« 8/15: NM Redistricting Committee Meeting in Albuquerque | Main | Sen. Tom Udall Announces Southern NM Jobs Tour »
Friday, August 05, 2011
Victory: EPA Issues Decision Requiring Industry-Standard Pollution Controls on San Juan Generating Station
An important victory for everyone who likes clean air: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 6 office today announced its final decision to require the installation of industry-standard pollution controls on the San Juan Generating Station coal-fired power plant near Farmington, New Mexico. The pollution controls will substantially reduce hazardous air pollution from the aging coal-fired power plant, protecting both public health and tourism revenue at nearby National Parks. For years, pollution from the San Juan Generating Station has marred views at National Parks such as the Grand Canyon and Mesa Verde, threatening local economies that depend on tourism revenue from park visitors.
Sierra Club Weighs In
The Sierra Club, America’s largest grassroots environmental organization, which has been working with allies in the region to protect public health from the threats posed by the dirty and dangerous San Juan Generating Station, released the following statement by Bill Corcoran, Western Region Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, in response to today’s EPA announcement:
“Pollution from the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station has long jeopardized public health and the economic future of communities throughout the Southwestern United States. Today, the EPA took a bold and necessary stand to protect people and businesses from coal’s toxic pollution.
“The dangerous pollution emitted from the San Juan Generating Station is a serious health hazard for people throughout the Southwest -- especially for children and the elderly. San Juan Generating Station currently emits nearly 16,000 tons of nitrogen oxide into the air each year. Nitrogen oxide combines with sunlight, heat and other chemicals in the air to produce ground-level ozone, an invisible chemical the American Lung Association calls “the most widespread pollutant in the U.S. [and] one of the most dangerous.” Ozone pollution causes asthma attacks, respiratory problems, lung damage, and even premature death.
“The same pollution that endangers our health mars our views of National Parks, threatening local economies. When so many small businesses in the region depend on tourists visiting National Parks, sullying that experience is a terrible thing for business. EPA’s ruling to limit pollution from San Juan Generating Station will protect National Park view sheds, and thus local economies.
“The money that Public Service Company of New Mexico will need to spend to install the industry-standard pollution controls demonstrates how the cost of coal is rapidly increasing throughout the country. Coal is a horribly dirty and dangerous fossil fuel and it takes a tremendous toll on our health and pocketbooks each and every day. Especially as clean energy resources such as solar and wind have become more affordable, it is absurd that utilities would continue throwing their customer’s money at an increasingly expensive fossil fuel like coal.
“We thank the EPA for listening to the people who have suffered the effects of the San Juan Generating Station’s pollution for decades and we applaud EPA’s action to hold PNM accountable for the true cost of coal.”
Note: Also be sure to check out this post by Juan Reynosa on El Grito, who has long worked with community members and organizations to help make this happen. Congratulations to Juan, the Sierra Club and everyone else involved in this effort. The fight for clean air continues.
August 5, 2011 at 05:17 PM in Energy, Environment | Permalink
Comments
YEAH!!!
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Aug 5, 2011 8:10:45 PM
Unfortunately, this isn't the end of it. The counter gambit is to peg the price of compliance with EPA clean air standards at nearly a billion dollars.
There will be an appeal.
This appeal process could take a long time, and it could go past the next Presidential election and the subsequent inauguration.
There might be an argument over whether science is able to prove one way or the other that the higher summer temps and the protracted drought have anything to do with climate change. However, it would seem prudent to pay attention to the probable connection between coal burning and other sources of atmospheric pollution.
The Republican approach to this would be to gut the EPA and we can bank on that if they get more seats in Congress or win back the White House. There is no scientific proof that will convince the GOP that business interests should in any way be asked to innovate. They don't see any issues that require responsibility to the community, the nation or to the future of the planet we live on.
Posted by: Stuart Heady | Aug 6, 2011 7:40:07 AM
(1) July 1997: EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for PM2.5 (Particulate Matter 2.5 microns and larger), and told the states to prepare State Improvement Plans (SIP) in accordance with the CAA.
(2) April 2005: EPA published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.'' that applied to NM and other states and started a 2 year clock for the states to submit acceptable plans or the EPA would do it for them.
(3) August 2006: EPA issued a ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2006 Guidance). In other words, here’s a cheat sheet on what we are expecting. One of the requirements was that the each state’s SIP meet the “good neighbor” requirements of the CAA: The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states. The 2006 Guidance stated that states may make a simple SIP submission confirming that it was not possible at that time to assess whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another state designed to ``protect visibility'' for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until RH (Regional Haze) SIPs are submitted and approved. RH SIPs were required to be submitted by December 17, 2007.
(4) September 2007: NMED submitted a SIP to the EPA, but it did not address the RH requirement, and NM still had not addressed the RH requirement as of Jan 5, 2011. In addition, NMED did not make a submission demonstrating noninterference with the visibility programs of other states.
(5) Jan 2011: The EPA issue a “proposed rule” on Jan 5, 2011, because they determined that the NMED plan was incomplete and insufficient.
This is all in the EPA’s proposed rule, the first item listed on this link: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=PR;rpp=10;po=0;D=EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846 (the second item is the notice of public hearing and the third is the extension of public comments.)
To me, the most interesting thing about this timeline is that most of it occurred under Gov Richardson’s watch. I would have expected that pro-renewable energy administration to have taken the EPA’s guidance as a golden opportunity to jump all over the San Juan Gen Station. In reading the EPA’s proposed rule, the EPA states that not only did NM fail to meet the EPA requirements, but the NM SIP violated the requirements of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), of which NM is a member. So why did NM under Bill Richardson submit a SIP that was incomplete and ineffective? Could it be that he was thinking about and then running for President, and knew that implementing rules that met the CAA would result in a big expense for PNM and ripple into higher electricity prices? So he left NM hanging, betting that a Democrat President would not sic the EPA on a Democrat Governor. Then the EPA comes down on NM like a ton of bricks just after a Republican Governor takes office.
Also, PNM has known what the CAA requirement was for years and years. Instead of being proactive by starting retrofits piecemeal and spreading the pain out over many years, they have sat on their hands. Why? Because PNM knows that as a regulated monopoly, they will be allowed to pass on the costs to the consumer, just as state law allows utilites to collect the costs of renewable energy and renewable energy credits from the consumer.
In other words, PNM was like a bus company that has hired alcoholic drivers with DWI’s on their record (coal power) for years in order to save money. After the law was changed to make that illegal, PNM maintained the status quo, and wasn’t going to change their habits while the police (NM) and the prosecutor (EPA) were dickering over what punishment was going to be. Now that the costs to hire clean drivers are out in the open, PNM’s response is to tell the riding public, “fine, if you want safe drivers, it’s going to cost you.”
Posted by: Paul Lindsey | Aug 6, 2011 8:13:12 AM
If you think this will hike energy costs wait a few years. We have gotten used to unnaturally low energy prices and this will change with us having to pay the real costs of energy as it should be.
The problem is not that energy costs will be too high. It's that we have gotten into the habit of over consuming and wasting energy. Why not, it's been cheap? There is no good reason our appliances are so wasteful. We will no longer think it's OK to allow office buildings, gas stations, convenience stores, etc to have way too many lights and burn them 24-7 in many cases. We will have to give up our fascination with lit up skyscrapers at night in big cities. We will be forced to treat energy like a valuable thing, to be used sparingly.
Hey folks - natural light is good!
Posted by: Green Era | Aug 6, 2011 11:01:44 AM
