Phase II Report
of the Climate Change Work Group of the
Permits, New Source Review and Toxics
Subcommittee,
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
August 5, 2010
I. Introduction
The Climate Change Work Group is pleased to provide this Phase II Report
(Report) to the Permits, New Source Review and Toxics Subcommittee and the full Clean
Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). This second phase of the Work Group was
commissioned by Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy on April 9, 2010 (see
Appendix 1) at which time she requested input from the Work Group on two specific
issues:
1. How can the best available control technology (B ACT) process be used to
encourage the development of energy efficient processes and technologies?
2. How can the development and permitting of innovative emissions reduction
measures, including the promotion of inherently efficient and lower emitting
processes and practices for greenhouse gases (GHGs), be encouraged? How can
the Innovative Control Technology (ICT) waiver be used or changed to better
promote technology development and application?
Since the formal kickoff of Phase II, over the last three months, the Work Group
has held twenty-four (24) conference calls averaging 2 hours each and three (3) all day
meetings in Washington DC on these issues. The Work Group comprises a diverse
membership of forty-five (45) representatives from around the country of state and local
permitting authorities, environmental organizations, and industry. The Work Group
membership is in Appendix 2 to this report.
What follows are the Work Group's perspectives and recommendations on these
two specific issues.
II. Energy Efficient Processes and Technologies (EEPTs) and BACT
The GHG BACT Work Group was charged with addressing the question, "How
can the BACT process be used to encourage the development of energy efficient
technologies and processes?" This portion of the Work Group's report examines the
1
-------
ways in which EEPTs1 could be incorporated into the top-down BACT process2.
(Section II. A). Section II.B discusses different "levels of analysis" that might be used to
define both the parts of a facility and the equipment or operations within a facility that
might be subject to BACT. Finally, Section II.C presents general observations about
BACT and EEPTs. Recommendations are provided at the end of the document.
Members of the Work Group hold divergent opinions about the question posed by
Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy. Some Work Group members assert, based on
their experience and analysis, that the PSD program and top-down BACT process have
been very effective in achieving meaningful air quality and public health benefits, as
well as in promoting technology improvements to achieve pollution reductions. They
believe that the PSD program and top-down BACT process also can be very effective at
encouraging the development and application of EEPTs that will achieve meaningful
greenhouse gas reductions. In their view, in addition to producing societal benefits that
are reasonable compared to their costs, EEPTs considered in the BACT analysis will
frequently produce a net savings to the applicant, although not always with a rate of
return that meets internal company thresholds for investment.
Other Work Group members are of the view that the PSD program inhibits energy
efficiency investments and discourages projects that, in the near term, could materially
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is due in part to their belief that EEPTs
prescribed as BACT will be of a fundamentally different character than EEPTs adopted
for non-mandatory reasons, such as those developed under the EPA's Energy Star
program, because BACT will likely require efficiency measures to be adopted that result
in net costs rather than net savings for the applicant. These members suggest that an
alternative approach to traditional BACT would best accomplish the objective of using
the BACT process to encourage the development of EEPTs and could provide a more
cost-effective way of materially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This report should
not be viewed as an endorsement by these members that the BACT process can be
effectively used to encourage development of EEPTs.
Having expressed their divergent points of view, the Work Group members
focused their attention on how EEPTs may be incorporated into the BACT process and
on changes that can be made to existing policies, for example in implementing the BACT
waiver provisions (see Section III), to better promote promising new technologies
1 Use of the phrase "energy efficient processes and technologies" or EEPTs is intended to
refer to processes and technologies that reduce GHG emissions.
2 Consistent with the assumptions described on page 16 of the Interim Phase I Report, the
Work Group agrees: (1) State and local agencies will use their existing SIP-approved
processes for reviewing prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit applications
and determining BACT for GHGs; (2) The Work Group does not envision a new BACT
determination process for GHGs; (3) The predominant method for determining BACT is
EPA's "top down" BACT determination process, but there are some States (Texas is at
least one such State) that have an alternate process in their approved State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
2
-------
offering reductions in GHGs. The Work Group's report makes observations and
recommendations in that context.
In its discussions, the Work Group focused on each step in the top-down BACT
process and identified considerations a permit applicant and writer would likely need to
address regarding the application of EEPTs to arrive at what constitutes BACT. The
Work Group believes that the types of projects likely to come before State and local
permitting authorities will include: modifications of stationary sources; replacement of
existing emitting units; additions of emitting units to existing plant sites; and new
greenfield facilities. The specifics of what should comprise the scope of BACT review
required for each is something that the Work Group could not reach consensus on during
its Phase I deliberations (see Phase I Interim Report, Section IV, pgs. 5-8). The Work
Group also discussed different "levels of analysis" and their implications for the BACT
process.
It is envisioned that benchmarking information, to the extent it is specific and
relevant to the source in question, may provide useful information regarding EEPTs for
consideration in the BACT assessment. Except where otherwise indicated, references to
"benchmarks" in this document are intended to refer to the particular EEPTs discussed in
available benchmark documents. For instance, EPA's Industrial Energy Star program has
provided Energy Guides for a number of industries. These Energy Guides discuss in
detail EEPTs that a permit applicant or permitting authority may wish to consider. Other
sources of information include the Center for Clean Air Policy's international
benchmarks for cement kilns, iron and steel, and other industries, GHG efficiency
benchmarks for industrial products prepared for the European Union, and reports on
GHG mitigation options for particular industrial sectors. A list of publicly available
energy efficiency benchmark examples of which the Work Group is aware is provided in
Appendix 3. This type of information may be particularly useful at the initial stages of
the GHG BACT permitting process as the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse is
populated and updated. State and local permitting authorities, and permit applicants can
utilize this type of resource to identify potentially relevant EEPTs. Reference to these
benchmark resources is not intended to imply that any particular EEPT is relevant in any
given BACT analysis or to suggest endorsement of these documents.
A. Incorporating EEPTs into Top-Down BACT
The following section provides an approach for incorporating energy efficiency
into the existing BACT top-down framework ("framework") as currently practiced in the
U.S. One strength of this framework is that it uses the top-down BACT analysis with
which EPA, States, permit applicants, and stakeholders are already familiar. EPA has
asked this Work Group to consider how the BACT process can be used to encourage the
development of EEPTs. As such, this framework focuses on how to analyze such
measures in the BACT process, but the framework is not intended to preclude analysis of
other inherently lower emitting processes or control measures, e.g., end-of-pipe controls,
if they are otherwise appropriate for consideration as BACT, or to suggest that only
energy efficiency measures should be considered in the BACT process.
3
-------
Following the approach in the Federal New Source Review (NSR) rules, the
Work Group distinguishes between BACT analysis for new units at existing facilities,
modification to existing units, replacement units, and greenfield facilities units, and
presents the application of a top-down efficiency framework for each of those scenarios.
The Work Group also notes that a source can "net out" of PSD applicability through
energy efficiency measures, among other measures, such that there would be no
significant net GHG emissions increase, as is currently done for other PSD pollutants.
In the context of the current report, some Work Group members assert that EEPTs
that provide efficiency gains from non-emitting units that reduce the load on emitting
units should be considered in the BACT analysis, while other Work Group members
assert that only EEPTs which directly reduce emissions from the emitting units may be
incorporated into the BACT process.
