Coal News - Power Engineering https://www.power-eng.com/coal/ The Latest in Power Generation News Wed, 21 Aug 2024 18:27:18 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cropped-CEPE-0103_512x512_PE-140x140.png Coal News - Power Engineering https://www.power-eng.com/coal/ 32 32 What’s next for Consumers Energy’s last coal units? https://www.power-eng.com/coal/whats-next-for-consumers-energys-last-coal-units/ Wed, 21 Aug 2024 18:27:15 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=125436 Consumers Energy is starting the final leg in the process that will close the energy provider’s last coal-fired complex in less than a year: inviting the public to tour its J.H. Campbell Complex in West Michigan next month.

Consumers Energy is closing all three coal units of the complex by 2025, 15 years earlier than originally planned. The utility said this closure will mark the company as one of the first U.S. utility providers to eliminate coal burning and is part of its Clean Energy Plan for a carbon-neutral energy grid by 2040.

The Campbell complex is slated to close by June 1, 2025. It is made up of three units that were built in 1962, 1967 and 1980. They are the last of 12 coal-fired units ― including those at the Cobb (Muskegon County), Whiting (Monroe County), Weadock (Bay County), and most recently, Karn (Bay County) plants ― that started closing in 2016.

As with the other plants, Campbell complex employees will be offered other job opportunities with the company. In partnership with community leaders, the site will be redeveloped following its demolition in 2026 or later.

In the meantime, Consumers Energy plans to offer bus tours of the Campbell complex on Sept. 21. People must sign up in advance for scheduled times, which are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The free tours will last about an hour, including an opportunity to go inside.

“We’re excited to give our friends and neighbors the opportunity to look inside Campbell as we make this major energy transition,” said Norm Kapala, Consumers Energy’s vice president of generation operations. “Our Campbell complex and the people who work here have served our state faithfully with reliable energy for generations. We want to provide an opportunity to understand and appreciate that legacy.”

The company purchased and started operating the 1,200 MW natural gas-fired Covert Generating Station in Southwest Michigan’s Van Buren County last year, matching most of the energy that Campbell provides. Consumers Energy continues to develop clean energy projects, including five Michigan wind farms and the Muskegon Solar Energy Center, which is slated to begin operations in 2026.

“We will be busy the next nine months as we continue to operate Campbell right up until it closes. We’re committed to a useful future for this property, but not before we take the time to reflect on the complex’s important work serving Michigan,” Kapala said.

The amount of coal transported in the United States decreased 8% in 2023, continuing a trend in which coal shipments have generally decreased over the past two decades as coal’s share of power generation has declined in the United States. The amount of coal transported to power plants, which are often located far from mines, decreased by more than half, falling from 957 million tons in 2010 to 422 million tons in 2023.

However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects the decline in coal consumption to reverse this year. In its recently published July update to the Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA forecast an increase in use of coal to generate electricity in the United States this year, with use dropping back to about 2023 amounts in 2025.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png 516 606 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png
AES Indiana to repower coal units to natural gas, add solar and storage https://www.power-eng.com/gas/aes-indiana-to-repower-coal-units-to-natural-gas-add-solar-and-storage/ Thu, 08 Aug 2024 16:22:38 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=125275 AES Indiana plans to repower two coal units to natural gas while adding solar and battery storage projects.

The total $1.1 billion investment in Indiana’s Pike County would take place from 2024 to 2026.

Petersburg Generating Station Units 3 and 4 would be repowered from coal to natural gas by the end of 2026. AES Indiana anticipates being the first utility in Indiana out of coal, pending approval of the project from state regulators.

The Petersburg Energy Center would add 250 MW of solar and 180 MWh of battery storage to AES Indiana’s portfolio. The project is currently under construction and expected to be operational by the end of 2025.

AES Indiana’s 2022 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) includes transitioning coal-powered units to natural gas and adding wind, solar and battery storage capacity over the next five years.

