BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL.ADM.CODE PART 225
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
)
)
)
)
PCB R06-25
Rulemaking - Air
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Persons included on the
ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that we have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board the
DYNEGY AND MIDWEST GENERATION’S QUESTIONS
FOR MICHAEL MENNE, C.J. SALADINO, ANNE SMITH, DIANNA TICKNER, AND
ANDY YAROS AT THE HEARING COMMENCING AUGUST 14, 2006
.
/s/
Kathleen C. Bassi
Kathleen C. Bassi
Dated: August 7, 2006
Sheldon A. Zabel
Kathleen C. Bassi
Stephen J. Bonebrake
Joshua R. More
Glenna Gilbert
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312-258-5500
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL.ADM.CODE PART 225
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES
)
)
)
)
)
PCB R06-25
DYNEGY AND MIDWEST GENERATION’S QUESTIONS
FOR MICHAEL MENNE, C.J. SALADINO, ANNE SMITH,
DIANNA TICKNER, AND ANDY YAROS AT
THE HEARING COMMENCING AUGUST 14, 2006
NOW COME Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc., and Midwest Generation, LLC., by and
through their attorneys, Schiff Hardin LLP, and submit the following questions based upon the
written testimony of Michael Menne, C.J. Saladino, Anne Smith, Dianna Tickner, and Andy
Yaros in this matter.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
2/35
Questions for Michael Menne
1.
Has anyone outside of Ameren aided Ameren in preparing responses to these questions?
a.
If so, who?
b.
What form did the help take?
2.
Who was involved in negotiating the Multi-Pollutant Standards (“MPS”)?
3.
Who drafted the MPS?
4.
What persons and entities provided input or comments concerning the development of the
MPS?
5.
Who drafted the Joint Statement related to the MPS?
a.
Have you read the Joint Statement?
b.
Do you agree with the Joint Statement?
6.
You state in your testimony that you are not speaking on behalf of the Agency. Who is?
7.
Do you know why the Agency failed to offer any testimony in support of the MPS?
a.
Was the possibility of the Agency’s testifying discussed with the Agency?
b.
Did anyone from the Agency indicate why no testimony would be offered?
c.
If so, what were the reasons?
8.
Is there a written formal agreement between Ameren and the Agency relative to the
proposal of the MPS?
a.
If so, please provide a copy of it.
9.
In drafting the MPS, was any consideration given to the compliance issues of other
companies subject to the proposed mercury rule?
a.
If so, please describe what consideration was given to these issues.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
3/35
b.
Please identify any provision or language of the MPS that was drafted to address
such issues.
10.
Based upon your and the Agency’s analysis of the MPS, what other companies do you
and the Agency believe could cost-effectively take advantage of the MPS?
11.
At page 3 of your testimony, you state that Ameren will work with EPRI “to evaluate
ways for continuously measuring mercury emissions.”
a.
Does Ameren have doubts about how to continuously measure mercury
emissions,
i.e.
, that such measurements cannot be made now with reliable
accuracy?
12.
Your testimony states that “Ameren is determined to find out how effective this type of
technology [activated carbon injection] will be on our generating units” and that “we do
not believe Ameren’s system can make the IEPA 90% reduction requirement with HCI
[halogenated activated carbon injection] alone.”
a.
Does this mean that Ameren questions the Agency’s assertion that non-
halogenated activated carbon injection (“ACI”) or HCI will achieve a 90%
reduction in mercury emissions reliably?
b.
What additional controls would be required to reliably achieve 90% reduction?
c.
Given the Agency’s support for the MPS, which does not require a 90% reduction
of mercury emissions in 2009, it appears that the Agency no longer views a 90%
reduction of mercury emissions in 2009 to be necessary elements of an Illinois
mercury rule. Is that correct?
13.
Does Ameren intend to put all three of its Illinois companies into the MPS?
a.
If so, does it have any commitment to do so?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
4/35
14.
On pages 3-4 of your testimony, you indicate that Ameren has reduced emissions of SO
2
and NOx by 60-70% over the past 15 years.
a.
What has been the reduction over that period just for the Illinois units currently
owned by Ameren?
b.
Is the historic 60-70% reduction in SO
2
and NOx emissions across Ameren’s fleet
in Illinois a total amount of reduction of these two pollutants, combined?
c.
If so, have the reductions achieved been primarily of NOx or SO
2
?
d.
Does that figure include or exclude EEI?
e.
What are the percentage reductions just for Ameren’s Illinois facilities?
f.
