According to sources at ADEQ, the anti-carbonites just won’t give it up.  After a thoroughly embarassing  failure in their efforts to remove the current Arkansas Air Program exemption for mandated permitting of CO2 sources at emissions levels of 25 tons annually, the Sierra Club, Audubon Arkansas and the Environmental Integrity Project reportedly approached ADEQ management about developing a reasonable and workable approach to move Arkansas toward eventual CO2 regulation by establishing inventory and registration requirements…the approach taken by every other state that has gone down the path of CO2 regulation.

The “moving toward CO2 regulation” is the operative phrase, as representatives of the three groups testified to the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission in June that should the Commission pass their proposed reg change, it would not automatically require permitting, but would simply “remove a stumbling block to dialogue” about CO2, and that eventually, after the Legislature, Dept., Commission and stakeholders decided that permitting was appropriate, only then would permitting be required.  That statement was nothing less than unadulterated BS, as is evidenced by their statements to the media immediately after the Commission turned them down, and their subsequent disingenuous negotiations with ADEQ.

ADEQ spent hours crafting such an approach at the request of Sierra/Audubon/EIP triumverate and vetted it with the “greens” only to have it tossed back in their face and labeled a serious “disappointment.”  The three organizations apparently will settle for nothing less than CO2 permitting well in advance of recommendations from the Governor’s Global Warming Commission, EPA, Congress and ADEQ.  As our source put it, “They are demanding permitting, but we have absolutely no guidance to work with.”

The Grand Poobah

EPA’s recent determination that Method 202 is inadequate and results in high biases could have some short term beneficial impacts for Arkansas’s permittees.  EPA determined that Method 202 emissions testing forPM 2.5 resulted in such erratic numbers as to deem the procedure unreliable.  Currently, there is no official source test method for PM 2.5 available, even though PM 2.5 was officially added to the list of regulated NSR pollutants upon the effective date of designation of nonattainment areas (April 5, 2005).  EPA’s recent determination will not require states to address condensable PM in establishing emissions limits for either PM 10 or 2.5 in NSR permits until the completion of a test method transition period, Jan. 1, 2011.  Further, EPA will not look back on applicability determinations made prior to Jan 1, 2011.  Essentially, EPA is saying that the state’s don’t have a reliable tool for measuring 2.5 emissions and therefore should not consider those emissions, except by way of proxy measurements.  States that have “supporting technical information and test methods” may assess the capabilities of current or new control technologies for controlling condensable PM 2.5 emissions…probably not a condition found at ADEQ.

The AEF was notified soon after EPA’s condensables ruling that ADEQ has determined that it will continue to require condensable PM monitoring despite the ruling.  AEF representatives have met this week with ADEQ Air Division staff to lay out the case that Method 202 PM 2.5 condensable monitoring in NSR permits is not a reliable or recognized method and Arkansas’s industries should not be punished for the next two years by relying on faulty science.  Method 202 is required in Arkansas by policy, not regulation.  While ADEQ staff seemed to understand the issue, hesitance prevailed seemingly because of precedents set in existing permits.  In other words…it’s been our policy to rely on this faulty tool for past permits, removing that defective tool now for future permits will not be fair to those who’ve already been saddled with it.  Keep on keeping on for the sake of keeping on. 

The AEF will continue to pursue a resolution that will bring ADEQ in line with national air policies.

The Grand Poobah

ADEQ has issued a draft of revisions to the Department’s Reg. 12 that regulates storage tanks.  There was no synopsis provided, however, the red line copy appears to add section 12.701 providing for the training and certification of persons who operate or maintain underground storage tank systems.  Appears to be three classes of operators, with a requirement that at least one of the lowest class must be present during any hours of operation with violation enforcement actions possible.  Hope someone within the AEF ranks who operates tanks takes a look at the draft and gives us some feedback.

On a related note, ADEQ has recently taken a unique position related to access to the petroleum storage tank fund.  In a case out of Heber Springs, the leak of a “non-taxed” petroleum product tank, ADEQ determined that the fact that the product itself was not subject to the 2/10’s penny per gallon environmental assurance fee made the tank itself ineligible for the trust fund.  All of this seems to have generated from the last go round of Reg. 12 changes when a provision was added that no access was available for systems that store substances for which payment of the environmental assurance fee is not required.  That fee is only assessed on distillate fuels.  Apparently some fuel facilities are operating under the assumption that non-fee petroleum products are covered.  So, if you have, say a tank for used oil, hydraulic oil, etc. chances are your system does not have access to the fund.