Importantly, the analytical framework that follows is based on the assumption that
EPA's PSD and Title V Tailoring Rule (referred to as the "Tailoring Rule") is in place.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule;
Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June 3, 2010). The Tailoring Rule provides that a
100,000 ton per year (tpy) C02e major source threshold and 75,000 tpy C02e
significance level will apply before any BACT analysis for GHG emissions would be
required.
1. New Emissions Unit at Existing Facility
Step 1. Identify EEPT Options - Identify significant and relevant EEPTs available for
the new emissions unit. For example:
a. Comparison of the unit's energy performance with a benchmark may
highlight additional energy efficiency possibilities. Note Energy Star
Guides or other benchmarking information refer to technologies already in
use and may suggest technologies available relative to the new emissions
unit. Existing GHG efficiency BACT emissions limits, or analogous
efficiency benchmarks, also provide a benchmark for analysis. Studies
conducted on mitigation options for specific industry sectors may also
identify EEPTs.
b. Newly available EEPTs that have been demonstrated should also be
considered. For some industry sectors, the most efficient new units have
been built outside the United States.
c. Note that "[combinations of inherently lower-polluting
processes/practices (or a process made to be inherently less polluting) and
add-on controls are likely to yield more effective means of emissions
control than either approach alone." See 1990 Draft NSR Workshop
Manual (referred to as the "NSRManual") at B. 14. With respect to
EEPTs, some technologies and/or processes may be additive in achievable
benefits and the final GHG BACT determination may incorporate multiple
4
-------
energy efficiency measures. It may be appropriate to identify sets of
compatible EEPTs for consideration in the top-down analysis.
Step 2. Eliminate technically infeasible options
a. Eliminate EEPTs, or where applicable, sets of EEPTs, that are technically
infeasible, (i.e., not available or not applicable to the new emissions unit)
in a manner consistent with established EPA guidance/policy on
feasibility.
b. The analysis and selection of technology may include considerations
concerning reliability and operational characteristics of a technology,
which will typically be presented by the permit applicant for the
permitting authority to consider in setting an appropriate BACT limit.
The NSR Manual states that demonstration of "technical infeasibility is
based on a technical assessment considering physical, chemical and
engineering principles and/or empirical data showing that the technology
would not work on the emissions unit under review, or that unresolvable
technical difficulties would preclude the successful deployment of the
technique." NSR Manual at B. 20.
Step 3. Rank technically feasible EEPT options to establish a hierarchy - Rank
remaining EEPTs, or where applicable, sets of EEPTs according to specific
GHG CC>2e reduction potential for the new emissions unit.
Step 4. Evaluate most effective EEPT(s).
a. Analyze the energy, environmental, and economic impacts associated with
the EEPT or set of EEPTs ranked at the top of the list from Step 3 above.
i. The analysis should provide, perhaps in a table or chart, the following:
1. Energy efficiency and/or GHG emissions rate3;
2. Economic impacts, such as total annualized costs, average cost
effectiveness, and incremental cost effectiveness;
3. Environmental impacts, including emission reductions/increases
for other pollutants as well as impacts on water usage, toxic
emissions, water quality, solid waste generated, etc.
ii. Analysis should confirm the suitability of the top EEPT, or where
applicable, set of EEPTs, in the listing for selection as BACT, or
provide clear justification why the top candidate or set of candidates is
inappropriate as BACT.
3 Some EEPTs may reduce in part the use of grid-delivered power. Such reductions
could be quantified and listed as an energy impact in Step 3 of the BACT process using
the procedures outlined in the EPA guidance discussed below. Where associated energy
benefits can be quantified in terms of cost reduction or income to the source, such an
energy impacts analysis can also be factored into the economic impacts analysis. NSR
Manual at B. 29-30.
5
-------
iii. If the most effective technologies and processes are not selected, the
next most effective EEPT, or where applicable, set of EEPTs should
be considered and analyzed.
iv. While the permit applicant can submit a complete application that
analyzes only the top ranked alternative, some members suggested
that, upon analysis of that application, the permitting authority might
want to request further analysis of more than just the "top" ranked
option where those options are closely ranked in terms of GHG
reduction effectiveness but have significantly varying environmental
impacts. Some members suggest that the interplay between criteria
pollutant controls and GHG controls needs to be examined when
determining BACT for all pollutants emitted by the source.
b. Note that conventional BACT analysis for certain criteria pollutants may
result in energy penalties that will need to be compared to the BACT
analysis for GHGs (e.g., SO2 scrubbers for a coal fired electric generating
unit (EGU)). Permitting authorities need to assess the appropriate tradeoffs
between all BACT analyses for each regulated pollutant.
Step 5. Incorporate EEPTs into GHG BACT emissions limit.
a. The EEPT or set of EEPTs selected in Step 4 will be used to determine the
BACT limit.4
b. Just as with any BACT determination, permitting authorities will need to
consider the emissions limit and associated compliance determination
methods, such as stack testing or monitoring, reporting and/or record-
keeping requirements necessary to enforce that limit.
i. For example, a long- or short-term BACT limit could include
monitoring of various parameters, such as output or fuel use to assess
compliance with the limit over the relevant period, taking into account
real-world operation of the plant such as the effect of changing loads
on energy efficiency and compliance with the BACT limits.
ii. Permitting agencies should develop appropriate compliance
determination methods that recognize the concerns discussed below.
The Work Group discussed, without resolving, some issues regarding
establishing GHG emissions limits and compliance determination
methods:
1. Some members noted it may be useful to consider the use of long
averaging times in establishing an emissions limit.
2. Members also noted that energy efficiency may vary with time due
to degradation of equipment or because of operational issues
inherent to the industrial environment.
4 As noted above, permitting authorities should consider other (non-energy efficiency)
applicable production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques for
control of GHG emissions.
6
-------
3. Other members emphasized the importance of effective
management systems to ensure that efficiency gains are achieved
and maintained over time.
4. Some elements that could be considered in establishing appropriate
limits include:
a. A performance standard: An efficiency relevant BACT limit
(lb CCVmwh, heat rate) with an appropriate compliance
margin.
b. Operating limits that help ensure continuous compliance with
the BACT limit (such as limits on heat input).
c. Work practice standards, such as a periodic tune-up
requirement for a boiler.
d. Design requirements, such as a condensing furnace.
2. Modification to Existing Unit
Follow the process used for a new emissions unit described above. When
identifying potential efficiency gains, consider the extent of the modification.
3. Replacement Unit
If PSD is applicable to the replacement emission unit, the process is the same as
for a new emission unit as described earlier. Efficiency gains that would reduce the load
on the source that is being replaced could be used to avoid PSD applicability.
4. Greenfield Facility
Unlike with replacement units, modified units, and new units added to existing
facilities, when a new facility is proposed, there may be greater opportunities to use
EEPTs because higher efficiency equipment can be selected and there is no need to
retrofit existing equipment. For example, some new facilities may be able to take
advantage of opportunities to utilize waste energy and/or reduce the demand for water,
fuel, or other resources in a manner that reduces GHG emissions from the facility.
B. Levels of Analysis. BACT. and EEPTs
In the Work Group's Interim Phase I Report, the Work Group agreed that EPA
should continue to require the application of BACT to new emissions units and to
existing emissions units that are undergoing a physical change or change in method of
operation, but could not reach consensus on whether the BACT analysis may or should
consider parts of the production process beyond the units undergoing a physical change
or change in the method of operation. The two schools of thought are summarized at pp.
6-7 of the Phase I report.
