Guest post by David Middleton
Just when you think that the EPA cannot possibly get any more idiotic…
U.S. EPA sues OG&E over work at Oklahoma coal power plants
Tue Jul 9, 2013
(Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sued Oklahoma Gas and Electric for failure to follow procedures required by the Clean Air Act while upgrading two coal plants in the state.
The EPA said in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Monday that OG&E, a unit of OGE Energy Corp, failed to estimate emissions resulting from construction projects between 2003 and 2006 at its facilities.
The Clean Air Act requires regulated facilities to anticipate emissions increases that would result from physical changes, so that, if required, a utility can take steps to prevent them, according to the complaint.
OG&E spokesman Brian Alford said the company believed it had been and still was in compliance with all state and federal requirements.
“We intend to vigorously defend our position, which is that we followed procedures,” he said, “and actual monitored data indicates that emissions did not increase as a result of the work that was done.”
[…]
Shares of OGE were up 1.5 percent at $35.07 in morning trading.
The EPA claims that OG&E failed to estimate emissions that did not occur. They are suing OG&E in an effort to force the company “to assess whether its projects were likely to result in a significant [GHG] emissions increase.”
The EPA had no authority to regulate GHG emissions when the work was done (2003 & 2006). The work (on boilers and turbine blade replacements) caused no emissions increase.
“The EPA is trying to force OG&E to file a report on how the 2003-2006 operations were likely to increase emissions in the future…” -Dave
That is completely false.
Ah yes, the proverbial “kills about six people.” How do you kill about six people? Oh, in the model, I see, it was actually 5.875324 people.
When the killed are virtual, and the actuality is that no one is harmed, then making a fuss about non-existent paperwork is strictly an exercise of power for power’s sake.
For a breath of fresh air, and a decidedly different view of government, I recommend that readers get the L. Neil Smith book, “The Probability Broach,” 1979. It has interesting commentary about the future of the EPA – written over three decades ago. There’s also a comic book version suitable for teens.
The EPA would have no such power-via-fiat if it weren’t for a complicit, fawning Press.
The jeopardy to our liberty from the CAGW scare is rooted in the ” Progressive” Main Stream Media. The MSM are the snow machines for the great snow job.
Good news on shale gas in the UK
David Middleton says:
July 11, 2013 at 2:33 am
@ur momisugly J. Sperry and Phil M,
—
I don’t disagree with your response to me, so it’s apparent you missed my point. (Believe me, I worked for a state EPA for over a decade, and had to deal with the federal beast often, so I know where you’re coming from.) This case has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing. Your original post was fine up until the point you injected GHG into the matter, and made an erroneous conclusion based on that. You ignore this fact at your peril.
Phil M. says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm
This is about the dumbest post I’ve ever seen on this blog. And that’s saying a lot.
———————————————-
Phil, I read the article you linked to. It seems to me that the Sierra Club must be running the EPA.
@David Middleton
The original post was simply wrong. You didn’t even bother to read the underlying documents which are publicly available before you posted. This has become a pattern with your posts – splashy headline followed by little substance.
Your most recent comment on this post is misleading at best. The modifications that OG&E made totaled more than $60 million, not a small sum even for a utility. They were designed to “greatly enhance the operability, efficiency, and maximum continuous net generation.” OG&E indicated to the Oklahoma authorities that should the modifications results in increased emissions of regulated pollutants (NOx, SOx, and particulate) they would adjust output to remain within emissions compliance for a period of 5 years.
That sounds good except EPA alleges that it was denied an opportunity to review the plan, to issue new permits if necessary, and to require that the best available control technology (BACT) be installed per the regulation. While the company has apparently been compliant with its existing operating permit, had a new permit been issued due to these modifications, the allowable emissions would likely have been reduced on the basis BACT. To the extent that excess emissions have occurred above what BACT would have yielded – there’s the foul. And according to EPA’s allegations, the only reason that OG&E is compliant with their permit is that they have habitually done an end around on the process that would trigger a permit review.
Is this a CO2 play on the part of EPA? Perhaps. I’m not familiar with the emissions control technologies for coal plants. If BACT technologies also address GHG emissions or if some regulation requires that new control technologies also address GHG emissions, then maybe that is what EPA is scheming. But it seems to me that EPA’s allegations are substantive on their own merit. I mean substantive under the law, of course, not necessarily substantive in regards to environmental consequences.
