Wireless Password: 9166703926
2
Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association is…
… a wholesale electric power
supply cooperative with 44
member systems in Colorado,
Nebraska, New Mexico and
Wyoming.
3
Tri-State delivers . . .
Hydropower
Solar
Wind
Natural Gas
Coal
… bulk electric power from
owned and contracted
generation facilities to our
member systems over a 5,300mile transmission network.
4
Environmental Policy:
State of Play
 Energy policy gridlock in Washington affects the
form and content of environmental policies
 Significant rulemakings 2010 – 2020
 Unprecedented number in timeframe
 Science is not sound basis in many rulemakings
 Use of guidance instead of rulemaking
 High degree of regulatory uncertainty
 Increase in enforcement risk
5
Environmental Policy:
State of Play
 Executive branch will use Clean Air Act to
regulate greenhouse gases
 Compressed and overlapping timeframes for
compliance
 Economic and Reliability impacts
 Significant influence of litigation:
• “Sue and settle”
• Deadline lawsuits
6
Environmental Regulatory Timeline for Coal Units
CO
SO2 Primary
NAAQS
Revision
NO2
Primary
NAAQS
Revision
Ozone
GHG Tailoring
Rule Effective
Revised
Ozone
NAAQS
SO2/NO2
Ozone SIP
Due
CO
NAAQS
Revision
SO2 SIP
Due
'11
'10
'12
'13
Water
CO
SIP Due
'14
HAPS MACT
Effluent Guidelines
final rule
HAPs MACT
Final rule expected
expected
proposed
Effluent
rule
Begin Compliance
Guidelines
Requirements
under
proposed rule
RHR
Final CCB Rule
Colorado
SIP due
Impoundment design (ground water
Colorado
monitoring, double
and upgrade
Impoundment
monitors, closure,
Rule
dry ash conversion)
Colorado
Temperature
HAPs ICR
Standard
Final
Rule for
CCBs
Proposed
Mgmt
Rule for CCBs
Management
NO2
Attainment
NO2 SIP
Due
PM-2.5
NAAQS
Revision
RHR
Ash
PM2.5
CO2/Climate
SO2
Attainment
PM-2.5
Attainment Ozone
Attainment
PM-2.5
SIPs Due
'15
CO
Attainment
'16
'17
Effluent Guidelines
Compliance 3-5 yrs
after final rule
HAPS MACT
Compliance 3 yrs
after final rule
Hg/HAPS
RHR
controls
installed
PCB
Phaseout 2025
PCB
7
Two Key Federal Environmental
Policy Challenges
1. EPA “SIP call” to eliminate affirmative
defenses for startup and shutdown excess
emissions
2. Coal combustion residuals and possible
hazardous waste regulation
8
EPA Startup/Shutdown SIP Call
(Slide 1 of 5)
 In 2011, Sierra Club filed a petition for rulemaking
 As a response, EPA proposed SIP call in February 2013
 For 36 states, EPA calls for full elimination of affirmative
defense against the assessment of civil penalties for
excess emissions during startup or shutdown
 EPA makes no case that SIPs are “substantially
inadequate”
 No analysis completed to show either that
 such emissions may contribute to NAAQS problems or
 absence of such emissions would contribute to resolving
any NAAQS issue
 Startup and shutdown are not normal operation
9
EPA Startup/Shutdown SIP Call
(Slide 2 of 5)
 EPA proposal would give states a maximum of 18 months
to revise their state rules after EPA takes final action
 The proposed SIP call overrides Clean Air Act’s model of
“cooperative federalism” under which:
 EPA is to set the NAAQS
 States are to chose how to achieve them
 Colorado’s comments included:
“Colorado opposes EPA’s proposed finding that the affirmative
defense rule is impermissible because the rule is supported by
EPA’s long-standing interpretation of the CAA, a reasonable
and permissible interpretation of the provisions in question,
and because EPA’s new interpretation is unworkable for the Air
Pollution Control Division and regulated industry.”
10
EPA Startup/Shutdown SIP Call
(Slide 3 of 5)
 Arizona’s comments included:
“ADEQ exhorts the USEPA to consider its robust existing state
rules for affirmative defenses during SSM events. As evidence
of the protective nature of Arizona’s SSM provisions, no
excess emission event has ever both qualified for an
affirmative defense and contributed to a NAAQS exceedance
or caused actual harm to public health or the environment. It is
therefore, unreasonable for the USEPA to assert that Arizona’s
existing SSM rules are not adequate to protect human health
and the environment without citing specific evidence to the
substantial inadequacy of the SIP . . .”
