Texas power commissioner: EPA rules behind summer power problems

Barry Smitherman, a Commissioner with the Texas Railroad Commission, made the following testimony to a Washington investigative committee.

The Railroad Commission was founded in the Texas Constitution in 1891, and we regulate the oil, gas, and lignite coal mining industries in Texas. We are recognized worldwide for our expertise in fossil-fuel regulation. Prior to my serving at the Railroad Commission, I was a member for the past seven years of the Public Utility Commission of Texas for the last four years of that tenure, I was Chairman. The PUCT regulates the electric and land-line telecommunications industries in Texas. In addition, the Chairman of the PUCT is a board member of ERCOT, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, our electric grid operator or Independent System Operator.

My testimony today is that the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) was promulgated using a flawed procedural process, will jeopardize the reliability of the Texas electric grid, and will eliminate many high paying jobs nationwide. Let me address each of these in order.

The original version of CSAPR, then known as the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR), was first published in the summer of 2010. In that version, the State of Texas, along with three other states Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi, was included only for seasonal ozone, not for SO₂ or NOx reductions. As a result, neither Texas regulators, nor the Texas electric grid operator, nor industry stakeholders were given notice that more stringent regulations might be passed relating to coal-fired electric generation. In fact, in a report dated July 21, 2011, and prepared by ERCOT, the potential reliability implications of a number of impending EPA regulations, including the MACT HAP rule, the 316 (B) cooling water intake rule, the coal combustion residual ash rule, and potential future greenhouse gas regulations, were analyzed. In presenting the results of their analysis, the ERCOT technical personnel specifically stated that the CATR would not apply to Texas: “Based on the proposed rule, an ERCOT study completed on June 21, 2011, evaluating the expected impacts of the pending regulations, did not include any incremental impacts from the CATR on the ERCOT system.”

As the date for the final version, of what is now known as CSAPR, approached, stakeholders in Texas began to hear rumors that we would now be included for SO₂ and NOx, rather just seasonal ozone, which is what we were initially led to believe. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Dr. Brian Shaw and I wrote a letter to the EPA, dated June 9, 2011, outlining our concerns with what we were hearing about the final version of the regulations. With publication of the final version of the CSAPR on July 6, 2011, the stakeholder, regulatory, and grid operator communities’ worst fears were confirmed. In fact, in a rare public press release on July 19, 2011, ERCOT leadership highlighted the surprise “gotcha” change the EPA made by singling Texas out for year-round SOx and both year-round and peak period NOx, after specifically stating Texas would not be included, and sounded the alarm about the fact that CSAPR could “cause a shortage of generation necessary to keep the lights on in Texas”.

Subsequently, on September 1, 2011, ERCOT completed a detailed technical analysis of CSAPR wherein the engineers at ERCOT clearly state that CSAPR will impact the reliability of the Texas Electric Market by requiring between 1,200 and 6,000 MW of generation to not run during certain periods of the year. On several days in 2011, ERCOT experienced record demand for electricity and was forced to implement procedures that resulted in load voluntarily curtailing consumption to maintain grid reliability. If the plant closures that were announced Monday as a direct result of CSAPR would have been closed this summer, ERCOT would have been forced in to rolling blackouts on multiple days. Therefore, we have empirical evidence that CSAPR would force Texas into blackouts on the hottest and coldest days of the year when Texas’ most vulnerable citizens need electric heating and cooling in order to survive.

In addition to putting the lives of vulnerable citizens at risk, with the announcement that Luminant will have to idle 1,300 MW of electric generation and the mines to support that generation, the CSAPR rule has already killed 500 high-paying jobs and hurt the economy. According to Nobel Economics Prize nominee Ray Perryman, approximately 3,000 Texans work directly in the lignite mining industry, which is responsible for over $1.3 billion in annual gross product, as well as almost 14,000 permanent jobs. Many of these jobs will be lost if CASPR, as presently written, is implemented within the currently anticipated timetable.

