TO : See attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 22, 2006, I filed with the Office of the Clerk of
the Pollution Control Board, Participant Kincaid Generation, L
.L.C.'s MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE INSTANTER KINCAID GENERATION L .L.C.'S
QUESTIONS FOR THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT THE HEARING
COMMENCING JUNE 12, 2006 and KINCAID GENERATION L .L.C
.'S QUESTIONS FOR
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT THE HEARING
COMMENCING JUNE 12, 2006, copies of which are herewith served upon you
.
By:
Bill S . Forcade
Katherine Rahill
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Attorneys for Kincaid Generation, LLC
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
In The Matter of:
)
Proposed New 35 111. Adm. Code 225
)
Control of Emissions from )
Large Combustion Sources
)
NOTICE OF FILING
No. R06-25
(Rulemaking - Air)
THIS FILING IS SUBMITED ON RECYCLED PAPER
R
ECEIVED
'S OFFIC E
MAY 2 2 2006
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Katherine Rahill, an attorney, hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing
Motion, via first-class mail, postage fully prepaid, upon the parties on the attached Service List
this 22nd day of May, 2006 :
B
hi
1W
.~A -
Gina Roccaforte, Assistant Counsel
Charles Matoesian, Assistant Counsel
John J
. Kim, Managing Attorney
Air Regulatory Unit
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P
.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph St ., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Bruce Nilles
Sierra Club
214 N . Henry Street, Suite 203
Madison, WI 53703
Matthew Dunn, Chief
Division of Environmental Enforcement
Office of the Attorney General
188 West Randolph St
., 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
William A . Murray
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of Public Utilities
800 East Monroe
Springfield, Illinois 62757
Christopher W . Newcomb
Karaganis, White & Mage
., Ltd .
414 North Orleans Street, Suite 810
Chicago, Illinois 60610
David Rieser
James T. Harrington
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
SERVICE LIST
Faith E. Bugel
Howard A . Learner
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
N. LaDonna Driver
Katherine D . Hodge
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue, P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
Keith I. Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic
205 West Monroe Street, 4th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
S
. David Farris
Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety
Office of Public Utilities, City of Springfield
201 East Lake Shore Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62757
Marie Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R
. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Kathleen C . Bassi
Sheldon A . Zabel
Stephen J . Bonebrake
Joshua R . More
Glenna L. Gilbert
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
In The Matter of:
)
Proposed New 35 Ill . Adm . Code 225
)
No
. R06-25
Control of Emissions from
)
(Rulemaking - Air)
Large Combustion Sources
)
RECEIVED
CLERK'S
OFFICE
MAY 2 2 2006
Pollution
STATE
O
Cont
of
Boa
d
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER KINCAID GENERATION L
.L.C.'S
OUESTIONS FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT
THE HEARING COMMENCING JUNE12,
2006
NOW COMES Participant KINCAID GENERATION, L
.L.C
. ("Kincaid"), by and
through its attorneys, Jenner & Block LLP, and hereby moves the Board for leave to file
instanter Kincaid Generation L
.L.C.'S
Questions For The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency At The Hearing Commencing June 12, 2006, with the exception of those questions
directed to Dr. James Staudt
. In support of its request, Kincaid states as follows
:
I .
On May 18, 2006, Kincaid's counsel received notice from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (the "Agency") that the Agency would be submitting revised
testimony for Dr . James Staudt.
2.
In response to this notice, on May 18, 2006, Kincaid, in cooperation with other
participants, filed Participants' Emergency Motion to Suspend the Filing Date for Prefiled
Questions and Request for Pre-Hearing Conference Call, requesting the Hearing Officer suspend
the filing date for prefiled questions for all Agency witnesses until a later date to be determined
at a pre-hearing conference call .
3.
On the morning of May 19, 2006, the Hearing Officer issued an order asking for
all responses to the emergency motion by 1
:00 pm of that same day and stating that she expected
THIS FILING IS SUBMITED ON RECYCLED PAPER
to rule on the motion no later than 3 :30 pm that day and that the order would be posted on the
COOL system and emailed to all participants on the service list .
4.
At 3:30
pm on May 19, 2006, and several times shortly thereafter, counsel for
Kincaid checked on the COOL system and the Hearing Officer's order had not been posted
.
Neither had Kincaid's counsel received any email transmitting the order .
5.
At sometime after 3 :30 pm on May 19, 2006, Kincaid's counsel again checked the
postings on the COOL system and found the Hearing Officer's order had been posted . However,
Kincaid's counsel never received any email transmitting the order .
6.
The Hearing Officer's order required Kincaid and other participants to prefile
questions for all witnesses with the exception of those questions for Mr
. Staudt on that same day,
May 19, 2006
.
7 .
