|
www.times.org Pollution rules set aside for power plants
No public notice was provided, and no public comment will be allowed, on these highly unusual arrangements. Experienced power industry observers say this regulatory tactic, called an “enforcement bridge,” had never been used before this year. Washington Department of Ecology sources say, “We were threatened. Polluters came to us and said we need your cooperation. And if we don’t get it, we’re going to call (Vice-President Cheney’s) Energy Committee in the White House. What we were doing was right on the edge of the law. There were no regulations for this. We were making up rules as we went along.” Pacific Gas & Electric Transmission, the pipeline developer, can now begin construction of six compressor stations without any air permits at all. (PGE & T is an affiliate of the bankrupt California utility, Pacific Gas & Electric.) Each station will produce up to 150 tons of toxic pollution every year. The pollution consists of cancer-causing volatile organic compounds as well as particulates, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. The other expedited approvals will allow the construction of a power plant in Chehalis to move forward, and the additions of new power producing turbines at the BP Refinery in Ferndale, and at the Duke/Satsop, Puget Sound/Fredonia, and Transalta/Centralia power plants. These agreements stand normal permitting processes on their head. Under federal and state air pollution laws, the company is supposed to first obtain air permits, then submit to public review and comments. Only then can developers begin construction and operation of new air pollution sources. “Internally, EPA came up with a list of criteria to evaluate and expedite these projects, “ said a DEQ source, “There were no rules in place for it. They consulted with their superiors in Washington DC, and got the go-ahead for this extraordinary waiver called an enforcement bridge.” In essence, the developers and EPA agree that their expansion projects would violate the air pollution laws, but can go ahead anyway, as long as they agree to pay an agreed-on fine and perform some “mitigation” projects. PGE & T’s fine will be only about $3000. Similar violations in recent years have resulted in fines of $300,000 and more. The pipeline company has agreed to pay for an unusual series of “mitigation” projects designed to placate the permitting agencies. For example, PGE & T will buy five diesel-fired school busses for Rockford, Wash schools. The company will also take some woodstoves out of service, promote carpooling and hold emissions at some other plants below historic levels. The purchase of diesel-burning busses seems to contradict a new EPA initiative against diesel engine pollution. There are many other engine designs, such as natural gas fired engines, that would not have produced the cancer-causing fumes that will be emitted by the new fleet of busses purchased under the agreement. The emergency measure for the Pipeline was designed to speed natural gas deliveries to proposed natural gas power plants. But Newport Northwest, the developer of two of the plants, says their plants are at least three or four years away from operating, raising the question of why emergency action needed to be taken now. The pipeline will also supply fuel to three new power plants in California, and one in Oregon, owned by Calpine, a large power plant speculator. “We were thinking do we really need to do this for the PGE natural gas Pipeline. Energy prices were already way down. But We got letters from the Governors of Washington and Idaho saying there was an energy supply alert. Those letters were as good as gold, given the way we had decided to do business. There was a price to be paid by the developer. But was it a drop in the bucket?” said an EPA source. The other developers who benefited from these rules waivers have also agreed to reduce their pollution elsewhere, and make cash contributions to pollution control agencies, to promote car pooling, and to encourage reduction of wood stove use. BP has agreed to give $100,000 to a local environmental group, to manufacture a low sulfur fuel, to reduce pollution from other refinery equipment, and to funds reductions in wood stove usage. An EPA source states, “In our defense, we got a net environmental benefit regarding every project; money for agencies, funding for energy conservation, funding for air quality monitoring, and offsets for unpermitted air pollution.” |