Despite these differences as to the appropriate scope of BACT, the entire Work
Group recognizes that a facility-wide "level of review" is appropriate in determining PSD
7
-------
applicability in circumstances where a netting analysis is conducted. The opportunity to
"net out" of PSD creates a strong incentive for affected sources to seek energy efficiency
opportunities well beyond the confines of the project itself.
Without prejudice to the different views reflected in the Phase I report, the Work
Group agreed to discuss how the top-down efficiency framework could apply for three
possible levels of analysis. As a general matter, a broader level of analysis would
incorporate more opportunities to utilize EEPTs, potentially providing more opportunities
for GHG emission reductions and energy cost savings. At the same time, the broader the
analysis the more complicated the permitting process would be for the applicant in time,
effort, and perhaps cost. By agreeing to explore energy efficiency within these "Levels",
the Work Group wants to make it clear that this should not be taken to imply consensus
on whether GHG BACT should apply to a broader or narrower scope of analysis. Rather,
the Work Group decided to proceed in this manner recognizing that EPA has not
provided guidance on the issue of scope at this time. In the absence of EPA's guidance
on the scope/extent of the source to be considered for GHG BACT analysis, the Work
Group presents discussion of the levels of analysis solely for the purposes of addressing
the policy implications of performing the top-down energy efficiency analysis at varying
levels.
As recognized above in Section II.A, the Work Group also notes that projects
triggering PSD will vary in nature and scope. A project could be an entire facility if a
new plant is proposed. Alternatively, a project could be a replacement piece of emitting
equipment (i.e., boiler) if that is the only thing being replaced or modified. A project
might also be the replacement of emitting equipment (i.e., a boiler) and associated new or
modified process equipment that is being supplied energy (i.e., steam) by the emitting
equipment.
1. Definitions of Levels of Analysis
As used in this report, the term "Levels of Analysis" incorporates two distinctly
different concepts. First, Levels of Analysis is used to define the parts of a facility that
are subject to a BACT review (e.g., just one piece of equipment, an entire process line,
the entire facility). Second, once the part(s) of the facility subject to BACT review is
determined, "Levels of Analysis" is used to describe the equipment or operations for
which a BACT emissions limitation or work practice must be developed (e.g., for a new
facility consisting of a fossil-fuel fired boiler and a processing line that does not emit
GHGs but does use steam from the boiler, does BACT apply just to the GHG emissions
unit - in this case the boiler - or does BACT apply to the GHG emissions unit and
associated non-emitting units that may influence how much GHG is emitted by the
emissions unit).
8
-------
a. Equipment Level
Analysis at the equipment level would consider EEPTs for a new emissions unit
and/or or an emissions unit that is being physically or operationally changed. It would
not consider ancillary systems or non-emitting process equipment or structures.
b. Production Line Level
Analysis at the production line level would consider EEPTs relevant to a new
emissions unit(s) and/or an emissions unit that is being physically or operationally
changed and the production capabilities served by those units. For a boiler, for instance,
a production line level analysis would consider efficiency gains available from the boiler,
steam delivery system, and all systems utilizing steam from that boiler. The scope of the
"production line" level may vary depending on the factual situation. Efficiency gains
from steam-driven equipment that reduces the need for steam, thus reducing GHG
emissions from the boiler, would also be considered in the analysis. Where relevant to
the production line in question, opportunities to utilize waste energy would be
considered. Some Work Group members assert that the analysis is limited to the emitting
units.
c. Facility Level
Analysis at the facility level would consider EEPTs available within the entire
facility. This level could include consideration of opportunities to use waste energy, and
efficiency gains across the full range of production lines, EGUs, and auxiliary equipment
at the facility. Some Work Group members assert that the analysis is limited to the
emitting units.
2. Implications of Levels of Analysis
a. When might each level of analysis be appropriate?
(1) Greenfield facilities - All Work Group members agree that a facility-wide
level of review is appropriate upon construction of a new major source.
(i) Some Work Group members assert that BACT must be limited to
emissions units within the facility. [BACT should not invade the process
of designing the facilities.]
(ii) Other Work Group members assert that the BACT analysis should
encompass emissions units and non-emitting units. Such an analysis
might include opportunities for more significant GHG reductions, for
example, "rightsizing" the boiler for the facility, considering efficiency
gains available from non-emitting units, and incorporating systemic
improvements such as use of waste heat.
9
-------
(2) New and replacement units added to existing facility
(i) Some Work Group members assert that the BACT analysis must be
limited to the new emissions unit.
(ii) Other Work Group members assert that a broader review is appropriate
when a new process line is added to a facility, because consideration of
efficiency gains throughout that process line may provide the greatest
available GHG reductions and BACT requires consideration of production
processes that can achieve emission reductions. (This is consistent with
the "production line" level of analysis described earlier.)
(3) Modification of unit at an existing facility
(i) Some Work Group members assert that consideration of EEPTs in the
BACT analysis must be limited to the emissions unit being modified.
(This is consistent with the "equipment" level of analysis described
earlier.)
(ii) Other Work Group members assert that, where a unit is being modified,
the BACT analysis should consider possible efficiency gains available
from both the emissions unit and the related non-emitting equipment, as
this may enable the greatest GHG reductions. (This is consistent with the
"production line" level of analysis described earlier.)
b. Is the appropriate level of analysis the same for all industries?
(1) Some Work Group members expressed the view that the same regulatory
process should be used for all industries, and that the level of analysis should
vary only depending on the nature and scope of the project.
(2) Some other Work Group members suggested that the level of analysis may
also vary depending on the factual context of a particular industry, and that
permitting agencies may be the appropriate entity to determine the level of
analysis.
(3) Another Work Group member noted some GHG regulatory systems in other
countries have established a boundary of analysis for each category of source
while allowing a particular applicant to propose a different boundary when
doing so leads to clear GHG reduction benefits.
c. To the extent discretion exists regarding level of analysis, what might be the
implications of a narrow or broad level of analysis?
(1) Emission Reductions
(i) A broader analysis may reveal more EEPT opportunities for consideration
to lower overall emissions.
10
-------
(ii) Potential permit applicants may seek to avoid some projects triggering
BACT as a result of potentially greater costs and complexity of permit
reviews, as discussed in (2) below.
(iii)The level of review used can influence the inclusion in the BACT process
of some systemic improvements that impact multiple pieces of equipment
or processes, such as opportunities to use waste energy, or water
efficiency improvements.
(iv) A broader level of analysis may result in publication of information about
efficiency gains that may enable other facilities to benefit from the same
types of efficiency gains.
(2) Permit Processing and possible challenges and appeals
(i) If the boundaries of an analysis beyond the emissions unit being changed
are not clear, establishing when a permit application is complete (starting
the time period for the permitting authority to process the application) may
be more difficult.
(ii) Use of broader levels of analysis may create greater challenges for permit
staff not yet familiar with efficiency gains available from non-emitting
equipment, if non-emitting units are considered. Some members assert that
only emitting units may be considered. .
(iii)Use of a broader level of analysis may require more time and expense due
to more extensive analysis required, and increased scope of issues for
negotiation and public response.
(iv)Because there may be more public support for use of a broader analysis, a
permit using such analysis may be less likely to be challenged.
(v) If a broader analysis is used, there may be litigation or disputes between
permitting staff and applicants over how broad the analysis should be and
the scope of EEPTs that should be evaluated for such an analysis,
particularly at complex facilities.
