We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Yesterday, EPA released proposed revisions to its rules
governing emissions from emergency back-up generators. It's not
always the most exciting of topics, but it is important. Many
facilities have back-up generators and I know from experience
advising clients that, precisely because back-up generators do not
run that often, operators can run into compliance issues.
The most important aspect of the proposed rule is that EPA would
allow back-up generators to run for up to 100 hours without being
subject to emissions limits for the following reasons:
Monitoring and testing
Demand response
Voltage changes of at least 5%
Moreover, EPA is proposing that, through 2017, emergency
generators be allowed to operate without limits for up to 50 hours
of this 100-hour exception "for peak shaving and non-emergency
demand response." EPA's explanation is that this temporary
exception is necessary "to address reliability issues and
develop solutions to reliability issues while facilities are coming
into compliance with the" utility MACT rule.
I find it interesting that, according to the Daily Environment Report, the Electric Power
Supply Association opposes the rule. EPSA President John Shelk was
quoted as commenting that:
The essential design and purpose of
demand response is to encourage consumers to reduce their
consumption of electricity in response to appropriate market
signals, not to simply replace power from the grid with power from
an on-site emergency diesel generator not subject to the same air
emissions rules.
This is actually something of a difficult issue. Back-up
generators are an important element of flexibility in grid
operations. On the other hand, EPSA makes a fair point that one
does not typically think of utilization of back-up generators as a
component of "demand response".
Indeed, one could fairly think of use of back-up generators as a
"supply response."
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog
please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule entitled Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.
Last week, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowances in order to fix a supply-demand imbalance in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).
It may be time for our federal courts to rethink their reluctance to accept major environmental claims that the courts of other countries are simply not yet able to handle.
After being taken to task by states and its own Inspector General for lack of final guidance on Vapor Intrusion, EPA has just released draft guidance documents for hazardous substances and petroleum products for comment.
California's cap-and-trade program mandates that certain covered entities acquire allowances for each metric ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) they emit during specified compliance periods.
Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.
On April 19, 2013, EPA released the proposed "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category" (Steam Electric ELG). The proposed Steam Electric ELG would revise the existing technology-based effluent limitations guidelines [40 CFR 423] for most steam electric power plants and their discharges to U.S. waters or POTWs.
In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman", that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP.