How do the emission rates, in lb/mmBtu, of Ameren’s Illinois facilities compare
to those of other Illinois generators for both SO
2
and NOx?
15.
On page 4 of your testimony, you state, “[W]e do not believe” Ameren can achieve 90%
reduction with HCI alone because of the use of subbituminous coal and SO
3
conditions.”
Do you have any reason to think it would be different for other similar units?
a.
What is Ameren’s schedule for the installation of SO
2
and NOx control
equipment?
b.
Will Ameren continue to inject SO
3
until their installations are complete?
c.
What is the quantitative effect of this SO
3
injection on mercury emissions?
16.
What percentage of the coal Ameren burns in Illinois is from Illinois?
17.
On page 6 of your testimony, you state that the MPS will result in SO
2
and NOx
reductions above those required by CAIR.
a.
Is this just considering Ameren utilizing the MPS?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
5/35
b.
By how much will the reductions by Ameren exceed the reductions to be achieved
under CAIR?
c.
Does this comparison exclude the possibility of purchasing allowances under
CAIR?
18.
On page 6 of your testimony, you state that the MPS will allow Ameren to take
advantage of the “co-benefits that established NOx and SO
2
” controls provide for
mercury control.
a.
What do you mean by “established controls”?
b.
Without the MPS, would Ameren not be able to “take advantage” of co-benefits?
c.
What do you mean by “take advantage”?
d.
Would units not in the MPS and subject to the Illinois mercury rule also not be
able to take advantage of co-benefits from NOx and SO
2
controls?
19.
What is LADCO’s Midwest Regional Planning Organization list that you refer to on page
7 of your testimony? Please provide a copy.
20.
Isn’t it true that USEPA promulgated the CAIR and CAMR so as to allow states and
companies to coordinate and synchronize the measures necessary to comply with both
programs because of the potential co-benefits and inter-relationships that are recognized
under the MPS?
21.
You state that the MPS will “provide[] substantial beyond-CAIR NOx and SO
2
controls.”
a.
What is “beyond-CAIR”?
b.
To your knowledge, is there any evidence in the record of this proceeding
concerning SO
2
and/or NOx emissions, existing controls, or proposed
regulations?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
6/35
c.
To your knowledge, is there any evidence in the record of this proceeding
concerning “beyond-CAIR” requirements?
d.
Is this statement limited to CAIR Phase II?
e.
Does the MPS provide controls beyond CAIR Phase I?
f.
How does the MPS affect compliance with CAIR Phase I, which has compliance
dates of 2009 for NOx and 2010 for SO
2
?
g.
Will Ameren have to trade to comply with CAIR Phase I?
h.
Is this similar to the position of other companies, to the best of your knowledge?
22.
How many coal-fired units under 90 MW are in the Illinois portion of Ameren’s system?
a.
What is their aggregate capacity?
b.
Isn’t it true that two of the three coal units at Grand Tower would not have to
have any mercury controls before January 1, 2013, and might never be required to
meet a reduction or emissions rate requirement?
c.
Isn’t that also true for four of the five coal units at Meredosia?
d.
Isn’t that true for all of the units at Hutsonville?
23.
How many coal-fired units under 90 MW are operating in the State of Illinois (including
but not limited to Ameren’s units)?
24.
Why is 90 MW the threshold between “large” and “small” in the MPS?
25.
Does the choice of 90 MW as the threshold provide additional relief for Ameren that
would not be available to other companies?
26.
What support is there in the record in this proceeding for your statement that participation
in the MPS will contribute significantly towards attainment of the ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
7/35
a.
Has Ameren modeled the effect of the MPS?
b.
Has the Agency modeled the effect of the MPS?
27.
Is this a “significant” contribution towards attainment if only Ameren opts in to the MPS?
a.
If not, at what level of participation by the six (or seven, depending upon how EEI
is characterized) coal-fired generation companies in Illinois is necessary for the
“significant contribution” towards ozone and PM2.5 attainment reached?
28.
What other sources does the provision in the Joint Statement that “any further reductions
needed would first come from other sources” refer to?
29.
What assurances can the Agency give regarding reductions beyond CAIR? That is, are
sources that opt in to the MPS sheltered from additional reduction requirements beyond
CAIR?
a.
What form would such an assurance take?
b.
Does Ameren’s agreement with the Agency give such assurances to Ameren?
c.
How will Ameren and the Agency obtain agreement of the Board and/or USEPA
to such a commitment?