11
EPA Startup/Shutdown SIP Call
(Slide 4 of 5)
Tri-State’s comments included:
 SIP call reverses the position that EPA has held, and that
many states continue to hold, that excess emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are not planned,
controllable, or avoidable in most cases
 Some exemptions from compliance with one emission
limitation in favor of compliance with another emission
standard is a reasonable interpretation of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 302(k)
12
EPA Startup/Shutdown SIP Call
(Slide 5 of 5)
 Risks with Elimination of the Affirmative Defense
for SS excess emissions events:
 Will not change the fact that large industrial
equipment needs start up time – after planned and
unplanned outages
 Increased risk of non-compliance and Notices of
Violations (NOVs)
 Increased risk of civil judicial penalty for CAA
violation(s) - $37,500 per day per violation
13
Coal combustion residuals and
potential hazardous waste regulation
(Slide 1 of 6)
 Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) – fly and bottom ash, FGD
sludge, and boiler slag
 2008 failure of impoundment dam structural integrity at TVA Kingston
plant
 EPA issued two proposed in 2010 to regulation coal ash as
 Hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C, or
 Solid waste under RCRA Subtitle D
 Strong state and industry response against hazardous waste
proposal
 Listed “special waste” hazardous waste
 Phase out all CCR surface impoundments
 Strict agency monitored closure, post-closure, and corrective action
 Eliminate beneficial reuse industry
 Previous determinations by EPA in 1993 and 2000 that regulating
coal ash as a hazardous waste is unwarranted
14
Coal combustion residuals and
potential hazardous waste regulation
(Slide 2 of 6)
 The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO) and 35 state
environmental regulatory agencies
 Opposed to hazardous waste regulation
 State regulatory programs are adequate
15
Coal combustion residuals and
potential hazardous waste regulation
(Slide 3 of 6)
 Western Governors Association (WGA) comments included:
“Federal regulation of coal combustion waste as hazardous
would undercut existing and effective state regulatory
authority…”
 WGA Policy Resolution 10-1:
“agree with US EPA’s 1993 and 2000 regulatory determinations
that CCB do not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and that
the western states have an effective regulatory infrastructure in
place to continue as the principal regulatory authorities…”
16
Coal combustion residuals and
potential hazardous waste regulation
(Slide 4 of 6)
 Colorado’s comments included:
“Coal combustion waste is managed as a solid waste in
Colorado… We believe the solid waste regulation of the waste
material and the beneficial reuse is a safe and protective
regulatory construct for coal combustion waste.”
 Wyoming’s comments included:
“CCR is a regulated solid waste in Wyoming… Wyoming is one
of the majority of states with permit programs for CCR
management in landfills and surface impoundments. States …
are in a far better position than EPA to regulate CCR facilities…
USEPA should modify RCRA Subtitle D to ensure that CCR is
specifically addressed in state Subtitle D municipal solid waste
(MSW) management programs.”
17
Coal combustion residuals and
potential hazardous waste regulation
(Slide 5 of 6)
 New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) comments included:
“…every State environmental agency that has weighed in on the issue
(approximately twenty State agencies) has opposed regulating CCBs as
hazardous waste . . . Give that the States have already made clear that their
programs will ensure the safe management of CCBs, the PRC sees no reasons
for EPA to pursue the hazardous waste option. . . NMPRC respectfully
recommends that EPA regulate CCBs as non-hazardous wastes under RCRA
Subtitle D.”
 Arizona’s comments included:
“…Arizona has the appropriate regulatory framework in place to be protective
of human health and the environment concerning CCR management units that
do not receive hazardous waste. ADEQ’s Aquifer Protection Permit Program
addresses potential discharges to the groundwater from these units; in addition
the AZ Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Dam Safety Program
regulates dam integrity and safety.”
18
Coal combustion residuals and potential
hazardous waste regulation
(Slide 6 of 6)
 Potential Tri-State hazardous waste management costs
• Subtitle C total capital costs
$75,000,000
• Subtitle C total monitoring, operating and maintenance
costs
$86,000,000
• Subtitle C total monitoring, operating and maintenance
costs for post-closure
$ 19,000,000
• Total Costs = $180,000,000
(Note: Costs are based on 2010 dollars)
19
Other Federal Actions
 Utility MACT/MATS
 “FrankenMACT” is a federal creation
 Regional haze
 FIPs proposed to override SIPs
 New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, North Dakota
 NSPS for greenhouse gases for existing units
 Federal “guidelines” are TBD
 Endangered Species Act listings (Consent decree)
 Gunnison Sage Grouse (endangered)
 Lesser Prairie Chicken (threatened)
 Greater Sage Grouse (TBD)
20
Thank you. Questions?
21
Wireless Password: 9166703926