One thing is certain, “EPA sues Oklahoma utility for obeying the law” is a ridiculous and inaccurate title.
Phil M. says:
July 10, 2013 at 8:32 pm
“Are the readers of this blog so disconnected from reality that they honestly believe the EPA files a lawsuit in Federal court simply to make a point?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do I honestly believe the EPA files lawsuits in Federal court simply to make a point? I know it for a fact.
About 20 years ago I was involved with litigation with Region 5 when they sought to rewrite rules through compliance actions. From inspection to conclusion in an EPA administrative law court we spent about 4 years and well north of $500,000 in legal fees. During the inspection I opened the CFR and read the pertinent rules to the inspector and demonstrated how we were in compliance with the rules. The EPA refused to negotiate a settlement on the complaint and we ended up in court. (Companies normally settle because it is much less expensive than litigation. The EPA relies on this because they would lose frequently if companies were willing to spend 5-10x the settlement and bad publicity that ensues.) During this period, EPA formerly rewrote and added new rules to cover the ones they alleged we violated. The upshot is that the ALJ found in favor of the company.
I cannot find the EPA’s complaint on OG&E, but I’d offer the following observations. If the repairs did not result in the increase in coal consumption, then their emissions increase would have been zero. Some regulators want the comparison based on a historical average and some allow you to compare to permit. In any event, if the SO2 emissions did not exceed the PSD increment (40tpy or 1 ug/m^3 for modeling) then there should have been no action required. Normally, the increment is not calculated from increased production rate that would have happened without the modification. All of this depends on who is looking at the permit. Environmental regulations are interpreted differently by region, state, state region and which permit engineer is reading the regulations.
The complaint seems to have been prompted by air modeling done by the Sierra Club. The company says they have actual data showing no increase in ambient air concentrations. Air modeling for NAAQS compliance is done to very specific protocols and very specific datasets supplied by the regulatory agency, or created by the modeler when the agency lacks the data. However, the agency must agree with the data generated by the modeler to be valid. Who knows what the Sierra Club did or what they used to get the results but I’m willing to bet they didn’t come close to doing it “by the books”. It is probably not worth the electrons they spent.
Phil M: I’ve been doing this environmental management thing for 30 years. I’ve written applications and managed compliance in air, solid and hazardous waste, NPDES and storm water. I’ve lost count of the number of applications I’ve written, but it is well north of 250. I currently have 6 active applications in 2 states and am managing 16 Title V air permits in 6 states. As usual, most folks, especially those with no real experience, know more than I.
I pointed out early in the comments section that I assumed that this was about GHG’s – Because nothing else made sense. I should have read the suit first and left GHG’s out of it; because the EPA’s actions are ridiculous in any context.
However, you are correct. My incorrect assumption has enabled several commenters to divert the discussion from the EPA’s abusive behavior to my mistake… My bad… M’kay?
OG&E performed what were essentially maintenance procedures nearly a decade ago. Now the EPA claims that they filed to file a report detailing how these procedures could cause future emissions increases. OG&E says that they complied with all of the laws and regulations at the time they did the work on the plants and have subsequently documented that emissions from the plants have not increased. They have documented this on a monthly basis.
This is akin to the BSEE noticing that a Gulf of Mexico operator failed to include a worst case discharge (WCD) estimate in their drilling plan and then ten years after the
@Ryan Spear: Gee. You really live in a Fantasy World. Good and Bad. Black and White. You the hero, us the evil ones. It ain’t so simple. Try nuance (I realize you may have to look it up in the dictionary).
Forgot this bit…
This is akin to the BSEE noticing that a Gulf of Mexico operator failed to include a worst case discharge (WCD) estimate in their drilling plan and then ten years after the well was safely drilled and produced without incident, suing the company to file an irrelevant report.