30.
The economic analysis included in Anne Smith’s testimony addressed only Ameren, yet
the MPS is a rule of general applicability.
a.
What evidence has been provided in this record that the MPS is technically
feasible and economically reasonable as a generally-applicable rule?
b.
Anne Smith’s testimony indicates that for Ameren, compliance with the MPS will
be five times more costly relative to SO
2
and ten times more costly relative to
NOx than compliance with CAIR. Do you agree that the MPS is far less cost-
effective than CAIR?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
8/35
c.
Figure 4 at page 12 of Anne Smith’s testimony indicates that the cost of
complying with the proposed MPS is more expensive over time than compliance
wit CAIR/CAMR or the proposed Illinois mercury rule without the MPS. Please
explain why Ameren supports the MPS under these circumstances.
31.
Will the MPS be submitted to USEPA for approval as part of a SIP?
a.
If so, which SIP (
e.g.
, the attainment SIPs or the CAIR SIPs)?
b.
As the mercury program will not be a SIP
per se
(as it is a Clean Air Act § 111(d)
NSPS program), how can the Agency submit the MPS as part of a § 110 SIP?
c.
If not, will it be submitted to USEPA for approval as part of Illinois’ § 111(d)
program requirement?
d.
If the latter ((c) above) is true, how can a § 111(d) program for mercury even
include a voluntary requirement for reductions of SO
2
and NOx?
e.
Does Ameren believe that whatever form (SIP or § 111(d) program) the MPS
takes that it is approvable by USEPA? Why do you think that?
f.
To your knowledge, has the MPS been discussed with USEPA?
32.
Is the TTBS as proposed just prior to the June hearing still available?
33.
At page 7 of your testimony, you state that the TTBS “does not allow for multi-pollutant
coordination and reductions, and it does not address Ameren’s technical conclusions on
the effectiveness of ACI or HCI at its plants”
a.
Please explain what “technical conclusions” are referred to in this statement.
b.
Please explain what “multi-pollutant coordination and reductions” are referred to
in this statement.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
9/35
c.
Does the CAIR/CAMR combination address Ameren’s “multi-pollutant
coordination and reduction” concerns?
d.
Do you agree that the cost of compliance with the MPS by other companies may
be greater because, for instance, they have lower SO
2
or NOx emissions during
the baseline period and, therefore, the effective emissions limitations are more
stringent for them?
e.
In developing the MPS, did Ameren or the Agency consider whether the MPS
would be an attractive or viable alternative to any other company?
f.
If so, who participated in that consideration?
g.
What was the result of that consideration?
34.
The MPS appears to require units with hot-side electrostatic precipitators (“HS ESPs”) to
install baghouses. Is that correct?
a.
Does Ameren have any Illinois units 90 MW or greater with HS ESPs?
b.
Do Midwest Generation and/or Dynegy have any units with HS ESPs?
c.
If so, doesn’t that have the effect of increasing the costs for Midwest Generation
or Dynegy to participate in the MPS?
35.
Is EEI included as part of Ameren’s Illinois fleet?
36.
If Ameren chooses to opt in to the MPS, does that mean that EEI is automatically opted
in to the MPS as well?
a.
If not, will EEI voluntarily opt in?
37.
Are other companies faced with the same problems as Ameren with respect to the
management of financing, massive equipment procurement and construction, and
coordination of the numerous regulatory requirements applicable to them?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
10/35
38.
You state in your testimony that you do not believe that the Ameren system can comply
with the 90% mercury reduction requirement relying on HCI alone.
a.
Does the Agency agree with your conclusion?
b.
If so, how does this affect the Agency’s economic analysis of the rule generally?
c.
Is it your opinion that reliance on HCI alone will not yield compliance with the
90% mercury reduction requirement also true for all or most of the other EGUs in
Illinois?
39.
If the Agency is confident that HCI will produce a 90% reduction in mercury, would the
Agency support a technology-based standard,
i.e.
, the MPS without the provisions that
apply to SO
2
and NOx?
40.
How much of the $2 billion necessary for Ameren to comply under the MPS is related to
actual mercury control equipment?
a.
Ameren’s press release concerning the MPS states that the “proposed agreement
with Illinois will add to [Ameren’s total planned control costs of $1.0 to $1.4
billion by 2016] a projected $600 million, the majority of which is an acceleration
of emission-related capital expenditures that would have been spent beyond
2016.” How much of that $600 million would be spent on controls that were
already planned by Ameren regardless of whether the MPS is adopted?
b.
