- Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is a number.
Despite TXU constantly claiming they will use the best available control technology, the state doesn’t tell them what technology to use, they just come up with a number for BACT, usually expressed in pounds of a polutant per million BTU (lb/MMbtu) of heat input to the boilers. The applicant can choose any "control technology" to deal with the different pollutants, so long as they meet the BACT emission number.
The BACT determination is based in part on "economic reasonableness", so it isn’t actually the best but the best based on someone’s definition of "reasonable."
- TXU sought a 100% fudge factor and imposed their will on the State Agency.
For Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions, the pollution that causes smog and ozone problems, TXU wanted a guarantee from their engineering firm that NOx emissions would be at or below 0.05 lb/MMBTU. There is no reason to doubt that they got such a guarantee.
Following the established procedure, the Engineer for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concluded that a BACT of .07 was reasonable and achievable, giving some wiggle room between the specifications for the boiler and permit requirements.
- TXU would not accept the State engineer’s determination of "Best Available Control Technology."
Glen Shenkel, the Executive Director of TCEQ, who was appointed by the governor (the same Governor that fast tracked the approval of these plants), and who is not an engineer, sat down and cut a deal with TXU for the permit BACT to be .08 with a provision that they will look at their performances in 2 years and maybe make adjustments - the permit engineer wasn’t even in the room.
The original TXU application proposed BACT as .10 or twice the emissions rate they wanted their contractor to guarantee. Testimony and evidence was introduced showing that their own consultant engineers informed TXU before the application was filed that BACT for this project was well below the .10 they asked for.
By contrast, Sempra’s permit for the expansion of their plant near Calvert suggested a BACT of .07 in their original application when burning the same lignite as the TXU plant.
TXU’s ads make them look like great corporate citizens going out of their way to minimize the pollution from the plant.
The evidence shows that TXU sees the permitting process as a negotiation in which you push for as much ability to pollute as you can get. No doubt they would have gladly taken the permit to emit twice the specified performance of their boilers. Most shocking of all, they appear to have used their political influence to override the TCEQ engineer’s BACT determination.
- TXU is choosing to burn only Lignite and thus, to pollute more.
TXU’s own experts testified that blending Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) coal with the lignite would decrease NOx and Mercury emissions.
They already blend PRB coal at 3 of their 4 other plant sites.
The Sempra permit contemplates burning both 100% lignite or blending PRB coal. When they burn the blend the permitted emissions are set lower.
TXU’s permit will prevent them from burning anything but lignite unless they go through the process of getting an amendment to the permit.
According to the permit engineer, TCEQ does not "interject" itself into the "economics" of a project by specifying what type of fuel to burn.
But, if you choose to burn the dirtier lignite coal, the standards allow you to emit more pollution than if you’re burning cleaner coal. For example, you can emit three times as much mercury if you're burning lignite compared to bituminous coal.
So, our environmentally sensitive friends at TXU are choosing not to do what they are already doing at other plants - blend coals. They are choosing to pollute more.
- Oak Grove uses the lion’s share of State’s Mercury allotment under new rules.
Similar to their NOx approach of establishing a strong bargaining position, TXU’s initial application called for no specific mercury controls, but they fully expected the TCEQ to make them use some and it was in their budget. I’m sure they would have gladly taken a permit to emit over a ton of mercury each year, if TCEQ had approved it.
New mercury rules set a national cap on mercury emissions in 2010, and lower that cap in 2018. Oak Grove would use 15 percent of the mercury allotment for the entire state in 2010 about the time it will start production. In 2018 if it emits at the permitted rate, it would emit 39 percent of the state's allotment while providing about 2 percent of the state's energy.
How will this untenable situation be remedied? The new rules call for trading of credits. It is reasonable to assume that somewhere in America a plant will reduce its mercury emissions and sell the credit to TXU.
If the federal target indicates a level of mercury pollution that is safe(er), how can one plant emitting 1/3 of the statewide target be safe?
Big Brown, in Fairfield, opened in about 1972, it is starting its second life as it transitions from burning Texas lignite to PRB coal. The Alcoa boiler near Rockdale was opened in the early 50s; it is finally being taken off line.
This means today’s decision to build dirty coal plants will define how Texans will generate their energy and treat the environment for the next 50 years - and create pollution sources our grandkids will have to live with.
TXU’s own air modeling expert submitted maps showing that NOx from this plant will have an effect in the Dallas non-attainment area. Dallas has been unable to meet Federal Ozone standards for 2 years, with no indication that they can make the needed reductions. If all the coal plants contemplated by TXU are built, they may never come into compliance.
