas proposal to stop using coal at its White Bluff plant, a development reported earlier this month.

The company and other commenters asked that a new EPA plan account for the coal plant shutdown and push Entergy Arkansas' second 1,700-megawatt coal plant -- the Independence complex near Newark -- out of consideration for new emission controls.

The EPA had estimated costs of $400 million each to install emissions-controlling scrubbers at the White Bluff and Independence plants; Entergy Arkansas and the co-owners of the plants estimated costs of more than $1 billion at each location.

Industry groups have argued the EPA has used cost estimates that were too low to accurately determine the cost effectiveness of compliance with the haze rule. Commenters cite EPA guidelines on assessing costs and note that some actual costs related to installing controls, such as construction and interest on payments, are not included.

Arkansas Electric Cooperatives Corp., which owns the second-largest share of the White Bluff and Independence plants after Entergy Arkansas, estimated that the allowance for money used during construction could be $30 million to $60 million for a facility the size of White Bluff. The EPA did not factor that allowance in, the company wrote.

"This is a real-world cost that AECC's members will bear, and these costs should be included in the White Bluff scrubber cost analysis," reads a letter dated Aug. 7 and signed by Jonathan Oliver, the corporation's vice president of power production.

The White Bluff and Independence plants' other co-owners asked through the comments for the EPA to remove proposals involving the Independence plant, saying it is not required to be considered in the initial round of planning for regional haze compliance.

The EPA had included the plant, arguing that its size and effect on visibility made it unreasonable to ignore.

Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Arkansas Gas Consumers and Nucor Steel Arkansas all commented on the potential consequences for ratepayers if utilities move to pass along the costs of compliance to electricity customers. The groups also argued the EPA did not consider the social and economic costs and value of the electricity-generating sources on people outside the companies.

Several industry and state officials also argued the EPA should not require facilities subject to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule -- another part of the Regional Haze Rule -- to comply with a provision concerning the best available retrofitting technology to address emissions. Commenters noted the EPA has previously allowed facilities complying with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to be exempt from the haze rule.

In contrast, a filing from three national environmental organizations -- Earthjustice, Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association -- argued the EPA was right to consider Arkansas differently because the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule does not limit sulfur dioxide emissions from Arkansas sources.

State and industry officials also disputed the EPA's method of measuring visibility, saying it does not offer a comprehensive look at visibility at certain sites. They also argued the visibility improvements would measure little more than 1 deciview, which is within the measuring standards' margin of error and is barely perceptible to the human eye.

Environmental groups believe the visibility improvement estimates were underestimated.

The groups' joint filing also contends that the plan doesn't go far enough.

It cites two independent analyses by air-quality experts and states the EPA has overestimated costs of controls, underestimated the visibility benefits of other controls and hasn't accounted for the lowest emission rates achievable.

The groups also argue the EPA must do a "reasonable progress analysis" on regional haze, even when the state is already meeting the visibility goals, per the 1999 rule. The environmental groups added the Independence plant must be included because of the reasonable cost of installing controls there and their effect on visibility.

In their comments, state and industry officials asked the EPA consider a recent Environmental Quality Department report that the state has been steadily reducing emissions related to haze and is on track to meet visibility goals by 2018, the end of the first planning period for the haze rule.

Planning for the second phase would start in 2018, and stricter visibility goals would come five years later.

Groups filing comments largely in favor of the proposal included the Arkansas Audubon Society and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, which cited the state's tourism industry.

"Arkansas is known as the Natural State, and as such, we take pride in the quality of our landscapes especially as it pertains to their ecological integrity and our ability as citizens to enjoy those areas," Arkansas Audubon Society Conservation Chairman Maureen McClung wrote May 15.

The EPA originally announced it would issue a final plan in December but has since suggested delaying it.

NW News on 08/24/2015

Upcoming Events