Recently, AES Indiana acquired 100 percent interest in Hoosier Wind, a 106 MW wind project in Benton County and announced the commercial operation of the Hardy Hills 195 MW solar project in Clinton County.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/petersburg-generating-station.png 446 251 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/petersburg-generating-station.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/petersburg-generating-station.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/petersburg-generating-station.png
US coal stockpiles hit highest levels since 2020 https://www.power-eng.com/coal/us-coal-stockpiles-hit-highest-levels-since-2020/ Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:43:17 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=125231 Coal stockpiles at U.S. electric power plants totaled 138 million short tons at the end of May, the most since the first half of 2020 when the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced electricity demand and coal consumption, according to analysis from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

In the U.S., most power plants begin increasing their coal stocks in the spring to prepare for the higher demand in the summer and winter. Additionally, U.S. power plants typically stockpile much more coal than they consume in a month, EIA said, with more than 90% of coal-fired power plants currently having enough coal to generate electricity for 60 days or more.

Coal-fired electricity has declined in the U.S. over the past decade, and coal plant stockpiles have been declining as well, EIA said. Coal consumption by the electric power sector totaled 385 million tons in 2023, 43% less than in 2016. Coal stockpiles reached 131 million tons by the end of 2023, 19% less than stockpiles at the end of 2016.

The amount of coal transported in the United States decreased 8% in 2023, continuing a trend in which coal shipments have generally decreased over the past two decades as coal’s share of power generation has declined in the United States. The amount of coal transported to power plants, which are often located far from mines, decreased by more than half, falling from 957 million tons in 2010 to 422 million tons in 2023.

However, EIA expects the decline in coal consumption to reverse this year. In its recently published July update to the Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA forecast an increase in use of coal to generate electricity in the United States this year, with use dropping back to about 2023 amounts in 2025.

Although the amount of coal being transported closely follows the coal consumption rate, the two measurements can differ from year to year. During 2023, U.S. coal producers shipped 35 million more tons (9%) than U.S. power plants consumed. Surplus deliveries last year boosted inventory levels at power plants by 48%, reducing deliveries in early 2024. Conversely, coal shipments to power plants in 2021 and 2022 were 59 million tons less than the amounts consumed during those two years, and inventories dropped to less than 100 million tons.

Also, in late 2023, EIA projected that coal-fired power plants will generate less electricity in 2024 (599 billion kwh) than the combined generation from solar and wind (688 billion kWh) for the first time on record.

]]>
Brown coal power plant emission. https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/coal-plant-2.jpg 640 480 Brown coal power plant emission. https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/coal-plant-2.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/coal-plant-2.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/coal-plant-2.jpg
Coal plant’s AI drives down emissions, boosts efficiency https://www.power-eng.com/om/plant-optimization/coal-plants-ai-drives-down-emissions-boosts-efficiency/ Fri, 02 Aug 2024 18:42:09 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=125219 There’s plenty of hype surrounding AI— no matter the industry. But clear applications are emerging from the clutter, and power generators are getting a taste of the technology’s potential.

One of the largest generators in the U.S., Vistra, tapped McKinsey & Company to develop a machine-learning model to improve the efficiency and emissions of the coal-fired Martin Lake Power Plant in Rusk County, Texas.

The effort began when Vistra wanted to build and deploy a heat-rate optimizer (HRO) for the plant. The company worked with McKinsey data scientists and machine learning engineers from QuantumBlack AI to build a “multilayered neural-network model,” or an AI-powered algorithm that learns about the effects of complex nonlinear relationships.

The team fed the model two years of plant data to see which combination of external factors and internal decisions could produce the optimal HRO for any given time. External factors included temperature and humidity, and internal decisions included variables that operators can control.

It wasn’t a “one-and-done” solution, though. Vistra’s team continued to provide guidance on how the plant worked and identified data sources from sensors, which McKinsey said helped its engineers refine the model by adding and removing variables to see how the heat rate changed.

Through the training process and “introducing better data,” the models eventually made predictions with 99% accuracy or higher. After running the model through a series of real-world tests, the engineers turned the model into an “AI-powered engine.” After implementing the engine, the plant’s operators received recommendations every 30 minutes on how to improve the plant’s heat-rate efficiency.

“There are things that took me 20 years to learn about these power plants,” said Lloyd Hughes, Vistra’s operations manager. “This model learned them in an afternoon.”

With higher efficiency came more carbon reduction. Martin Lake was running more than 2% more efficiently after three months of operating with the machine-learning tool, which McKinsey said resulted in savings of $4.5 million per year and 340,000 tons of abated carbon.