Because the rules of the Illinois Pollution Control Board require all filings to be
filed with the clerk by 4 :30 pm on the date due, the Hearing Officer's order afforded participants
significantly less than one hour to revise their current sets of questions for filing in compliance
with such an order .
8.
In order to comply with such an order, Kincaid's counsel would have needed to
materially alter documents previously approved for filing by Kincaid and have the revised
documents approved for filing by Kincaid within this very brief time frame.
9.
Moreover, due to the mechanism by which Kincaid's counsel files documents, all
revisions, approval and duplication would have needed to be completed by 4
:00 pm, shortly after
the time at which Kincaid's counsel had notice of the ruling .
10.
Kincaid's counsel has now had the opportunity to revise the document to be filed
and obtain consent for filing such document from their client .
11 .
The Agency will not be prejudiced by this delay as the delay is only one working
day and the First Hearing is still weeks away .
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Participant KINCAID GENERATION,
L.L.C.,
respectfully requests that the Board grant its motion for leave to file instanter Kincaid's
prefiled questions for the First Hearing with the exception of those questions directed to Dr .
James Staudt .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMI9D,
KINCAID N(E
N, L.L.Cr`..
B
Dated : May 22, 2006
Bill S
. Forcade
Katherine Rahill
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
Fax : 312-527-0484
CHICAGO. 1407273 .
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECEIVED
CLERKS
OFFICE
MAY
2 i 2005
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Board
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL .ADM.CODE PART 225
) PCB R06-25
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
KINCAID GENERATION L
.L.C.'S QUESTIONS
FOR THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT
THE HEARING COMMENCING JUNE 12, 2006
NOW COMES Kincaid Generation, L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, Jenner & Block
LLP, and submits the following questions based upon the Statement of Reasons, Technical
Support Document ("TSD") and its Appendices
("App."), and the testimony submitted by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Agency" or "Illinois EPA") in this matter
.
For DavidC.Foerter
I .
Did you receive any information from the Agency prior to forming any opinions
including but not limited to the opinions contained in your testimony?
a.
If so, describe that information in detail .
b.
If so, did you rely on that information in forming any opinions or testimony?
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the information
that you received from the Agency?
2 .
Have you reviewed Dr. Staudt's testimony?
a.
If so, did you rely on Dr
. Staudt's testimony in forming any opinions or
testimony?
b .
If so, on which parts of his testimony did you rely?
THIS FILING IS SUBMITED ON RECYCLED PAPER
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on Dr
. Staudt's
testimony?
3 .
Have you reviewed the TSD?
a.
If so, did you rely on the TSD in forming any opinions or testimony?
b.
If so, on which parts of the TSD did you rely?
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the TSD?
4.
Have you reviewed the ICF report attached as Appendix C to the TSD?
a.
If so, did you rely on the ICF report in forming any opinions or testimony?
b.
If so, on which parts of the ICF report did you rely?
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the ICF report?
5 .
Have you reviewed the information acquired by the Agency from any of the site
inspections at each of the Illinois coal-fired power plants (Control Configuration
Inspections) during late April, early May of 2006?
6.
Did you assist in writing any portion of the TSD? If so, which sections specifically and
when did you provide the Agency your input?
7 .
What is your definition of "commercially available?"
8.
What is your definition of "cost effective?"
9.
What is your definition of "economically feasible?"
10.
On page 1 of your testimony, you state that "there are a suite of options available to cost-
effectively control mercury emissions from power plants of different configurations and
coal types :"
a.
List all of the different options and explain how each one works .
b .
What are the costs associated with each of those options?
2
c.
Which of these options have been demonstrated to obtain the level of control
currently called for in the IEPA's proposed mercury control regulations 100% of
the time, under all operating conditions, at a facility of the size and type of the
Kincaid facility?
d.
Please describe where and when such demonstrations took place .
11 .
Again on page 1, you list certain existing control installations such as fabric filters and
electrostatic precipitators as achieving "high levels of mercury reductions :"
a.
Are those "high levels of mercury reductions" sufficient to meet the level of
control currently called for in the IEPA's proposed mercury control regulations
100% of the time, under all operating conditions, at every one of the Illinois
facilities that would be subject to those regulations?
b.
Do you know if these "high levels of mercury reductions" are sufficient to meet
the level of control called for in the federal CAMR 100% of the time, under all
operating conditions, at every one of the Illinois facilities that would be subject to
those regulations?
c.
For each facility for which the answer to 6 .a. or 6.b. is no, please describe what
additional controls would be necessary to achieve the required level of control and
the costs associated with such controls .
12. Please explain your statement on page 1 of your testimony : "With the implementation of
mercury regulatory requirements beyond incidental co-benefit levels of control, a number
of options for optimizing existing controls will be implemented to provide cost effective
reductions."
3
13.