(vi) A company that wants to begin construction quickly may choose a broader
level of analysis if the company believes such an approach would expedite
permit review or forestall a challenge.
(vii) Applicants may be concerned that agreeing to a broader analysis for one
permit will be construed as conceding such an analysis is required for all
future permits and thus may be reluctant to do so.
C. General Observations about BACT and EEPTs
1. Existing energy efficiency benchmarks provide suggestions regarding
available technologies and processes for reducing GHG emissions -
Benchmarking information is currently available for many industrial
sectors and can provide a useful means for identifying EEPTs.
11
-------
2. Energy efficiency may require careful management.
a. When BACT includes a work practice, oversight and maintenance of
equipment may be necessary to achieve and maintain the energy efficiency
outcome. Because many energy efficiency gains are realized through careful
oversight and maintenance of equipment, some form of energy efficiency
management may be helpful or in some cases necessary to realize and
maintain the desired efficiency gains.
b. Use of production process controls may lead to improved energy efficiency
and greater emissions reductions.
3. Levels of analysis beyond the equipment level are useful where a source
seeks to "net out" of PSD applicability.
a. The ability to "net out" of PSD using enforceable, voluntary GHG emissions
reductions creates strong incentives to use EEPTs within the facility. The
availability of those technologies may influence subsequent BACT
determinations in situations where PSD is triggered.
b. For some industrial facilities, many energy efficiency opportunities will
reduce in whole or in part use of grid-delivered electricity.
i. Some Work Group members assert that such efficiency measures
could not be used to "net out" of the PSD process.
ii. Other Work Group members assert that the inability to consider those
measures for netting purposes could discourage investment in such
efficiency measures.
iii. If EPA seeks to encourage reductions in the use of grid-delivered
power, regulatory changes should be considered. These might include
consideration of reductions in demand onsite in a netting analysis,
provided provisions to guard against double-counting of emissions
reductions are developed.
4. GHG reductions achieved by reducing use of grid-delivered electricity
may be challenging to quantify, but EPA provides guidance for doing so.
Some EEPTs will reduce the use of grid-delivered power in addition to or instead
of facility-generated power or heat. These types of gains may be particularly important
for some industrial facilities. In such instances, it may be difficult to quantify the GHG
reductions associated with such efficiency measures or to ensure that those measures are
translated into actual reduced GHG emissions. The Work Group notes that EPA has
provided guidance on consideration of energy efficiency gains in SIPs, including
information on how to estimate emissions reductions from energy efficiency programs
and methods to ensure those reductions are enforceable. See EPA Guidance on State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits for Emissions Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures, 2004, pgs. 19-28, 29-33, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaal/tl/memoranda/ereseerem gd.pdf
12
-------
III. Encouraging Inherently Efficient and Lower Emitting Processes and
Practices for GHGs
In her letter to the GHG BACT Work Group, Assistant Administrator Gina
McCarthy also asked the GHG BACT Work Group to consider:
How can development and permitting of innovative emissions
reduction measures, including the promotion of inherently efficient
and lower emitting processes and practices for GHGs, be encouraged?
How can the Innovative Control Technology waiver be used or
changed to better promote technology development and application?
Most of the Work Group's effort was spent focusing on the ICT waiver which
exists in the current PSD program regulations. The Work Group's exploration of the
history and experience with the waiver, however, resulted in recommendations for EPA
actions that go beyond the waiver itself, as set out below.
As part of its inquiry, the Work Group discussed whether the existing ICT waiver
can and should be used or changed to better promote the deployment of innovative
techniques and technologies for GHG controls. We asked EPA and the states for
background information on how the existing BACT waiver provisions, found at 40 C.F.R
§§ 52.21(b)(19), 52.21(v), 51.166(b)( 19), and 51.166(s), have been used, and for
information about comments received when the Agency last considered revisions to the
ICT waiver provisions in the 1996 New Source Review revisions proposal. This
memorandum summarizes relevant background material presented and discussed on a
series of conference calls and meetings during June and July 2010 and some resulting
recommendations from the Work Group.
We note that the Work Group had limited time and therefore was not able to
discuss other options for encouraging the development and permitting of innovative
emissions reduction measures beyond the use of the ICT waiver. Nonetheless, the Work
Group notes that the ICT waiver example provides insight into how EPA could
encourage innovation in the regulatory context, beyond the details of the waiver, by
working with permit-issuing authorities and applicants who seek the case-by-case
flexibility to support moving promising new technologies into general use. In addition,
voluntary programs, such as EPA's Industrial Energy Star program, may provide a useful
mechanism for developing both experience with and a market for inherently efficient and
lower emitting processes and practices for GHGs and other pollutants. While voluntary
programs are designed to emphasize projects with a definable and demonstrated payoff
and thus may not encourage all types of technologies necessary to reduce GHG
emissions, these programs provide an important role in technology development and EPA
should continue to invest in these areas.
13
-------
A. Background.
1. Statutory Authority for the Waiver.
The Clean Air Act includes express authority for the Administrator to grant a
waiver from the otherwise applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), to
"encourage the use of an innovative technological system or systems of continuous
emission reduction," 42 U.S.C. §741 l(j)(l)(A), that are not "adequately demonstrated,"
and that have a "substantial likelihood" (considering any previous failures to operate
effectively or to meet NSPS) of achieving "greater continuous emission reduction than
that required to be achieved under the standards of performance which would otherwise
apply, or achieve at least an equivalent reduction, at lower cost in terms of energy,
economic, or nonair environmental impact...." Id. § 7411 (j)(1 )(A)(i) & (ii). The waiver
applies to the portion of the source on which the innovative system is used. Id. §
741 l(j)(l)(F).
Although the statute uses the term "waiver," the ICT provisions do not offer a
complete waiver of the requirement to meet the standard, but rather a temporal waiver,
providing additional time for an owner or operator to meet the standard where an
innovative system is utilized. The source is allowed an extended period of time - up to 7
years after the waiver is granted, or 4 years after source commences operation, whichever
is earlier, Id. § 741 l(j)(l)(E) - to bring the new technology into compliance with the
required performance level. In addition, if the system fails to perform as expected, the
statute makes available an extension of the waiver for "such minimum period as
necessary to comply" with the otherwise applicable NSPS, and extending up to 3 years.
Id. §74110)(2).
The Administrator may grant such waivers with the consent of the relevant State
Governor,5 where the owner/operator of the proposed system demonstrates "that the
proposed system will not cause or contribute to unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety in its operation, function, or malfunction" (considering effects on other
pollutants and methods for reducing risk to public health, among other factors listed in
the statute). Id. §741 l(j)(l)(A)(iii) & final paragraph. And, the Administrator is
authorized to set permit terms and conditions as necessary to assure that emissions from
the source will not prevent attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS and the proper
functioning of the system. Id. §741 l(j)(l)(B).
The Administrator also can determine the number of waivers that may be granted
overall to a particular system of continuous emission reduction, which number "shall not
exceed such number as the Administrator finds necessary" to ascertain whether the
proposed system will operate effectively, and satisfy the other criteria of §
7411 (j)(1 )(A)(ii) and (iii). Id. §741 1
-------
2. Regulatory Provisions - the PSD BACT Waiver.
While there is no express authority for an equivalent BACT waiver in the Clean
Air Act's PSD provisions, waiver provisions derived from the Clean Air Act §1110)
authority have been included in the PSD regulations since 1980. See 61 Fed. Reg.