Please identify those controls that would be installed and the associated costs that
would be incurred by Ameren solely to comply with the MPS.
41.
It is not apparent what advantages Ameren has gained with this proposal other than
elimination of the 25% generation capacity limitation of the TTBS. Please describe what
those advantages are that Ameren would gain from complying with the MPS.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
11/35
42.
What other NOx and SO
2
requirements were requested by the Agency and not included in
the MPS?
43.
Why would Ameren agree to give up its regulatory and statutory right to trade emission
allowances?
a.
Has Ameren or the Agency assessed whether a prohibition on the trading of SO
2
and/or NOx allowances is unlawful?
b.
If so, who performed such analyses?
c.
What were the results?
44.
Is the preclusion on trading emission allowances absolute? That is, before a participant
in the MPS can trade emission allowances for whatever reason, including participation in
the business of allowance trading (as opposed to surrendering allowances for
compliance), must it demonstrate to some entity that the available allowances were not
created because of its use of the MPS?
a.
How would the participant make such a demonstration?
b.
Who would review the demonstration?
c.
Must every trading transaction be approved by the Agency?
d.
What turnaround does Ameren expect on such approvals?
e.
Does the participant risk losing the deal because of the requirement for some type
of approval?
f.
Would disapproval by the Agency be subject to Board or judicial review?
g.
What role does USEPA play in approving trades?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
12/35
h.
How will the Agency determine if an allowance is generated as a “result of
actions taken to comply with the standards in” the MPS for SO
2
and NOx (
see
Section 225.233(f)), and thus cannot be traded?
i.
For Ameren in particular, if Ameren were otherwise planning to install a control
for NOx or SO
2
but the installation of such control has the effect of assisting
Ameren’s compliance with the MPS, is any allowance generated by such control
“a result of actions taken to comply with the standards” in the MPS and thus an
allowance that cannot be traded?
j.
Is there anything that prevents a company that may opt in to the MPS from selling
prior to the opt-in deadline all of the SO
2
or NOx allowances it currently has been
or will be allocated for future years?
45.
Why is the baseline for seasonal NOx only two years, 2004 and 2005, while the baseline
for annual NOx is three years, 2003 through 2005?
a.
Why were these particular years chosen as the baselines?
b.
Who selected these baseline periods?
c.
Would the selection of different baseline periods increase Ameren’s compliance
costs?
d.
Was any consideration given in the development of the MPS to the impact that the
use of these baselines would have on other companies?
e.
Is Ameren aware of any environmental significance to using 2003-2005 as the
baseline period from which percent reductions are determined?
f.
Is Ameren aware if the 2001-2003 averaging period was considered?
g.
Is Ameren aware if the 2001-2004 averaging period was considered?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
13/35
46.
Section 225.233(a)(3)(A) of the proposed amendment to the proposed rule establishes
July 1, 2006, as a cut-off date for determining which EGUs would be included in an MPS
group. The subsection says, “all EGUs it [a participating company] owns in Illinois as of
July 1, 2006, . . . shall be thereafter subject to the standards and control requirements of
this Section. . . .”
a.
Does this mean that each of Ameren’s three Illinois operating companies can
separately opt in or out of the MPS?
b.
Is Ameren’s agreement with the Agency premised on all three companies opting
in?
c.
What happens if a non-MPS company purchases EGUs that are subject to the
MPS after July 1, 2006?
i.
Assuming installation of the requisite control equipment prior to the
purchase, do the MPS requirements applicable to the MPS unit prior to the
purchase continue to apply?
ii.
Assuming that the control equipment had not been installed prior to the
purchase, do the MPS requirements applicable to the MPS unit prior to the
purchase continue to apply?
iii.
Must the purchasing company place all of its other units into the MPS as
well?
d.
What happens if an MPS company purchases existing non-MPS units after July 1,
2006? What would be the requirements applicable to that newly purchased
existing non-MPS EGU?
e.
If Ameren opts into the MPS, will it be required to include the EEI units?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
14/35
f.
Why must the MPS require inclusion of all of a company’s units rather than
merely some of them?
g.
An eligible unit under the MPS is one that commenced commercial operation on
or before December 31, 2000. Does this applicability threshold, then, exclude
Southern Illinois Power Cooperative from participating in the MPS, since Unit
123 commenced operation in mid-2001?
h.
Or does this mean that only SIPC’s Unit 4 is eligible for participation in the MPS?
i.