I spent the last ten years with EPA as an air enforcement attorney bringing these kinds of cases. We brought them because we couldn’t find any cases to prosecute that would have actually resulted in pollution reduction. This case is a paperwork case. They brought it to create a deterrence for sloppy or non-reporting of potential emissions from routine maintenance and repair work. They were also hoping they could catch the company doing more than just routine work, an event that could force major increases in pollution controls. I ended my career with such a paperwork case. There was no violation of any actual pollution limit, but we obtained a $1.1 million dollars penalty. Paid for my retirement annuity. Might have scared other refinery lab managers into doing a bit better a job on paperwork. Didn’t make me proud.
Six people per day? That would be 2,190 per year.
For the sake of argument, let’s go with that.
How many lives per year are saved by air conditioning? About 3,000…
The US gets roughly 40% of its electricity from coal. So, coal saves about 1,200 lives per year just from air conditioning.
How many Americans die each year because they can’t afford to run their air conditioners during heat waves?
Do you think that electricity might just save lives in ways other than climate control?
How many Americans can afford to pay two to three times as much for electricity as they currently do (particularly in this zero-growth economy)?
How many more Americans would unnecessarily die if electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket”?
Thanks Janice!
Meanwhile,
The EPA can’t stop fracking
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/skeptics_cant_stop_our_frackin.html#incart_river
and Obama can’t stop energy independence.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/fracking-pushes-u-s-oil-output-to-highest-since-january-1992.html
Fracking Pushes U.S. Oil Output to Highest Since 1992
By Asjylyn Loder – Jul 10, 2013
“U.S. oil production jumped last week to the highest level since January 1992, cutting consumption of foreign fuel and putting the U.S. closer to energy independence.
Drilling techniques including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, pushed crude output up by 134,000 barrels, or 1.8 percent, to 7.401 million barrels a day in the seven days ended July 5, the Energy Information Administration said today.
Rising crude supplies from oilfields including North Dakota’s Bakken shale and the Eagle Ford in Texas have helped the U.S. become the world’s largest exporter of refined fuels including gasoline and diesel. The shale boom has also helped cut world reliance on OPEC oil even as global demand gains.”
Since coal palnts probably save a 1000 people per day who rely on the electricity for their survival we are probably up a net 994 vs. the six who are supposedly killed.
@- REPLY:Oh please. Please point to six people, any six people who have on their death certificates “killed by coal plant”. I grew up in a town with a coal fired power plant and I’m just fine. My friends are fine, my relatives are fine. The town thrives still.
I know this site disputes elements of the science of climate change, but I did not think that this extends to the basic epidemiology of medical conditions.
There is absolutely NO dispute, doubt or controversy about the role of toxic emissions from coal fired plants in killing people.
The basic information is out there for anyone who can read a paper on increased morbidity from environmental factors at Pubmed. It has been known that burning coal is a killer since the London smogs of Dickensian times.
The assertion that there are no people with ‘killed by coal plant’ on their death certificates and this somehow justifies dismissing the role of toxic emissions in the deaths of thousands in the US every year is perhaps the most egregious and medically ignorant claim I have heard in quite a while. Perhaps you should look up the mortality and morbidity rates for the twon you grew up in, compare it with a similar town without a coal fired plant and look at the increased rates of cardiovascular disease and death, respiratory problems and rate of malignancies. As any medic will tell you the health impacts are obvious and trying to d… reject the existence of such impacts on human health from toxic compounds released by coal burning is profoundly wrong.
Perhaps this is an opportunity to apply “equal protection under the law” and force the EPA to sue wind turbine companies when they perform maintenance on their equipment to install the latest blade design to improve efficiency. Solar panel manufacturers should be forced to install immediate cleaning equipment to solar panels any time they perform maintenance on their instillation. As dust on the panel reduces efficiency, removal of that dust immediately is critical.
The EPA should sue electric vehicle manufacturers to replace batteries yearly as these batteries lose 20% of their charge storage capability each year and are essentially useless after 5 years. Therefore the designed performance and emissions from HEV & EV’s (including toxic CO2) increase continuously as the battery degrades. Replacement is mandatory to maintain designed performance of the vehicle.
BACT equally applied to wind, solar and EV’s would bankrupt them . That is why wind farms do not need to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Endangered bird “take” is part of their operational plan. Perhaps the next time they change oil on the turbine transmission the need to install radar that will sense when birds are in proximity of the turbine and immediately stop the blades to prevent taking of that bird. Fine of $250,000 is imposed for each “take”. Let’s see how the ratepayers like that source of “free” energy.