38,249, 38,278 (July 23, 1996); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(v), 51.166(s) (current
regulatory language describing the waiver) and §§ 52.21(b)(19), 51.166(b)(19)(defining
"innovative control technology"). According to EPA, the PSD BACT waiver originated
in concerns that a source would be able to get a §11 l(j) waiver but then would still be
subject to BACT, a situation that would discourage technology innovation. 61 Fed. Reg.
at 38,278 (citing 45 Fed. Reg. 52,676 (August 7, 1980)). The regulatory provisions
generally track the statutory authority for the section 111 waiver.
In the 1990 Draft NSR Workshop Manual's BACT section, EPA states: that "as a
practical matter, if a waiver has been granted to a similar source for the same technology,
granting of additional waivers to similar sources is highly unlikely since the subsequent
applicants are no longer 'innovative'." NSR Draft Workshop Manual at B.13.
3. Experience with the BACT Waiver Provisions to Date.
It is generally agreed by EPA, and by the Work Group members, that the ICT
waiver has only rarely ever been relied on in permitting new or modified sources since it
was first promulgated in 1980. There is only one readily available EPA formal decision
involving the waiver, and that is contained in a 1991 memorandum from the then-Chief
of EPA's Permits Program Branch to the then-Chief of EPA's Air Compliance Branch,
referred to here as the "Kamine Memo." In addition, Work Group member Bill
O'Sullivan described his experience in New Jersey, in the early 1990s, in which more
flexible permitting resulted in the transfer of a NOx control technology that was then
more commonly used in Europe, to an application in the US, where it had not previously
been relied upon. These two examples are discussed below.
Example 1 - The Kamine Memo. In the early 1990s, the Kamine Development
Corporation (KDC) requested an ICT waiver to apply NOx controls which were at that
time undemonstrated, on three similar cogeneration facilities in New York. EPA issued
a memorandum decision granting the waiver, and addressing three issues:
1. Whether the waiver was applicable, given the degree to which the
technology was 'innovative';
2. Whether the waiver should be granted, in light of EPA's general policy
not to grant a waiver for the same technology more than one time; and
3. What specific permit conditions should apply.
KDC sought to control NOx emissions with dry low combustion technology, rather than
the then-conventional selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. KDC planned to
install gas turbines similar to a model that included a guaranteed NOx emission limit of 9
ppm. Typically, a 9 ppm limit was only achievable with SCR. Because the turbines using
15
-------
dry low combustion technology had not been demonstrated, but were capable of
achieving similar NOx reductions at a lower economic cost, the technology qualified for
a waiver.
The Kamine Memo describes EPA's policy position expressed in the
memorandum that it would approve only a limited number of ICT waivers for a specific
technology application, because after that, the technology is no longer "innovative."
Here, EPA was willing to grant the waiver for three separate but similar applications of
the same control technology only where the same owner controlled all three facilities, the
same agency would permit each facility, and all three would be constructed
simultaneously.
The statements in the Kamine Memo therefore represent a very limited view of
the availability of the waiver provision for a given technology and application, appearing
to narrow even further its availability as compared with the already limited statements
about availability found in the 1990 Draft NSR Workshop Manual.
Example 2 - New Jersey/Logan Generating. Also, in the early 1990's, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) incorporated into an air permit
a flexible emissions standard including a range of emissions limits, with the lower end of
the range to be met at a minimum and the final limit determined at the end of a trial
period for the technology required by the permit in order to facilitate the introduction of
new NOx emission control technology. The agency collaborated with project developers
at the coal-fired Logan Generating Plant to control NOx emissions with SCR. At that
time, SCR had not been used on coal-fired EGUs in the United States but had been
widely applied in Germany. NJ DEP believes that as a result of the agency's technology
deployment strategy, SCR now plays a prominent role in controlling NOx emissions, not
only at this particular New Jersey coal plant, but also at many other coal plants in the
United States.
By contrast with Kamine, NJDEP worked within its existing authority to
encourage technology transfer as part of the BACT/LAER standard setting. Specifically,
the agency required the consideration of SCR as part of the Logan plant's BACT/LAER
evaluation, and then worked with the applicant to structure the emissions standards
contained in the air permit to provide the flexibility for the owner/operator to adopt the
new technology without fear of violating emissions standards if it did not perform as well
as expected. The agency coupled the BACT requirement with a range of permissible
emission levels for a specified trial period. The final limit included a compliance
margin. The project was a success - the SCR technology performed better than LNB and
SNCR which were the bases of the upper end of the range specified in the permit. The
permit flexibility opened the door to financing for the new technology because it
removed the risk that emissions would violate the plant's air permit if the technology did
not perform as well as expected.
16
-------
Based on the technology's success, NJDEP adopted tighter NOx emissions
standards and now requires SCR or its equivalent on all coal-fired power plants. Today,
SCR is widely used andhas served as a basis for BACT for new coal-fired power plants
Proposed Chanses to ICT Waiver in the 1996 NSR Reform Package. EPA,
recognizing that its 1980 vintage ICT regulations had not been used to promote
innovative control technologies, in 1996 proposed (but did not finalize) revisions to the
waiver regulation to "make the innovative technology alternative simpler and more
attractive in PSD areas ... [and] to facilitate the use of innovative or undemonstrated
pollution control, prevention, or reduction technologies in NSR permitting." 61 Fed.
Reg. 38,249, 38,278 (July 23, 1996).
As part of the process for developing of the proposed ICT waiver changes,
The CAAAC's NSR Reform Subcommittee and the EPA recognized
the risks associated with undertaking innovative projects while also
recognizing the potential benefits to all stakeholders of a well designed
and frequently used waiver that leads to greater use of previously
undemonstrated control strategies.
[The] Subcommittee examined the reasons for the ICT waiver's limited
usage and developed three possible outcomes, other than performance
as expected, for the installation of undemonstrated control technology -
that the technology performs better than expected; that there is a
"marginal" failure; or that there is a "gross failure." The
Subcommittee recommended options to reward the source for
incurring the risk of failure, procedures to be taken by the permitting
agency in case of failure, and certain air quality safeguards. Id.
Specifically, the revised waiver provisions stated that permits must contain the
reference emission control performance objective of the (proposed newly named)
"undemonstrated control technology or application" (UT/A) and the otherwise applicable
BACT or LAER standard. EPA proposed for the revised waiver to be available for a
period running 2 years from startup or 5 years from permit issuance. The CAAAC had
recommended that the statutory maximum 4 and 7 year periods be authorized where
needed. In addition, EPA proposed a mechanism to address what happens if an
undemonstrated technology is ultimately unable to achieve the BACT limit because the
technology failed to perform as expected. This was proposed to help mitigate the risks to
the applicant of trying an innovative method of achieving BACT. The proposal would
have required a permit to define and include emission limits for two modes: "Marginal
Failure" and "Gross Failure." Gross failure would have required either the replacement
of the UT/A or a retrofit, on an expeditious schedule, such that the source achieves
BACT or LAER within 18 months.
Under the proposal, a UT/A based permit would include: (1) identification of
potential failure modes, (2) projections of corresponding emissions increases expected,
(3) corresponding emission increases as marginal or gross failures, and (4) identification
17
-------
of potential contingency measures, short- and long-term, to reduce or mitigate increases
in event of worse-than-expected emissions during the term of the UT/A waiver.