What is the cost of a sorbent injection system for a coal-fired electric generating unit of
the size and type of the Kincaid Generation facility?
a.
Upon what factors does the cost of a sorbent injection system for a coal-fired
electric generating unit depend?
14.
Will a sorbent injection system for reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired electric
generating units achieve compliance with the mercury proposal 100% of the time under
all operating conditions for a facility such as Kincaid Generation LLC?
a.
Upon what factors does the effectiveness of a sorbent injection system for a coal-
fired electric generating unit depend?
15 .
What is the basis for your statement that "[m]ultipollutant control approaches as well as
other mercury specific technologies provide additional low cost, innovative approaches to
mercury control?"
a.
What specifically are the "multipollutant control approaches" and "other mercury
specific technologies" to which you referred in this statement?
b.
What did you mean by "additional low cost, innovative approaches?"
"Additional" to what?
c.
What is your definition of "low cost?" Specifically, how much does each of these
"additional low cost, innovative approaches" cost?
16 .
Do you agree that regulatory programs with flexibility have value for the regulators, the
regulated community, and the public?
17.
Do you agree that regulatory programs with flexibility are economically efficient?
18 .
Do you agree that low-cost, reliable electricity is essential in our economy?
4
19.
Do you believe the proposed mercury control regulations to be cost-effective? Please
explain .
20.
In your testimony, you list the creation of jobs as a benefit of the proposed mercury
control regulations
- who would pay for these jobs?
For Ezra D . Hausman, Ph .D.
1 .
Did you receive any information from the Agency prior to forming any opinions
including but not limited to the opinions contained in your testimony?
d .
If so, describe that information in detail .
e.
If so, did you rely on that information in forming any opinions or testimony?
f.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the information
that you received from the Agency?
2 .
Have you reviewed Dr. Staudt's testimony?
d .
If so, did you rely on Dr . Staudt's testimony in forming any opinions or
testimony?
e.
If so, on which parts of his testimony did you rely?
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on Dr . Staudt's
testimony?
3 .
Have you reviewed the TSD?
d .
If so, did you rely on the TSD in forming any opinions or testimony?
e.
If so, on which parts of the TSD did you rely?
f
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the TSD?
5
4.
Have you reviewed the information acquired by the Agency from any of the site
inspections at each of the Illinois coal-fired power plants (Control Configuration
Inspections) during late April, early May of 2006?
5.
Did you assist in writing any portion of the TSD? If so, which sections specifically and
when did you provide the Agency your input?
6.
In your testimony, you state that you rely on data provided by ICF Corporation :
a.
To what data are you referring?
b .
Do you know who participated in the evaluation and/or preparation of that data?
c.
How did you originally obtain a copy of this data?
d.
Were you directed to rely on this data by the Agency?
7.
Your testimony includes some criticisms of the ICF data - did you find it to be unreliable
to some extent? To what extent?
8.
Is it your contention on page 15 and 16 of your testimony that the gas prices estimated in
the IPM model are unrealistically low? Please explain .
9.
If gas prices are underestimated, would the IPM model not also underestimate the costs
and electric rate impacts of using more gas-fired generation and less coal-fired generation
as a result of the proposed rule?
10.
You identify employment gains from installation and maintenance of mercury controls as
a potential economic benefit of the proposed rule . Please explain how the revenues that
would support those jobs are not directly offset by the costs imposed on Illinois electric
utilities which are then passed onto Illinois consumers .
11 .
Please explain the basis for your reliance on the Harvard/ NESCAUM study to estimate
the economic value of the alleged health benefits of the proposed rule
.
6
12 .
Please explain the basis for your selection of the range of estimated benefits per ton of
mercury emission reductions from the Harvard/NESCAUM study .
For Sid Nelson, Jr .
1 .
Did you receive any information from the Agency prior to your forming any opinions
including but not limited to the opinions contained in your testimony?
a.
If so, describe that information in detail
.
b.
If so, did you rely on that information in forming any opinions or testimony?
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the information
that you received from the Agency?
2.
Have you reviewed Dr . Staudt's testimony?
a.
If so, did you rely on Dr . Staudt's testimony in forming any opinions or
testimony?
b.
If so, on which parts of his testimony did you rely?
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on Dr . Staudt's
testimony?
3 .
Have you reviewed the TSD?
a.
If so, did you rely on the TSD in forming any opinions or testimony?
b.
If so, on which parts of the TSD did you rely?
c.
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the TSD?
4.
Have you reviewed the ICF report?
a.
If so, did you rely on the ICF report in forming any opinions or testimony?
b.
If so, on which parts of the ICF report did you rely?
c .
If so, specifically what opinions or parts of your testimony rely on the ICF report?
7
5 .
Have you reviewed the information acquired by the Agency from any of the site
inspections at each of the Illinois coal-fired power plants (Control Configuration
Inspections) during late April, early May of 2006?