Following the success at the Martin Lake Power Plant, Vistra distributed the AI-enabled HRO to another 67 generation units across 26 plants, which resulted in an average of 1% improvement in efficiency, McKinsey said, in addition to more than $23 million in savings.

Overall, Vistra’s AI initiatives have helped the company avoid around 1.6 million tons of carbon per year, McKinsey said.

Read the full case study here.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1920px-Martin_Lake_Power_Plant_Tatum_Texas_2019.jpg 1920 1080 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1920px-Martin_Lake_Power_Plant_Tatum_Texas_2019.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1920px-Martin_Lake_Power_Plant_Tatum_Texas_2019.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1920px-Martin_Lake_Power_Plant_Tatum_Texas_2019.jpg
Arizona coal communities to receive more grant funding https://www.power-eng.com/coal/arizona-coal-communities-to-receive-more-grant-funding/ Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:30:30 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=125128 Four organizations serving Arizona communities impacted by the transition away from coal-fired power plants will receive a total of $125,000 in economic development grants.

The money comes from the Utilities’ Grant Funding Program, which is jointly funded by Arizona Public Service (APS), Salt River Project (SRP) and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). The funding allows for grant writing technical assistance and other forms of support to help develop new, sustainable economic strategies for residents and other stakeholders in impacted communities.

The following organizations were recently selected as grant recipients:

The Town of Eagar will receive a $25,000 grant to develop an updated general plan to replace the current version, which was written a decade ago. The updated general plan will identify areas of development, determine additional housing opportunities and craft a vision for the town’s future.

Apache County will receive a $25,000 grant to hire an engineering firm to write state and federal grants to support the design and construction of Phase II of the CR 8235 Stanford Road project.

The Town of Springerville will receive two grants. The first $25,000 grant will help fund the development of an updated master plan, the current version of which will expire in 2025. The master plan, a land use and infrastructure plan, sets forth local goals, objectives and policies to support community growth and redevelopment over the next two to three decades. The second $25,000 grant will match funding from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority for new automatic meter readers, which will more accurately measure water usage, streamline operations and save water. 

Joseph City Unified School District will receive a $25,000 grant to match funds for an electric school bus that was awarded to the district through the second round of the EPA’s Clean Energy Grant.

APS, SRP and TEP pledged a combined $1 million in awards available through the Utilities’ Grant Funding program. Tribal, state and local governments, public schools, economic development groups and nonprofit groups within 75 miles of a closing or closed coal plant are eligible to apply.

]]>
The Power https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/coal4.jpg 1000 492 A coal fired power plant on the Ohio River just West of Cincinnati https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/coal4.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/coal4.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/coal4.jpg
US appeals court allows EPA rule on coal-fired power plants to remain in place amid legal challenges https://www.power-eng.com/policy-regulation/us-appeals-court-allows-epa-rule-on-coal-fired-power-plants-to-remain-in-place-amid-legal-challenges/ Mon, 22 Jul 2024 17:11:10 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=125069 By MATTHEW DALY Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a victory for President Joe Biden’s administration, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that a new federal regulation aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants can remain in force as legal challenges continue.

Industry groups and some Republican-led states had asked the court to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule on an emergency basis, saying it was unattainable and threatened reliability of the nation’s power grid.

The EPA rule, announced in April, would force many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years. The rules are a key part of the Democratic president’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the industry request to block the rule, saying the groups had not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits. Nor did the case invoke a major question under a previous Supreme Court ruling, since the EPA claimed only the power to “set emissions limits … that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly,” the appeals court ruled.

The unanimous ruling also rejected the claim of immediate harm, saying compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.

The ruling was issued by Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Neomi Rao. Millett and Pillard were appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, while Rao was named to the court by President Donald Trump, a Republican.

Environmental groups hailed the ruling, saying the court recognized the EPA’s legal responsibility to control harmful pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions. The power sector is the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

“Americans across the nation are suffering from the intense heat waves, extreme storms and flooding and increased wildfires caused by climate pollution,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the court brief in the case. The EDF and other groups “will continue to strongly defend EPA’s cost-effective and achievable carbon pollution standards for power plants,” she said.

Meredith Hankins, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA rule “set reasonable standards for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution.” The searing heat wave hitting much of the nation is a sign of how much the rules are needed, she said.