In addition, CAAAC had recommended that an applicant be allowed to use, bank,
or trade the portion of emission offsets of any nonattainment pollutant that becomes
surplus when the UT/A achieves greater emission reductions than originally anticipated;
and among other things, to limit the benefit accruing to the UT/A source to protection
from enforcement of the initial, (more stringent) UT/A-based BACT emission limit
during the period of the waiver.
EPA staff made available to the Work Group summaries of the comments
received by the Agency on its 1996 proposal. The comments received by the Agency
were generally supportive of changing the ICT/undemonstrated technology waiver.
Some commenters supported the CAAAC recommended period for waiver availability
(up to the 4-7 years authorized by the statute), over the EPA proposal to shorten the
duration to 2-4 years; others thought the permit-issuing authority should have discretion
over waiver length. Commenters generally supported the 'Marginal' and 'Gross Failure'
concept, although concerns were expressed about including mandatory definitions of
such scenarios in the permit at the outset, and other commenters wanted to ensure that
these concepts would not be abused.
B. Summary of Work Group Discussions.
The Work Group discussed the background presented above, presented in the
attached Power Point developed by a subgroup of the Work Group, during a series of
phone conversations and face-to-face meetings.
It was generally agreed that the ICT waiver provision, as it is currently written,
has failed to provide incentives to permit applicants to apply innovative, new
technologies for pollution control as part of the PSD permitting process, and, without
some change, is unlikely to provide the incentive or encouragement of innovative control
technologies for GHGs. Three general categories of problems with the current waiver
were identified -
1. The very limited availability of the waiver for a given technology and
application under current EPA policy,
2. The time frame within which the owner/operator has to meet the BACT
limit under any waiver, and
3. The degree of risk borne by the applicant relying on a new or innovative
technology to achieve an emissions limit, should the technology fail and an
entirely different control technology be required.
The New Jersey experience, which took place outside the terms of a formalized
ICT waiver, points out the need for cooperation between the applicant and the permit-
issuing authority, so that not only is there the willingness to take risk on the part of the
18
-------
applicant, but also flexibility on the part of the permit-issuing authority in order to move
a promising technology into wide market acceptability.
The Kamine example describes the problem with EPA's current policy under
which only one use of each specific "innovative technology" is eligible for the waiver.
Moving new or innovative technologies into market demonstration can require a number
of applications in various settings. To severely limit the availability of the waiver does
not provide incentive for its use. In fact, rather than providing encouragement to rely on
new and innovative technologies, EPA's current waiver policy actually may discourage
applicants from seeking to rely on them, and permit-issuing authorities from suggesting
them.
Comments on the 1996 proposal and Work Group discussion of it pointed out that
too much risk of trying new technology now is borne by the applicant - the remedy for
"failure" of the innovative technology is to get to "otherwise BACT" by the waiver
deadline - which may require ripping out control technology and replacing it on a
relatively short timeframe. Work Group stakeholders asserted this approach was too
prescriptive to encourage an applicant to take the risk inherent in advancing completely
new techniques or even technologies that are known but not yet mainstreamed.
Work Group members asserted that to be of any use in the GHG context, an ICT
waiver should build in flexibility in meeting GHG BACT to the maximum extent
authorized by the statute so that the risks are better shared by the applicant and the permit
authority than under the current waiver. Additionally, it was generally agreed that the
"one time only" nature of the current waiver policy has been implemented adds an
unnecessary barrier, as the statute authorizes more flexibility. Making the waiver
available to particular uses of technology during the period between when they are truly
new and innovative and the point at which they are market-driven and no longer
"innovative" or "new" may increase the likelihood that applicants use the waiver to
achieve greater reductions than they would without it.
There was general agreement that the full length of time allowed for in the statute
should be available for ICT waivers for new, innovative technologies, as needed on a
case-by-case basis, and that EPA's 1996 proposal to shorten the waiver period would not
be favored for a waiver for GHG technologies in many instances.
The Work Group's discussion also addressed whether the waiver should be
available only for technologies that may achieve significant additional reductions beyond
what might be achieved under a BACT case-by-case evaluation ("stepwise beyond
otherwise BACT"). Some members of the Work Group represent State permitting
authorities noted their reluctance at this point to consider energy efficiency technologies
that are already in use as "innovative" enough to qualify for a waiver, while others
expressed the view that they could make such assessments on a case-by-case basis.
Others pointed out that to the extent it might be true for CO2, for other pollutants such a
limitation could be overly burdensome. They pointed out that even for C02 there are
many industries where innovative efficiency options may be available but not tried if
19
-------
there is no waiver. This might be particularly true in instances where carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) is not an option which is likely to occur in mainstream
manufacturing settings. These members pointed out that the decision on innovative
efficiency techniques could be evaluated by the permitting authority during the waiver
process and should not be precluded generally.
Utility industry representatives noted that for expensive control options, such as
CCS, a waiver will never be the only incentive needed to move them forward. In
addition, other factors, such as the availability of Federal or State subsidies, have to be in
play as well. And utility companies in regulated states must be able to show the
investment in the technologies is prudent to support rate recovery.
There was a discussion about what industry needs in order to move new
innovation to the mainstream - so that it is market-driven and no longer needs either the
subsidy or the waiver. The question about how long/how many applications might be
needed to get to that point will vary by pollutant, by technology, and by industry.
Several members of the Work Group described advantages that EPA has on this
issue generally, in that there is a comment record (albeit focused on criteria pollutants
since GHG regulation under PSD was not then at issue) on the 1996 proposed revisions
to the ICT waiver, and on which EPA might be able to rely in issuing a supplemental
proposal and finalizing some new language. The point was made that the 1996
proposal's terminology - including the use of the word "undemonstrated" and concepts
about "gross" and "marginal" failure, perhaps implied a greater level of risk or harm than
were really at issue. Some members preferred the use of the words "new" or
"innovative" to describe techniques and technologies for which the waiver would be
available. And with respect to the use of the terms "marginal or gross failure" - some
members of the Work Group expressed strong disagreement with these terms because
they imply the likelihood that technologies will fail significantly when the hope and
expectation of the permitting authorities and applicants is generally that they will work.
They preferred instead that the permitting authority have the flexibility to set a range of
limits on a case-by-case basis to be met by the source employing the waiver provision. It
was pointed out, though, that these terms may have been used in light of constraints
permitting authorities perceived regarding their authority to express BACT as a range.
There was also discussion that the lack of history of GHG BACT determinations
and of an NSPS for GHGs makes it difficult to estimate the environmental "risk" that
may be associated with the concept of future waivers. The question, "What will be
waived?" does not have a current answer. Therefore, it may be that innovative
technologies could qualify as BACT, with no need for a waiver (especially if the source
is employing energy efficient technologies as a part of the new or modified source).
Should high cost technologies become demonstrated and accepted as BACT, incentives
for developing technologies that can achieve comparable reductions for lower cost will be
increased. The ICT waiver process could then be more significant.
20
-------
IV. Recommendations
1. EPA should provide guidance based on the framework presented here about how
to incorporate EEPTs into the top-down BACT process. ("Guidance" refers to the
plain meaning of the term and is not intended to refer to a legal process or form.)
2. EPA should update the Office of Research and Development GHG mitigation
database to incorporate information on EEPTs including information on relevant
benchmarks.
