Law and the Environment : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law Firm : Boston, Washington D.C.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) announced two items in the last week that, while not related, could both spell large changes in the US energy future and create huge boon to the natural gas industry, if they pan out.

The first is an announcement on Wednesday that the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has developed a method of freezing natural gas which could both lower the cost of transportation of natural gas and allow access to vast amounts of the world's gas resources. NETL has created a special nozzle technology that rapidly traps natural gas in ice to form methane hydrate -- a process that also occurs in nature, and has foiled some of BP's attempts to plug the Deepwater Horizon well permanently. The technology requires far less pressure and cooling than the creation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG), and, reportedly, forms hydrates in minutes, compared to the current batch process that can take hours or days. NETL researches believe the new process will significantly reduce production, transportation and storage costs associated with current LNG and CNG processes and, potentially allow recovery of natural gas from hydrate deposits in the deep ocean and arctic permafrost.  The announcement reports that these deposits are estimated to contain more organic carbon than the rest of the world's fossil fuel reservoirs combined.  Of course, the politics of pursuing those deposits are likely to be dicey, given that some would argue that carbon is better left in a frozen state, rather than released into the atmosphere.  The announcement does not indicate whether the technology has been tested at any sort of scale, nor a timetable for when it might be rolled out.  

The second is an announcement in the Federal Register August 20th, reported by ClimateWire today, that the DOE is considering revising its energy efficiency calculations to take into account how the electricity powering large appliances like household water heaters is produced. By using a full-fuel-cycle (FFC) approach, the DOE, working with the Federal Trade Commission, would include the point-of-use energy, plus the energy consumed in extracting, processing and transporting the fuels source, plus the energy losses associated with the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. This information would then be provided to the public in enhanced Energy star labels. In 2005, the National Academy of Science recommended that DOE consider moving to use of an FFC approach for assessment of all energy and environmental impacts, especially levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and to provide the information learned to the public through labels and other means -- DOE says in its announcement that it is working to implement this recommendation.

As ClimateWire highlights, because about half of the country's electricity comes from coal-powered generation, natural gas proponents argue that a switch to FFC measurements will help them, by forcing consumers and utilities to look closer at the differences in fuel sources and efficiency of energy generation.  DOE is requesting comments on the models and programs used to make these proposed calculations, but if they are implemented, FFC may become the DOE's approach of choice in other areas, too.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I reported on a decision by EPA Administrator Jackson, in an appeal from a permit issued by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality, to the effect that the developer of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant, which converts coal to gas for combustion, had to consider use of natural gas as BACT, because the plant already had plans to use natural gas as a startup and backup fuel.

This week, Administrator Jackson went one step further – granting an objection to a permit for a traditional coal plant in Arkansas on the ground that it did not consider IGCC as BACT. As with the Kentucky decision, the issue in the Arkansas case was whether requiring IGCC would be to “redefine” the source. Also as with the Kentucky decision, the Administrator ruled that, while requiring consideration of IGCC as BACT might be to redefine the source, neither the permittee nor the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality had built a record sufficient to make that conclusion.

As David Bookbinder of the Sierra Club succinctly put it in Greenwire: "Control technology for conventional coal is IGCC and control technology for IGCC is natural gas." In short, the way to control emissions from a coal plant is to burn natural gas instead. 

I think that Bookbinder is exactly right concerning the import of the two decisions. I also think that the result is nuts. Can anyone say with a straight face that they really believe that this approach is consistent with the statutory intent? As I noted last week, EPA didn’t think so when they wrote in the New Source Review Workshop Manual that

applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

I also think that this is what happens when the agency ties itself into knots to reach a certain result based on statutory language written in another time for another purpose. Might there be a lesson in this for EPA’s efforts to regulate GHG utilizing existing CAA authority?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Shortly before the holidays, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an Order in response to a challenge to a combined Title V / PSD permit issued by the Kentucky Division for Air Quality to an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant. The Order upheld the challenge, in part, on the ground that neither the permittee nor KDAQ had adequately justified why the BACT analysis for the facility did not include consideration of full-time use of natural gas notwithstanding that the plant is an IGCC facility. 

The Order may not be shocking in today’s environment – all meanings of that word intended – but the lengths to which the Order goes to avoid its own logical consequences shows just what a departure this decision is from established practice concerning BACT. BACT analyses have traditionally involved the proverbial “top-down” look at technologies that can be used to control emissions from a proposed facility. In other words, EPA takes the proposal as a given, and then asks what the best available control technology is for that facility. 

In EPA’s own words – from its New Source Review Workshop Manual (long the Bible for BACT analysis):

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT requirement as a means to redefine the design of the source when considering available control alternatives. For example, applicants proposing to construct a coal-fired electric generator, have not been required by EPA as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting per unit product (in this case electricity).

Apt example, don’t you think? (In case you are wondering, EPA’s decision does not discuss or refer to this text from the NSR Manual.)

What was the basis for EPA’s decision here? Largely, it is that the IGCC facility will be designed to burn natural gas as well as syngas and the permittee specifically stated that it planned to combust natural gas during a 6-12 month startup period. On these facts, EPA concluded that the permittee and KDAQ had to do a better job explaining why full-time use of natural gas should be considered “to redefine the design of the source.”

As noted above, EPA went to great lengths to minimize the scope of the decision. It states that the Order:

should in no way be interpreted as EPA expressing a policy preference for construction of natural-gas fired facilities over IGCC facilities.

should not be interpreted to establish or imply an EPA position that PSD permitting authorities should conclude … that BACT for a proposed electricity generating unit is … natural gas.

does not conclude that it is not possible or permissible for the permit applicant … to develop a rationale which shows that firing exclusively with natural gas would “redefine the source.”

EPA does not intend to discourage applicants that propose to construct an IGCC facility from seeking to hedge the risk of investing in … IGCC technology by proposing … utilizing natural gas for some period….

Methinks EPA doth protest too much. If I may say so, this is a freakin’ IGCC facility. Isn’t it obvious that one doesn’t plan or build an IGCC facility if one plans to burn natural gas? Don’t you think that EPA could have taken administrative notice of what IGCC technology is?

All of EPA’s protestations about the Order’s limits may be designed to mollify IGCC supporters, but what does its rationale mean for all of the existing facilities – coal and oil – that are already capable of firing on natural gas? Next time they are subject to NSR/PSD review, must they evaluate the possibility of switching completely to natural gas? As I’ve said here before, yikes!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link