“The idea that power producers need immediate relief from modest standards that start to kick in eight years from now was obviously absurd,” Hankins added. West Virginia and other states that challenged the rule “have plenty of time to begin their planning process” to comply with the rule, she said.

The National Mining Association, which joined the legal challenges, said it would seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher. The nation’s power supply is already being pushed to the limit, and this rule flies in the face of what the nation’s utilities, grid operators and grid reliability experts tell us is needed to maintain grid reliability,” said Rich Nolan, the group’s president and CEO.

Nolan and other industry leaders said the rule would force the premature closure of power plants that are crucial to maintaining grid reliability even as demand for electricity surges.

Timothy Carroll, a spokesman for the EPA, said the agency was pleased that the court allowed the power plant rule to go into effect while litigation continues.

“EPA’s final standards will significantly reduce emissions of harmful carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants, which continue to be the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector,” Carroll said.

The EPA projects that the rule will yield up to $370 billion in climate and health net benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to preventing annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.

The power plant rule marks the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule also would force future electric plants fueled by coal or natural gas to control up to 90% of their carbon pollution.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/huntington.png 535 298 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/huntington.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/huntington.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/huntington.png
EIA: Coal consumption’s decline is likely to reverse this year https://www.power-eng.com/coal/eia-coal-consumptions-decline-is-likely-to-reverse-this-year/ Tue, 16 Jul 2024 16:16:59 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=124983 The amount of coal transported in the United States decreased 8% in 2023, continuing a trend in which coal shipments have generally decreased over the past two decades as coal’s share of power generation has declined in the United States. The amount of coal transported to power plants, which are often located far from mines, decreased by more than half, falling from 957 million tons in 2010 to 422 million tons in 2023.

However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects the decline in coal consumption to reverse this year. In its recently published July update to the Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA forecast an increase in use of coal to generate electricity in the United States this year, with use dropping back to about 2023 amounts in 2025.

Although the amount of coal being transported closely follows the coal consumption rate, the two measurements can differ from year to year. During 2023, U.S. coal producers shipped 35 million more tons (9%) than U.S. power plants consumed. Surplus deliveries last year boosted inventory levels at power plants by 48%, reducing deliveries in early 2024. Conversely, coal shipments to power plants in 2021 and 2022 were 59 million tons less than the amounts consumed during those two years, and inventories dropped to less than 100 million tons.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Coal Data Browser

American Electric Power (AEP) recently issued a request for proposal (RFP) for the supply of coal to one or more of its generating stations in multiple coal regions. AEP is seeking proposals for the following regions and terms, but will consider longer-term proposals should the parties be able to agree on mutual terms and conditions.

The RFP was issued for the following regions:

  • Central Appalachian Basin (Term: 2025, 2026)
  • Illinois Basin (Term: 2025, 2026, 2027)
  • Powder River Basin (Term: 2025, 2026)
  • Northern Appalachian Basin (Term: 2025, 2026, 2027)

Proposals are due by 5 p.m. ET, Friday, Aug. 2, 2024. Proposals will be kept open until 5 p.m. ET, Friday, Sept. 6, 2024, AEP said.

AEP issued a similar request in 2021 seeking fuel for its coal-fired power generation plants to supply through 2024. Overall, the RFP sought contact on more than 19 million metric tons of coal from the Central Appalachian, Illinois, Powder River and Northern Appalachian basins. These four mining regions produce most of the nation’s coal.

Like many U.S. utilities, AEP has been retiring and replacing a large part of its coal-fired generation portfolio. The company still generated 42% of its power from coal-fired plants in 2023.

AEP’s operations span across several states, many of which are within the PJM Interconnection. Use of coal-fired power in PJM territory has dropped over the last decade, largely driven by the buildout of natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) plants and higher relative fuel costs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

In 2023, the use of coal-fired generation in PJM fell to 34% of capacity. Yet coal generators were dispatched less frequently last year, contributing 14% of PJM’s generation, while making up 18% of its generating capacity. By comparison, in 2013, the capacity factor of coal-fired power in the market was 56%, when coal made up 44% of the market’s generation and 38% of its capacity, EIA said.