6.
Did you assist in writing any portion of the TSD? If so, which sections specifically and
when did you provide the Agency your input?
7.
What is your definition of "commercially available?"
8.
What is your definition of "cost effective?"
9.
What is your definition of "economically feasible?"
10.
Please explain your statement on page 2 of your testimony that the costs and results for
sorbent injection technologies vary depending on the type of coal burned and the existing
pollution control equipment at the plant
.
a.
How much would the costs and results vary based on the type of coal burned and
the existing pollution control equipment at each of the coal-fired electric
generating units currently operating in Illinois?
11 . Is the St
. Clair Power Plant of Detroit Edison discussed on page 3 of your testimony
similar in operations to the coal-fired electric generating units currently operating in
Illinois?
12.
How much do your company's various control systems as described in your testimony
cost? What factors weigh into the cost of your systems?
13 .
In your testimony on page 3, you state that the quantity of sorbent you need to inject into
a subbituminous plant is directly proportional to the mercury removal to be achieved .
What factors go into determining the quantity of sorbent necessary?
14 .
Is it important to have accurate data as to the mercury content of the coal being fired?
8
15 .
If identical samples of coal were submitted to five different laboratories for mercury
analysis what is the largest variation in analytical results that you would expect? Do you
have any data to support that conclusion?
For Agency
1 .
Please provide the names of each person that participated in the preparation of Chapter 8
of the TSD .
2.
For each of the people provided in answer to Question 1, explain the specific role that
each played in the preparation of Chapter 8 and identify the specific sections which they
participated in drafting .
3 .
Please provide the names of each person that participated in the preparation of Chapter 9
of the TSD .
4.
For each of the people provided in answer to Question 3, explain the specific role that
each played in the preparation of Chapter 9 and identify the specific sections which they
participated in drafting .
5 .
Please provide the names of each person that participated in the preparation of Chapter 10
of the TSD .
6.
For each of the people provided in answer to Question 5, explain the specific role that
each played in the preparation of Chapter 10 and identify the specific sections which they
participated in drafting
.
7 .
What information did you use to determine the economic effect of the proposed mercury
control regulations as stated in the TSD and where did you obtain that information?
8.
Did you perform any independent verification of the economic information used in the
TSD?
9
9.
Provide the basis for each of the comments provided in Tables 8
.3 and 8 .4 of the TSD .
10.
Tables 8.5
and 8 .6 of the TSD list "typical" mercury content of coal and "projected"
mercury in coal
:
a.
What is the agency's understanding of how representative these values are for the
coal fired at each of the coal-fired electric generating units in Illinois?
b .
If analytical inaccuracies showed a mercury content that was 5% higher or lower
than the actual value, what impact would this have on the nature of the control
technology required to achieve a 90% reduction?
c.
If analytical inaccuracies showed a mercury content that was 5% higher or lower
than the actual value, what impact would this have on the cost of the control
technology required to achieve a 90% reduction?
11 .
Provide the basis for the agency's statements in the TSD regarding the level of risk and
costs associated with the trading of mercury emissions credits under CAMR
.
12.
Please explain the statement that "the costs associated with the CAIR rule on electric
rates and the power sector are several orders of magnitude higher than those of the
proposed Illinois mercury rule" (p . 185 of TSD) .
a.
Is this statement based on a comparison of the national costs of compliance with
CAIR/CAMR to the costs of the Illinois proposed mercury regulations in Illinois?
13.
Please explain the IPM modeling result indicating that more than one half of the
compliance costs will be home by states other than Illinois (Table 9 .4, page 176) .
a.
What then are the economic implications of the Illinois proposed mercury
regulations for utilities and consumers in nearby states?
10
14.
Please provide the names, background, education and experience of all people who
assisted in the preparation of Table 10
.3 Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis (p
. 207 of
TSD).
15 .
List any and all documents used in the preparation of Table 10
.3 Summary of Cost-
Benefit Analysis
.
16 .
Does the Agency believe cost-benefit analysis summarized in Table 10
.3 meets the
accepted standards for such analyses in support of regulatory impact assessments?
17 .
Please provide the names of all people that participated in the evaluation and/or
preparation of the ICF Report contained in Appendix C of the Technical Support
Document .
18 .
For each of the people provided in answer to Question 17, explain the specific role that
each played in the evaluation and/or preparation of the ICF Report or its background
materials
.
19.
For each of the people provided in answer to Question 17, provide a list of available dates
for cross-examination of those individuals
.
11
20 .
Please provide all information, including all documents, provided by the Agency for the
evaluation and/or preparation of the ICF Report .
Respectfully submitted,
KINCAID GENERATION, L .L.C.
by:
Dated
: May 22, 2006
Bill S
. Forcade
Katherine M . Rahill
Jenner & Block LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
12
