EPA
EPA Criticized on N.D. Haze Effort
Electric cooperative leaders gave the Environmental Protection Agency an earful on its attempt to overrule a regional air quality program in North Dakota, saying EPA’s approach is misguided, expensive and unproven.
North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple speaks at an Environmental Protection Agency hearing in Bismarck, N.D., on proposed federal rules for regulating haze-causing emissions. (Photo By: AP Photo/Dale Wetzel)
“EPA is improperly impinging on the state’s authority by proposing to impose unjustified burdens on those who pay for electricity,” said Ron Harper, CEO and general manager of Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bismarck, N.D. Harper was one of several G&T representatives and elected officials who spoke at an Oct. 13-14 EPA hearing in Bismarck.
EPA announced Sept. 21 that it intends to override the implementation of regulations developed by North Dakota that deal with haze and visibility issues in park and wilderness areas.
The agency’s plan would require utilities to employ selective catalytic reduction technology on boilers that use lignite as a way of reducing nitrogen oxide emissions that contribute to haze.
That is a sharp break from past practice, as North Dakota traditionally has implemented its own air quality programs required by the federal Clean Air Act, and has a plan for the regional haze issue.
“Congress understood that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work,” Harper told the EPA field hearing, urging the agency to allow North Dakota’s plan to proceed.
Utility representatives also noted that vendors of the selective catalytic reduction technology will not guarantee that it will work in lignite boilers; one pilot program ended after two months.
Robert “Mac” McLennan, president and CEO of Minnkota Power Cooperative, Grand Forks, N.D., said members of the G&T absorbed a 34 percent increase in rates to cover $425 million in additional emissions controls at the Milton R. Young Power Station.
Estimates of the selective catalytic reduction technology run from $300 million to $700 million, he said.
“We can’t justify to our members a 30 percent increase in our costs for a mere change … not detectable to the human eye,” McLennan said.
“EPA’s plan would cost 14 times more than the state plan, and it’s not proven to provide any more environmental benefits,” added North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple. “EPA’s plan frankly makes no economic or environmental sense.”
EPA will take comments through Nov. 21. More than 2,000 have been sent to the agency through the StopEPAND.com website.