PJM is the largest wholesale electricity market in the nation and includes all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-plant.png 820 431 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-plant.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-plant.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-plant.png
“Project Accounting” is the new “Routine Maintenance” https://www.power-eng.com/emissions/project-accounting-is-the-new-routine-maintenance/ Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:49:46 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=124927 By Robynn Andracsek, PE, Providence Engineering and Environmental Group LLC and contributing editor

For 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulated coal-fired power plants through litigation using a revised interpretation of the routine maintenance exemption in the New Source Review (NSR) regulations. This national compliance initiative ended in 2019 after affecting 113 plants at a cost of $21 billion (as shown in the below figure). However, a new proposed NSR rule change could have a similar significant effect on the power industry.

The big problem with the routine maintenance exemption was the lack of a definition for “routine” and the subsequent after-the-fact evaluations of projects by EPA. At plants grandfathered under NSR [(e.g., operating without best available control technology (BACT)], industry made repairs and undertook projects that it considered to be routine (boiler retubing, turbine overhauls, etc.) without first seeking an NSR permit. In the 1990s, when EPA realized these older plants had never undergone NSR permitting, EPA reevaluated “routine” and decided that these repairs retroactively needed NSR limits and controls. “Routine maintenance” was a powerful tool in shutting down many coal-fired boilers.

Source: Author using EPA Data.
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/coal-fired-power-plant-enforcement

On February 22, 2024, EPA proposed several revisions to its NSR preconstruction permitting regulations.[1] In another of EPA’s unfortunate acronyms,[2] these rules are referred to Project Emissions Accounting (PEA, 2020) Rule and the Project Emissions Accounting Rule Reconsideration (PEAR, 2024). The two rules were meant to clarify issues resulting from the mostly failed 2002 NSR Reform Initiative and the rule interpretations in intervening years.

PEA and PEAR attempt to formally define a project, to wit, what activities are included when calculating and comparing emission increases to the NSR permitting thresholds. For example:

  • How many years separation are required before two activities are considered a single project?
  • Does a project include just the new emissions or also the associated emission unit decreases?
  • What makes an emission decrease enforceable when replacing an old unit?

Industry seeks clarity and certainty when interpreting environmental regulations. Failure to obtain the correct permit is costly (see Figure above). The group of activities that constitute a project is virtually always site-specific. Substantial comments (due July 2, 2024) were received on the draft regulation.

For example, EPA proposed the following revisions to the definition of project (revised text is in bold):

Project means a discrete physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an existing major stationary source, or a discrete group of such changes (occurring contemporaneously at the same major stationary source) that are substantially related to each other. Such changes are substantially related if they are dependent on each other to be economically or technically viable. In an extreme ozone nonattainment area, a “project” means each discrete operation, emissions unit, or other pollutant-emitting activity.

Comments from industry groups, regulators and tribal organizations varied widely. The proposal was a much-needed improvement, it included a presumption that industry was trying to circumvent the regulations, and it imposed unjustified recordkeeping and reporting. The proposal manages to please no one completely and annoy everyone in differing ways. Commenters argue that “discrete” is poorly defined, the test for “economically viable” is not provided, and removing the previous guidance that two projects divided by more than three years are separate is ill-advised.

Additionally, commenters argue permitting each reduction could be onerous, EPA failed to identify any instance in which a failure to properly define a “project” altered the applicability determination and/or led to circumvention of NSR preconstruction permitting requirements, and reporting requirements are vague enough to be applicable to new office equipment.

NSR is a poorly written regulation, influenced by lobbyists and corrupted by 50 years of litigation. Like the 2002 NSR Reform attempt, this proposal, and in fact the entire NSR program, is subject to political winds and capricious legislative whims. When combined with the recent Supreme Court assassination of the Chevron Deference (when in doubt, defer to the experts at the regulatory agencies), power plants stagger under increased regulatory uncertainty. Redefining projects has the potential to impact the power industry as significantly as the reinterpretation of “routine”.

What should you do?

  • Acknowledge that PEA/PEAR is a big deal, and it will affect your operations.
  • Consult an attorney before each outage and project.
  • Conduct NSR netting calculations to set baseline emissions before each outage and project.
  • Document project emissions, including reductions, in-house and potentially with your regulator.
  • Consult with your regulator to understand what permits are required before and which emissions reports are required after each post outage/project.
  • Follow this rule in industry groups to understand how it evolves.