3. EPA should encourage use of innovative control technologies for GHGs emitted
by stationary industrial sources, consistent with the Clean Air Act provisions
authorizing waivers for innovative technological systems of continuous emission
reduction. The Work Group's review of experience to date with the existing
BACT ICT waiver showed that the existing ICT regulatory provisions have failed
to promote use of innovative technologies for pollution control. Although
reliance on an ICT waiver will be expected to be the exception, rather than the
rule, in how BACT limits are issued, the Work Group's discussion of this issue
illustrates that it has not been used at all and that if revised, the waiver could serve
its intended purpose of promoting innovative technological systems for GHGs.
Furthermore, EPA can and should recognize the opportunity presented by the
existence of the record from previous efforts to revise the waiver provisions to
make them more attractive, and should take further comment on and, by the date
GHG BACT reviews begin, finalize language revising the existing ICT waiver.
In taking these steps,
a. EPA should disavow its policy set out in the Kamine Memorandum (and,
to the extent EPA believes it expresses it, the 1990 Draft NSR Workshop
Manual) that an ICT waiver is available for only one application of a
particular technological system of continuous emission reduction. EPA
should instead exercise its authority under the statute, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411
(j)(l)(C) and 7479(3), to allow permitting authorities to issue as many
waivers as appropriate, in the case-specific circumstances that arise, to
allow such innovative technologies for GHGs to be brought to market as
soon as possible.
b. EPA should formally and publicly state its views about the availability of
the waiver in light of the length of time that a particular technology has
been successfully deployed and the variation between units using a
particular technology.
c. EPA should reevaluate the appropriate maximum waiver length, in terms
of time from permit issuance and time from startup, consistent with the
statutory maximum period of 7 years from permit issuance or 4 years after
the date the source or portion thereof commences operation, whichever is
earlier. We encourage EPA to exercise its discretion to authorize
permitting authorities to use up to the full time period authorized in the
21
-------
statute to phase in BACT based on an innovative control technology, if
needed, on a case-by-case basis,
d. EPA should support States in their efforts to promote new and innovative
technologies or techniques for GHG reductions by expressly allowing
permits to specify a range of emissions limits that constitute BACT for
that particular application of the new or innovative technology, including
express provisions for determining how a final BACT limit will be
determined within the range after a sufficient period of experience.
4. EPA should commit, going forward, to working expeditiously with permitting
authorities that wish to issue permits including BACT limits based on new or
innovative technologies (using the waiver provisions as needed), and take steps to
foster information sharing about cases in which permitting authorities use the
flexibility under existing law to encourage new and innovative technologies.
22
-------
Appendix 1: Letter from Gina McCarthy to Mark MacLeod and Eric Svenson
UMIM1' t A * • >> MViV.iNMFKKAL fJfiPlEO PON AGENCY
APR-12010
Mr. Kric Svenson
Vice President, Environment, Health and Safety
Public Sen icc Enterprise Group
80 Park Plaza, T-10
Newark. New Jersey 07102
Dear Mr. Svenson:
Thank you for the February 3, 2010 Interim Phase I Report on Issues related to Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) for greenhouse gases (GTIG), In addition to voicing my
appreciation for your work on the report. 1 am also responding to your request for input on which
issues to undertake for the Climate Change Workgroup (CCWG) in the follow-on effort (Phase
II) that will be getting underway shortly.
Let me first express my gratitude for your hard work and leadership. Developing the
Phase I Report was no small task, but with your combined leadership and the dedication of many
others on the CCWG, you managed to forge through a contentious set of issues and effectively
build consensus. You also clearly articulated areas of non-consensus while producing a highly
valued set of recommendations. Please pass along my sincere thanks to all of the members of the
CCWG.
In response to the Phase I recommendations, we are actively working with states on
technical information and data needs. This includes work on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (HPA) Office of Research and Development GHG Mitigation Strategics Database.
Reasonably Available Control Technology/BACT /Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
Clearinghouse enhancements, and developing sector based GHG control measures white papers.
We arc also gearing up to respond to your questions on BACT policy issues for CM IGs. This will
take considerable effort, but I understand how important it is for HP A to flesh out these issues
and provide useful and timely policy guidance to pave the way for a smooth transition to
permitting of GIfGs. As we continue to develop our technical and policy guidance in response
to the Phase I effort, 1 will keep you and the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC)
informed through updates at upcoming CAAAC meetings.
R«e*tfti«iKfisi8»iie • PrnSMf with V
23
-------
2
I appreciate the thorough, informative and forward-looking ideas presented in the eight
white papers that the CCWG provided, and I am very excited about this second phase of
discussions. It is clear that there already has been a lot of creative thought on each of them.
After reviewing the list of candidate Phase II issues with my staff, I have narrowed them to two
specific issues on which we are seeking your input:
1. How can the BACT process be used to encourage the development of energy efficient
processes and technologies?
2. How can the development and permitting of innovative emissions reduction measures,
including the promotion of inherently efficient and lower emitting processes and
practices for GHGs, be encouraged? How can the Innovative Control Technology
waiver be used or changed to better promote technology development and application?
There is some overlap between these issues and you should feel free to combine them
into one paper. As you may know from the Administrator's response dated February 22, 2010 to
Senator Rockefeller and other Senators, we are considering aspects of some of the issues raised
by the CCWG as part of our GHG rulemaking proposals. In other cases, we believe the issues
being raised will be handled in the context of our response to the Phase I report (e.g., the clean
fuels issue). Accordingly, 1 would like the CCWCs input and recommendations on these two
specific areas.
I realize that you are aware of the time constraints as we move forward. Given the recent
signature of the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, it would be useful to receive the feedback from the
Phase II effort in the near term. At the same time, 1 want to provide a reasonable deadline which
will allow for meaningful deliberations by the CCWG on these important issues. We would
hope that you could provide a report to us at the next CAAAC meeting that is scheduled for May
26th and 27th, We understand that the above issues are challenging, but we hope that it is a
manageable task for the CCWG to provide feedback within this timeframe. Also, we understand
that providing a report like the one provided through Phase I is resource intensive and may not
be realistic. If that is the case, it would be equally useful for the work group to provide vetted
white paper(s) to enable us to consider your recommendations and perspectives on the Phase II
areas.
The transition of CPA personnel for Phase II will be as follows: Peter Tsirigotis will
hand control over to Bill Harnett, the Associate Director for Program Integration and
International Air Quality Issues. Bill has selected Raj Rao, the New Source Review Group
Leader, as his key facilitator similar to the role David Solomon performed for Phase I. As
before, Pat Childers will remain involved in each of the meetings to ensure that Federal Advisory
Committee Act procedures are maintained. Bill and Raj will work with you to plan out the
details, including scope of the issues, the number of meetings, and the nature of the final work
products. Bill can be reached at (919) 541-4979 and Raj can be reached at (919) 541-5344.
24
-------
3
Again, thank you lor the tremendous effort that you have already put forth. I look
forward to seeing the recommendations from Phase II.