David Schnare says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:41 am
I spent the last ten years with EPA as an air enforcement attorney bringing these kinds of cases. We brought them because we couldn’t find any cases to prosecute that would have actually resulted in pollution reduction. This case is a paperwork case. They brought it to create a deterrence for sloppy or non-reporting of potential emissions from routine maintenance and repair work. They were also hoping they could catch the company doing more than just routine work, an event that could force major increases in pollution controls.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope Phil M reads this. Basically, the cases you describe are the permitee is following regulatory and permitting requirements and being forced into expensive litigation because the agency simply elects to screw with them. I’m willing to bet most of your victims elected to settle out of court to save litigation costs, so the agency had easy victories.
@ur momisugly Chad Wozniak
Invocation of the 2nd amendment is not appropriate at this time. What is appropriate would be a new constitutional amendment:
Insomuch as the Senate is tasked with representing the several states, any laws passed which go against the desires of the majority of states represents a failure of the Senate to represent the wishes of its constituents. Therefore if any group of greater than one half of the governing bodies of the several states pass statutes requesting the abolition of a law, that law along with any regulations based on the law and any judicial judgments or interpretations resting on the law or regulations based on the law shall immediately be void. Additionally all punishments incurred in pursuit of the law will be revoked, violators exonerated and remunerations be made for takings incurred after greater than one third of the governing bodies request the abolition of the said law.
Good bye much of the authority given to unwanted bureaucracies.
David Schnare says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:41 am
###
And you wonder why some people consider lawyers a taxon within Hirudinea.
If this article were much better written in the first place, it MIGHT make a point.
However, the reality of the situation is as follows:
1. This has nothing to do with GHG emissions. The EPA hasn’t even published draft GHG emission regulations yet, much less promulgated anything.
2. This has everything to do with emissions of particulates, mercury, SO2, NOx, etc. Those are the major emissions of a coal-fired power plant which are already regulated.
3. Any significant changes at the plant beyond routine maintenance would generally automatically trigger a permit review. Spending 60 million on the project seems like quite a bit more than “routine maintenance” happened here.
4. BACT would not NECESSARILY come into play just because a permit review was triggered, but it COULD come into play. It depends on the specific details of what exactly OG&E was actually DOING, which isn’t at all made clear here.
5. If significant modifications beyond routine maintenance were indeed performed, and a permit review SHOULD have been done but WASN’T, then unfortunately, the EPA does have the right to haul OG&E off to court over this. If OG&E had had a permit review done, and had been able to SHOW in that permit review that there would be no significant increases in any emissions, THEN they would have nothing to worry about, but from this article, it at least SEEMS like they should have had a permit review and did not.
6. Regardless of whether any emissions increased or not, failure to have a permit review when one should have been done is pretty much an automatic ticket to court. Even if the modifications ended up DECREASING emissions of all regulated pollutants, that isn’t the point. The point is, every permit has qualifications in it specifying under what circumstances the permit must be reviewed, and if the review is not done PRIOR to the proposed project being done, then the permit has been violated – end of story.
As a result, it is quite possible that OG&E had no emissions increases whatsoever, and still very easily could have violated their permit.
Nice one DesertY! Leeches indeed!
Remember, we have a smarter government now. The president sez so.
To amplify my previous comment a bit further… I agree with the author that the EPA does indeed engage in “abusive behavior” at times, as the author states in one of his comments above. However, I don’t necessarily think that this particular case demonstrates “abusive behavior”. More than likely, whatever OG&E did should have triggered an automatic permit review, which very likely did NOT happen, in which case OG&E are in clear violation of their permit, regardless of whether emissions went up or down as a result of the project they did.
I know to some of you this may SOUND abusive, but remember the following from your childhood:
Mom & Dad “you can go outside and play as long as you let us know and we tell you it is ok”
You: Two days later decide to go out and play, since it is a nice day, but you forget to let mom or dad know what you are doing and just go ahead and go outside and play.
What was the outcome when you did that???
It seems fairly analogous to what is going on here.