References

1 89 Fed. Reg. 36,870 (May 3, 2024) Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0381

2 See CSAPR pronounced Casper


About the Author: Robynn Andracsek, PE, is a Senior Air Quality Engineer at Providence Engineering and Environmental Group LLC with 26 years of experience in air permitting for utilities and district energy facilities.  Providence is an employee-owned, multidisciplinary engineering and environmental consulting firm. Our work has taken us across the United States and beyond in support of our governmental and industrial clients’ goals and challenges all the while holding an unwavering dedication to our founding principles – to take care of our clients, make a little money, and have fun while doing it. Her email address is robynnandracsek@providenceeng.com.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png 516 606 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/coal-emissions.png
South Carolina regulators reject Duke Energy’s coal ash cost recovery request https://www.power-eng.com/coal/material-handling/south-carolina-regulators-reject-duke-energys-coal-ash-cost-recovery-request/ Tue, 09 Jul 2024 16:09:33 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=124919 The Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC) rejected Duke Energy’s request to recover coal ash-related costs while approving new rates for customers in the state.

Duke Energy Carolinas had requested to recover approximately $238 million spent from 2018 to 2023 on closing coal ash basins in South Carolina and North Carolina. Additionally, the utility sought to recover $36 million of previously disallowed costs from a 2018 rate case.

Duke’s coal ash surface impoundments include 13 basins located at coal-fired plant sites: two basins at  W.S. Lee in South Carolina; and the Marshall Ash Basin, the Unit 5 inactive and active basins at Cliffside, the active basin at Belews Creek, retired and active basins at Allen, two basins at Dan River and three basins at Buck, all in North Carolina.

Duke argued that changes in federal regulations had justified its cost-recovery request. Specifically, the utility argued that a January 2022 clarification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made federal regulations similar to North Carolina’s stricter Coal Ash Management Act (CAMA). The company contended that because costs mandated by federal regulations are recoverable, the CAMA-related costs should also be recoverable.

However, South Carolina regulators upheld their previous decision, denying recovery of the $36 million previously disallowed and the additional $238 million sought by DEC. PSCSC maintained that costs associated with CAMA, which are stricter than federal coal ash regulations, remain unrecoverable. Regulators said this position was supported by the South Carolina Supreme Court in the previous 2018 rate case.

PSCSC emphasized that future similar costs are only recoverable if they are consistent with and mandated by federal law, setting a clear standard for how utilities should approach cost recovery for environmental compliance in the future.

Coal ash is a byproduct of burning coal in power plants that, without proper management, can pollute waterways, groundwater, drinking water and the air. Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic associated with cancer and various other serious health effects.

In April the EPA finalized a rule requiring the safe management of coal ash placed in areas that were unregulated at the federal level until now. This includes inactive power plants with surface impoundments that are no longer being used and historical coal ash disposal areas at active power plants. The rule applies to historical contamination and inactive units that no longer support current power plant operations. It is not expected to affect current power plant operations.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/updatedbelewscreek.jpg 819 500 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/updatedbelewscreek.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/updatedbelewscreek.jpg https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/updatedbelewscreek.jpg
What it means for the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the EPA’s ‘good neighbor’ pollution rule https://www.power-eng.com/policy-regulation/what-it-means-for-the-supreme-court-to-block-enforcement-of-the-epas-good-neighbor-pollution-rule/ Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:24:08 +0000 https://www.power-eng.com/?p=124863 By MATTHEW DALY Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency will not be able to enforce a key rule limiting air pollution in nearly a dozen states while separate legal challenges proceed around the country, under a Supreme Court decision Thursday.

The EPA’s “good neighbor” rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.

Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective.

The Supreme Court put the rule on hold while legal challenges continue, the conservative-led court’s latest blow to federal regulations.

The high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted EPA’s authority to fight air and water pollution, including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.

The court is also weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.

A look at the good neighbor rule and the implications of the court decision.

What is the ‘good neighbor’ rule?

The EPA adopted the rule as a way to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states. Besides the potential health impacts from out-of-state pollution, many states face their own federal deadlines to ensure clean air.