Texas has been recognized nationally for reducing SO₂ emissions by 33% over the last 10 years. If allowed to go forward, CSAPR will require a 47% decrease from current SO₂ levels in less than six months. Even the AFL-CIO said in comments to the EPA that “EPA’s proposed 2012 annual SO₂ and NOx emissions reduction deadline is unrealistic and unnecessary”, and that “the 2012 interim deadline and the deep 2014 emissions reduction requirements could trigger shutdowns that will unnecessarily eliminate jobs”. Even the AFL-CIO agrees that, while emissions reductions are a good goal, they must be done sensibly, and on a realistic timeline.

Texas was able to achieve much of our air quality improvement by increasing the amount of electricity coming from wind energy and gas-fired generation. And while it is true that four new coal-fired generation plants have commenced operation in ERCOT within the last several years, each of them will be compliant with CSAPR.

Finally, air quality in Texas will continue to improve in the future without the implementation of CASPR. We have over ten thousand MW of wind in Texas, and that number is likely to rise.

More significantly, however, new unconventional natural gas discoveries in Texas, using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, make available vast quantities of cheap, clean burning natural gas. Natural gas has less SO₂ and NOx than coal and no mercury or particulate matter. Natural gas also has about 40% of the CO₂ of coal.

When used to make electricity, natural gas today results in extremely low electricity rates. In Texas for example, consumers can purchase electricity in Dallas for as low as 4.5 cents per kWh. I have no doubt that as Texas seeks to add new generation resources in order to meet the needs of our rapidly growing state, with its vibrant job creating economy that clean burning natural-gas-fired generation will be the mainstay of our expanding generation fleet. In the short run, EPA must allow Texas enough time to refit our plants to comply with the new rule, and not focus on cramming through a punitive, job-killing rule that may almost immediately jeopardize the lives of our most medically fragile citizens, and which is opposed by a wide coalition of unions, nonprofits, scientists, engineers and regulators. In the long run, I hope this Committee and the rest of Congress looks at the bait-and-switch tactics and dubious science EPA used to pass this rule, and puts the brakes on at this agency. If these politically motivated, punitive regulations are allowed to stand in Texas today, they set the precedent for a runaway agency to do whatever they see fit tomorrow.

ERCOT
www.ercot.com

Brownfields’ bright spot: solar and wind energy

A few months ago, the EPA and U.S Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory announced their decision to join forces in evaluating sites that could be used for renewable-energy production. Since then, wind turbines have risen from abandoned toxic industrial sites, and solar panels have begun to catch rays over contaminated landfills. Here’s an update from NREL on what’s happened so far.

America’s eyesores are becoming the hot places to install renewable energy for electric power generation. The land is cheap, often abandoned but properly zoned. They’re usually close to necessary infrastructure such as power lines and roads, and no other developers are rushing to erect anything on them. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is evaluating sites for renewable energy potential on behalf of the EPA.

“The big driver is using land that otherwise couldn’t be used,” says James Salasovich, an NREL engineer. Salasovich has evaluated so-called landfill brownfields in Puerto Rico and Wisconsin. “Google Earth will tell us the area of the landfill, but to get a good idea of where the hills and shading obstacles are, you really have to visit the site,” he adds.

Brownfields could be former industrial sites abandoned when the owners went bankrupt. There might have been paint or fuel spills there, but the exact source of contamination may be unknown. However, superfund sites usually have a responsible party identified. Some brownfields are ready for redevelopment, but others need a lot of work first.

Photographing the sky for its solar potential
Salasovich and other traveling NREL engineers start with a device called a SunEye, which has a fish-eye lens to photograph the sky above the landfill. “We point it south and take a photo,” he says. “It puts out a spherical graph and shows where the shade will be by what time of day and what time of year.” An algorithm built into the device can detect differences between the sky and a tree.

If a site has wind potential, the engineers install a meteorological tower with instruments to read wind speed and direction, according to Joseph Roberts, an engineer with the National Wind Technology Center at NREL. After 12 months of measurements, they can find an average speed and see how it compares with data from nearby airports. Crew members also check the distance to the nearest roads and transmission lines, evaluating the sites’ potential for generating renewable energy and making it work economically.