The Grand Poobah

So, you have a Georgia court ruling that an air permit for a coal fired generating plant must consider CO2 last month, and this week a federal appeals court dismissed an EPA rule that blocked states from enforcing stricter monitoring of air pollution from oil refineries and power plants.  The US Circuit Court of Appeals -Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that a 2006 EPA rule restricting states from adding supplemental monitoring standards was invalid in the Sierra Club V EPA case.  Originally the rule was designed to encourage investments by streamlining the permitting process.  The Court ruled that federal monitoring regulations were often inadequate and state and locals must be allowed to augment those.  Meanwhile, in July the very same Columbia Circuit ruled that EPA has overreached its authority when it created the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) designed to reduce allowable emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from power plants.  More than a little confusing at the very moment when certainty is needed to move environmental and energy projects forward.

The Grand Poobah

A belated reporting on the failed efforts of the Sierra Club, Audubon and the Environmental Integrity Project out of Texas to strike language in Arkansas’s Air Regulations that currently exempt CO2 from the definition of “air contaminant,” along with oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, water vapor and inert gases– the PCE Commission heard the testimony on June 27, but didn’t buy the dodgy arguments proposed by the petitioners, who claimed that the efforts were not designed to require permitting of any facilities any time soon, just to “remove a stumbling block” to dialgue on CO2.

Unfortunately, the petitioners left NO OTHER OPTIONS than immediately requiring a permitting scheme for CO2 emissions of over 25 T annually from any facility–industries, bakeries, breweries, apartment buildings, hospitals, dormitories, etc.  For some perspective:  CO2 emissions from the typical residential gas water heater equals over 2 tons annually, a hybrid car is good for 4 tons over 12,000 miles, the Commission itself exhaled five tons last year.  The ADEQ Director Marks testified that removing those “two little words” as Ernie Dumas put it, would mandate an extensive (and undoubtedly expensive) 25 T permitting system on a wide variety of facilities…just like any other legitimate “air contaminant.”  This would be by far, the most stringent CO2 requirement in the western hemisphere, if not the universe!  Even Texas, where EIP hails from, has the exact same exemption language and includes methane, a far more potent GHG.

Commissioners were a bit skeptical of the petitioners’ “remove the stumbling block” arguments and noted that they had failed to comply with existing (since 1993) law that requires all proposed regulations to have an economic impact/enviro-benefit analysis performed prior to submission to the PCE.  Yet, despite the clear permitting requirement, the petitioners had blown off the required analysis under the pretext that they were just truing up the state’s definition of “air contaminant” with that required by the U.S. Supreme Court.  (The US Supreme Court has yet to require anything other than review by EPA.)  The PCE adopted an alternative minute order offered by the AEF that rejected the petition citing the petition’s failure to comply with state law and its premature nature.

The most telling part of this tale, however, is the fact that the petitioners who had argued “no permitting is required” and “just remove the stumbling block” to the PCE Commission were, moments after their defeat, telling the media that “We can fix this by increasing the 25 ton limit” for permitting.  In other words, it IS about permitting, and permitting NOW, ahead of Congress, the US EPA and the Governor’s Global Warming Commission.  In fact, one petitioner has made it abundantly clear that they have absolutely no intention of waiting for the Global Warming Commission…a message that should resonate well with the GW and PCE Commissions, not to mention the Arkansas Legislature.

It should also resonate with Arkansas’s citizens who in October 2007 responded to a U of A annual poll of public opinion.

This year, pollsters also asked what the state’s global warming policies should be relative to other states. While 47 percent stated that Arkansas should adopt policies that have proved effective in other states, 27 percent of respondents thought that Arkansas “should be on the leading edge of creating policies to combat global warming.”  http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/11709.htm

That’s nearly a 2:1 margin in favor of a strategy in keeping with other states.

Your thoughts?

The Grand Poobah

Edit this entry.

The Arkansas Global Warming Commission met again last week for a marathon session of power point presentations of graphs and charts so tiny that even the staff members of the Center for Climate Strategies couldn’t make out the details.  With a Nov. 1 deadline looming and only two more meetings scheduled, we’re beginning to see some fraying around the edges of the GWC.  A vocal minority has begun to push back against any of the 55 or so proposals that appears to “grow” state government or add costs to the operation of state agencies.   Imagine that.  There’s even been a few dust ups over procedure of late as the minority grapples with how to voice its opposition in the face of the CCS cookie cutter approach, the avalanche of subcommittee reports and the daunting task before them.  The CCS staff appears to be steering around the “aginers,” but one gets the impression that for all the fancy colored graphs, CO2 equivalent computer runs and mind numbing number crunching that goes on at these GWC meetings, this could well be nothing more than an exercise in self flagellation.  When you get right down to it, in Arkansas the bulk of the GW activities involve cars, electric generation and building codes.  Unless you address those in a comprehensive way that acknowledges economic markets and consumer choices, everything else is just nibbling at the edges.

To follow all that exciting GWC activity, go to their website at http://www.arclimatechange.us/

Your thoughts?

The Grand Poobah