States such as Wisconsin, New York and Connecticut said they struggle to meet federal standards and reduce harmful levels of ozone because of pollution from out-of-state power plants, cement kilns and natural gas pipelines that drift across their borders.

Ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, forms when industrial pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, refineries and other sources chemically react in the presence of sunlight. High ozone levels can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis. People with compromised immune systems, the elderly and children playing outdoors are particularly vulnerable.

Judith Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general, told the court that for some states, as much as 65% of smog pollution comes from outside its borders.

States that contribute to ground-level ozone must submit plans ensuring that coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites do not add significantly to air pollution in other states. In cases where a state has not submitted a “good neighbor” plan — or where EPA disapproves a state plan — a federal plan is supposed to ensure downwind states are protected.

What’s next for the rule?

The Supreme Court decision blocks EPA enforcement of the rule and sends the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is considering a lawsuit challenging the regulation that was brought by 11 mostly Republican-leaning states.

An EPA spokesman said the agency believes the plan is firmly rooted in its authority under the Clean Air Act and “looks forward to defending the merits of this vital public health protection” before that appeals court.

The spokesman, Timothy Carroll, said the Supreme Court’s ruling will “postpone the benefits that the Good Neighbor Plan is already achieving in many states and communities.”

While the plan is on pause, “Americans will continue to be exposed to higher levels of ground-level ozone, resulting in costly public health impacts that can be especially harmful to children and older adults,” Carroll said. Ozone disproportionately affects people of color, families with low incomes, and other vulnerable populations, he said.

Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said he was pleased that the Supreme Court “recognized the immediate harm to industry and consumers posed by this reckless rule. No agency is permitted to operate outside of the clear bounds of the law and today, once again, the Supreme Court reminded the EPA of that fact.”

With a stay in place, Nolan said the mining industry looks forward to making its case in court that the EPA rule “is unlawful in its excessive overreach and must be struck down to protect American workers, energy independence, the electric grid and the consumers it serves,.”

Few states participate

The EPA rule was intended to provide a national solution to the problem of ozone pollution, but challengers said it relied on the assumption that all 23 states targeted by the rule would participate. In fact, only about half that number of states were participating as of early this year.

A lawyer for industry groups that are challenging the rule said it imposes significant and immediate costs that could affect the reliability of the electric grid. With fewer states participating, the rule may result in only a small reduction in air pollution, with no guarantee the final rule will be upheld, industry lawyer Catherine Stetson told the Supreme Court in oral arguments earlier this year.

The EPA has said power-plant emissions dropped by 18% in 2023 in the 10 states where it has been allowed to enforce its rule, which was finalized last year. Those states are Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. In California, limits on emissions from industrial sources other than power plants are supposed to take effect in 2026.

The rule is on hold in another dozen states because of separate legal challenges. The states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Administrative overstep or life-saving protection?

Critics, including Republicans and business groups, call the good neighbor rule an example of government overreach.

The EPA rule and other Biden administration regulations “are designed to hurriedly rid the U.S. power sector of fossil fuels by sharply increasing the operating costs, … forcing the plants’ premature retirement,” Republican lawmakers said in a brief filed with the high court.

Supporters disputed that and called the “good neighbor” rule critical to address interstate air pollution and ensure that all Americans have access to clean air.

“Today’s move by far-right Supreme Court justices to stay commonsense clean air rules shows just how radical this court has become,” said Charles Harper of environmental group Evergreen Action.

“The court is meddling with a rule that would prevent 1,300 Americans from dying prematurely every year from pollution that crosses state borders. We know that low-income and disadvantaged communities with poor air quality will bear the brunt of this delay,” Harper said.

Roger Reynolds, senior legal director of the environmental group Save the Sound, said the decision hinders the EPA from protecting states such as Connecticut and New York that suffer from ozone pollution generated in the Midwest.

“We cannot reach healthy air quality for our residents without addressing upwind pollution, in addition to local sources,” Reynolds said.

The rule applies mostly to states in the South and Midwest that contribute to air pollution along the East Coast. Some states, such as Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin, both contribute to downwind pollution and receive it from other states.

]]>
https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/8452182312_dcbd40089c_k.webp 1558 1247 https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/8452182312_dcbd40089c_k.webp https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/8452182312_dcbd40089c_k.webp https://www.power-eng.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/8452182312_dcbd40089c_k.webp