NREL Engineers select potential plots from the EPA’s list of superfund and brownfield sites, as well as those identified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In some cases, the renewable energy apparatus in construction is powering the ongoing clean-up efforts at the sites. In other cases, the wind turbine, solar array, or hydro power is sending power to nearby cities. This is most feasible when the site is close enough to transmission wires to tie into the grid. There are about 11,000 sites in the U.S. with some past or current environmental contamination problem that may hold potential for renewable energy, according to Gail Mosey, senior energy analyst in the Strategic Energy Analysis Center. She says it’s a great opportunity to reuse land for power generation without help from fossil fuels.

Erecting devices without disturbing the contamination
Some sites, particularly superfund sites, are so contaminated with toxic chemicals and heavy metals that the earth should not be disturbed. However, Mosey explains, “There are a lot of others that can endure a slight intrusion. There are workable solutions for installing renewable energy on the surface or outside the contaminated area.” For example, solar arrays fit comfortably on top of the two feet of dirt and liner that typically cover a condemned landfill.
There are even wind turbines (supported by surface-mounted concrete footing) that can generate energy without burrowing into the muck of a superfund site. “These are places where you wouldn’t necessarily want to put a housing development, pour a foundation, or have people plant backyard gardens,” Mosey says, “but they are excellent sites for renewable energy.”

Site clean-up efforts
The NREL sometimes work on the superfund site even before the final Record of Decision is issued. In those cases, the NREL suggests options. For example, there is a groundwater cleanup effort at the Leviathan Mine in California, where trucks haul petroleum up mountain roads to power the clean-up operations. “We told them they could cut back their trips if they installed a wind turbine or PV,” Mosey says.  “This suggestion could be factored in the decision.”

A brownfield or other contaminated site can be a “blight” on a community, land that nothing else can be done with for a number of years. “It’s a constant reminder of what the former site was used for. Rather than just let it sit fallow, this presents an excellent opportunity for power generation,” he adds.

There are more than 4,000 brownfields in the U.S., a total of 37,000 acres equivalent to 28,500 football fields. Including RCRA, superfund sites, and abandoned mine lands, there are more than 11,000 sites on 14 million acres.
That’s enough room to power a large chunk of America with wind turbines and solar energy.

Of course, not all those acres are suitable for renewable energy. They could be too sloped, shady, or contaminated. NREL works to assess the properties at sites using screening criteria and conducting feasibility studies. This may include considering the renewable energy resource potential, if it’s close enough to transmission lines to feed the grid, near enough to graded roads to make a renewable energy installation, and the size of the site and slope of the land. “You need technical and economic feasibility,” Mosey says. “If it isn’t near transmission, a million-dollars-a mile transmission lines will be cost-prohibitive.”

Clean-ups sparked by passionate residents
Mosey and her teammates have seen the best of human nature emerging from some of the ugliest of landscapes. “We have citizens who are single-handedly making it happen,” she says. “They’re trying to make good out of bad.”

In the anthracite coal region of Pennsylvania, Peter Haentjens — whose family tried to pump water out of a huge coal field — is leading the effort to bring hydro power to the notorious Jeddo Tunnel. Workers dug the tunnel in the late 1800s to try to move water out of coal formations.  The attempt backfired, sweeping dangerous heavy metals down with the acidic water. Today, the tunnel drains 33 square miles of coal basins, bringing 60 million gallons a day of contaminated water to the Little Nescopeck Creek watershed. “You get this orange residue out of the rock when water is picking up iron,” Haentjens says. “You get gray if it’s manganese and white if its aluminum, which is pretty toxic.” He says the residue kills most of the aquatic life in the streams for 17 miles.

All that flowing water can help run a downstream pump station for a sewage treatment plant, as well as power a school or other local buildings, even while engineers work on a long-term solution for the contaminated water – and try to find money to pay for it.

When the tunnel was built over a century ago, the dirt dug up was set on either side. That same dirt could help build a dam to raise the level of the water 35 to 40 ft, according to Haentjens. “We could get pressure to make 150 kW. That could bring in $120,000 of revenue per year,” he says.