Sincereh,
jina McCarthy
Assistant Administrator
25
-------
Appendix 2: List of Work Group Members
Praveen Amar,
Director of Science and Policy
NESCAUM
89 South Street, Suite 602
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 259-2026
E-Mail: pamar@nescaum.org
S. William Becker,
Executive Director
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 307
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 624-7864
E-Mail: bbecker@4cleanair.org
Shannon Broome
Executive Director, Air Permitting Forum
5001 Proctor Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
Phone: (510) 985-1710
E-Mail: sbroome@pacbell.net
John Busterud, PG&E
E-Mail: JWBB@pge.com
Pamela Campos
Attorney
Environmental Defense Fund
2334 N. Broadway
Boulder, CO 80304
Phone: (303)447-7216
E-Mail: pcampos@edf.org
Dan Cunningham
Public Service Enterprise Group
Environmental Policy Manager - Air
80 Park Plaza - T17F
Newark, NJ 07101
Phone: 973-430-6307
E-Mail: Daniel.Cunningham2@pseg.com
26
-------
Stacey Davis
Center for Clean Air Policy
750 First Street, NE, Suite 940
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 408-9260
E-Mail: sdavis@ccap.org
David Doniger,
Natural Resources Defense Council
1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 2005
Phone: (202) 289-6868
E-Mail: ddoniger@nrdc.org
Howard Feldman
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
Phone: (202) 682-8340
E-Mail: Feldman@api.org
David Foerter
Director
Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)
1730 M Street NW Suite 206
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 457-0911
E-Mail: dfoerter@icac.com
Buddy Garcia,
Chairman
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
P.O.Box 13087 mc 100
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: (512) 239-5515
E-Mail: bgarcia@tceq.state.tx.us
James Goldstene,
Executive Director, California Air Resources Board
1001 "I" Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: (916) 445-8449
E-Mail: jgoldste@arb.ca.gov
27
-------
Lisa P. Gomez,
Director, Environmental Services
Sempra Energy Utilities
8315 Century Park Court, CP21E
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: (858) 654-3580
E-Mail: LPGomez@Semprautilities.com
Carolyn L. Green,
Managing Partner
EverGreen Capital Management
150 N. Radnor Chestor Road, Ste. F-200
Radnor, PA 19087
Office: (610) 977-2423
Cell: (215) 280-8603
Email: clg@energreencapital.com
Judi Greenwald,
Vice President Innovative Solutions
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
1201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 550
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703) 516-4146
E-Mail: greenwaldj@pewclimate.org
Rhea Hale
Director, Climate and Air Programs
American Forest & Paper Association
1111 19th Street N.W. Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 463-2709
E-Mail: Rhea_Hale@afandpa.org
Stephen Hartsfield
Program Director
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
2501 Rio Grande Blvd. NW, Suite A
Albuquerque, NM 87104
Phone: (505) 242-2175
E-Mail: SHartsfield@ntec.org
28
-------
Jesse Heier,
Washington Director
Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 401
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 624-5460
E-Mail: jheier@csg.org
Ned Helme
Center for Clean Air Policy
750 First Street, NE, Suite 940
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 408-9260
E-Mail: nhelme@ccap.org
Ben G. Henneke, Jr.
Clean Air Action Corporation
7134 South Yale Suite 310
Tulsa, OK 74136
Phone: (918) 747-1523
E-Mail: benh@CleanAirAction.com
Susana Hildebrand
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
P.O.Box 13087 mc 168
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: (512) 239-4696
E-Mail: shildebr@tceq.state.tx.us
Tim Hunt,
Senior Director
Air Quality Programs
American Forest & Paper Association
1111 19th Street N.W. Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 463-2588
E-Mail: Tim_Hunt@afandpa.org
Charles H. Knauss,
Bingham McCutchen LLP
2020 K Street 10th Floor NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 373-6644
E-Mail: chuck.knauss@bingham.com
29
-------
Cathe Kalisz
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
Phone: (202) 682-8340
E-Mail: kaliszc@api.org
Laurel Kroack,
Director, Bureau of Air
Illinois EPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, II 62794
Phone: (217) 782-3397
E-Mail: laurel.kroack@Illinois.gov
*Mark MacLeod,
Director, Special Projects
Environmental Defense Fund
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20009
Phone: (202) 387-3500 Ex 3377
E-Mail: mmacleod@edf.org
John M. McManus,
Environmental Services
American Electric Power Service Corporation
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 716-1268
E-Mail: jmmcmanus@aep.com
Taylor Miller
Senior Environmental Counsel
Sempra Energy
925 L Street, Suite 650
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 492-4248
E-Mail: TMiller@Sempra.com
30
-------
Larry S. Monroe, PhD
Senior Research Consultant
Southern Company
600 North 18th Street /Bin 14N-8195
PO Box 2641
Birmingham, AL 35291
Phone: (205) 257-7772
E-Mail: Lsmonroe@southernco.com
Jeffrey C. Muffat
Manager, Environmental Regulatory Affairs
3M Corporation
EHS Operations P.O. Box 33331 Building 42-2E-27
St. Paul, MN 55133
Phone: (651)778-4450
E-Mail: icmuffat@mmm.com
Donald Neal,
Vice President, Environmental Health & Safety
Calpine Corporation
717 Texas, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713)830-2004
E-Mail: don.neal@calpine.com
Bill O'Sullivan
NJDept. of Environmental Protection
401 E. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 984-1484
E-Mail: Bill.o'sullivan@dep.state.nj.us
Kellie Ortega
Latham and Watkins
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20004-1304
Phone: (202) 637-2200
E-Mail Kellie.Ortega@lw.com
John A. Paul, Administrator
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
117 S. Main Street
Dayton, Ohio 45422
Phone: (937) 225-5948
E-Mail: paulja@rapca.org
31
-------
Chris Romaine
Illinois EPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, II 62794
Phone: (217) 782-3397
E-Mail: chris.romaine@illinois.gov
Jared Snyder
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy
NY DEC
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-0001
Phone: 518- 402-8537
E-Mail: iisnyder@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Joanne Spalding
Senior Staff Attorney
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 977-5725
Fax: (415) 977-5793
E-Mail: j oanne. spalding@sierraclub .org
*Eric Svenson,
Vice President, Environment, Health and Safety
Public Service Enterprise Group
80 Park Plaza, T-10
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 430-5857
E-Mail: eric.svenson@pseg.com
Mary S. Turner
Manager, Air Permitting & Compliance
Chrysler Group LLC
800 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills MI 48326
Phone: (248) 512-1104
E-Mail: MSI@,chrysler.com
32
-------
Valerie Ughetta,
Director, Stationary Sources
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street N.W. #900
Washington, D. C. 20005
202-326-5549 (office)
202-326-5568 (fax)
E-Mail: vughetta@autoalliance. org
Phillip J. Wakelyn, PhD
Senior Scientist, Environmental Health and Safety
National Cotton Council
1521 New Hampshire Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 601-1137
E-Mail: pwakelyn@cotton.org
John Walke
Natural Resources Defense Council
1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 2005
Phone: (202) 289-6868
E-Mail: jwalke@nrdc.org
Ann Weeks
Clean Air Task Force
18 Tremont Street Suite 530
Cambridge, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 624-0234
E-Mail: aweeks@catf.us
Bill Wehrum
Hunton & Williams
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 955-1637
E-Mail: wwehrum@hunton.com
Robert A. Wyman,
Partner
Latham and Watkins LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
Phone: (213)485-1234
E-Mail: Robert.wyman@lw.com
"Indicates Co-Chairs
33
-------
Appendix 3: List of Benchmark Sources
Benchmark sources
EPA, states, and permitting authorities may wish to consider energy efficiency
benchmarks available from a number of sources, including:
1. EPA Energy Star Industrial Energy Management Information Center:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=industry.bus industry info center
2. DOE Industrial Technologies Program, http://www 1.eere.energy.gov/industry/
3. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Industrial Energy Analysis Program:
http ://industrial-energy.lbl. gov/
4. European Union Energy Efficiency Benchmarks,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/benchmarking en.htm
34
------- |