He adds that because it’s mostly wetlands, it’s not really developable. However, the community would like to make an environmental park out of it. There would be an educational component for hydroelectric energy, as well as a history of the tunnel and the acid drainage, and its effect on the environment. “NREL is looking at the economic justification of doing that, of how much we can sell the energy for, and the cost of building the dam,” he says. “The focus is to create economic value while improving the environment.”

A next step
In 2008, EPA awarded NREL $650,000 to conduct feasibility studies at 13 different projects, including one in Puerto Rico. Mosey hopes to expand the program so NREL can evaluate contaminated sites for other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Mines, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service. “In a lot of cases, the land is cheap, maybe even owned by the state,” Mosey says. “They’re just happy to have some positive re-use and some sort of revenue-generation on it.”

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

nrel.gov

EPA says some contaminated sites good for wind farms

It’s not often two government agencies get together to do something that is almost inspired. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have done that by joinin forces in their evaluation of sites that could be used for renewable-energy production. These can be Superfund and brown field sites, as well as former landfills and mines. Although there are many such sites, 12 in particular will get a close look for development. They are in California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The project will analyze the potential development of wind, solar, or small hydroelectric power facilities. Analyses will determine the best renewable energy equipment for the site, its best placement, the potential energy-generating capacity, and the economic feasibility of the renewable energy projects, including return on investment. Some sites under consideration have completed cleanup activities, while others are in various stages of assessment or cleanup.
Superfund sites are the most complex. They are often abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous-waste sites that pose a risk to human health and hence are identified for cleanup. Brown fields are properties for which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence of contaminants. Abandoned factories are examples. The EPA is investing more than $650,000 into this project which pairs the Agency’s expertise on contaminated sites with the NREL’s renewable energy expertise.
U.S. electricity production is expected to increase by nearly 30% by 2030 to meet growing demand, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008. It estimates the equivalent of more than 320 mid-sized, coal-fired power plants will be needed to increase U.S. electricity production to meet such growth.

Many of the sites recommended by the EPA have been overlooked by wind-plant developers. Yet the EPA lands are environmentally and economically beneficial for siting renewable energy facilities because they offer thousands of acres with few site owners. They also often have critical infrastructure in place such as electric transmission lines and roads, and they are zoned for such development. The lands also provide job opportunities and they take stress off undeveloped lands for new construction.
Renewable energy technologies will play a greater role in meeting future electricity needs. But so far, wind, solar and biomass facilities supply only 2.3% of our nation’s electricity. Yet renewable energy production is expected to increase by more than 70% between 2006 and 2030.
The project is part of a federal government RE-Powering America’s Land initiative, which aims to decrease the amount of green space used for development and provide health and economic benefits to local communities, including job creation.
The EPA estimates there are about 490,000 sites and almost 15 million acres of potentially contaminated properties across the U.S. For fact sheets on each location, and more information on the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative, check out: epa.gov/renewableenergyland/ WPE

EPA says 12 environmental sites could be wind farms

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are evaluating the feasibility of developing renewable energy production on Superfund, brownfields, and former landfill or mining sites.

Superfund sites are the most complex, uncontrolled, or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified by EPA for cleanup due to the risk they pose to human health or the environment. Brownfields are properties for which expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence of contaminants. EPA is investing more than $650,000 for the project that pairs EPA’s expertise on contaminated sites with the renewable energy expertise of NREL. The project is part of the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative, which aims to decrease the amount of green space used for development, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide health and economic benefits to local communities, including job creation.

The project will analyze the potential development of wind, solar, or small hydro development at 12 sites. The analysis will include determining the best renewable energy technology for the site, the optimal location for placement of the renewable energy technology on the site, potential energy generating capacity, the return on the investment, and the economic feasibility of the renewable energy projects.

The 12 sites are located in California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Some of the sites under consideration for renewable energy projects have completed cleanup activities, while others may be in various stages of assessment or cleanup. Renewable energy projects on these sites will be designed to accommodate the site conditions. For fact sheets on each location, and more information on the RE-Powering America’s Land initiative, visit the Web site, www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/