Was SIPC’s Unit 123 intentionally excluded?
j.
If so, why?
47.
Please explain the meaning of Section 225.233(b)(1). This subsection states that the
applicant must submit “[i]dentification of each of the EGUs that will be complying with
this Subpart,” which suggests that not all of the EGUs belonging to a company must be
included in an MPS, but then goes on to say, “with evidence that the owner has identified
all EGUs that its [SIC] owns in Illinois. . . .” This last part of the sentence contradicts the
first part, particularly when considered with subsection (b)(5), which says, “Identification
of any EGU or EGUs that are scheduled for permanent shut down [
SIC]. . . .”
48.
If Ameren were to opt in to the MPS, would that mean that there are entire generating
stations owned or operated by the Ameren family of companies in Illinois that would
install no mercury reduction equipment prior to 2013?
a.
At which of Ameren’s stations would there be no mercury reduction equipment
prior to 2013?
b.
What would be the coal-fired capacity at each of Ameren’s stations that would not
be subject to mercury reduction requirements prior to 2013 under the MPS?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
15/35
49.
Under Section 225.233(c)(1), what applies to units that blend coal?
50.
How many Ameren units blend coal?
51.
Section 225.233(c)(2)(A) includes the following phrase: “Use of an injection system
designed for effective absorption of mercury, considering the configuration of the EGU
and its ductwork.”
a.
Please explain the meaning of “designed for effective absorption of mercury.”
b.
Please explain the role of the configuration of the EGU and its ductwork in the
design for “effective absorption of mercury.”
52.
Are all of the three subsections of Section 225.233(c)(2) (
i.e.
, subsections (2)(A), (B),
and (C)) necessary to achieve an “optimum manner” of HCI? That is, should there be an
“and” or an “or” following subsection (B)?
53.
Why is Section 225.233(c)(3)(C) necessary?
a.
Is it not the case that any permit decision of the Agency is appealable under the
Environmental Protection Act?
54.
Is it the case that the provision for an evaluation of the effectiveness of various sorbents
or other mercury-reduction techniques in Section 225.233(c)(4) is not a requirement of
the rule but rather that Section 225.233(c)(4) sets forth the provisions that apply if a
source chooses to perform an evaluation?
55.
Under what circumstances might a company participating in the MPS notify the Agency
that it will comply with the generally applicable mercury emission standards prior to
January 1, 2015?
56.
What is 50% of Ameren’s annual NOx base rate?
a.
Does this average rate include EEI?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
16/35
57.
What is 80% of Ameren’s seasonal NOx base rate?
a.
Does this average rate include EEI?
58.
What is 35% of Ameren’s SO
2
base rate?
a.
Does this average rate include EEI?
59.
What is 30% of Ameren’s SO
2
base rate?
a.
Does this average rate include EEI?
60.
Are the current emission rates for EEI for SO
2
and NOx greater or less than the rates for
Ameren’s (other, if applicable) Illinois coal-fired units?
61.
Please compare Ameren’s applicable SO
2
and NOx emissions rates to the SO
2
and NOx
emissions rates that would be applicable to other companies after applying the percentage
reductions to each of the other five (or six, depending upon where EEI is calculated)
companies’ base rates.
62.
It appears that the structure of the baseline and required reductions for SO
2
under the
MPS merely brings Ameren’s emissions into alignment with what everyone else’s
emissions are already. Is that correct?
a.
The MPS requires a further ratchet downward for those companies who are
already low emitters. Do Ameren and the Agency realize this?
b.
Doesn’t this approach penalize historically low emitters?
63.
Why must the MPS be based upon the more stringent of the percent reduction from the
baseline rate or the rate that happens to equate to that percentage reduction of Ameren’s
exiting emissions?
a.
For NOx, are the prescribed rates or the percentage reductions the more stringent
for Ameren?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
17/35
b.
For SO
2
, are the prescribed rates or the percentage reductions the more stringent
for Ameren?
c.
How, why, and by whom were the emission rates included in the MPS selected?
d.
How, why, and by whom were the percentage reductions selected?
64.
In previous rules where a not-to-be-exceeded emission rate was necessary to demonstrate
attainment with a National Ambient Air Quality Standard, the Board did not attempt to
inhibit trading. Why is trading inhibited and even precluded as a prerequisite for
participation in the MPS?
65.
Notwithstanding the general preclusion of trading, the MPS appears to allow trading
among affiliated parties. Is this correct?
a.
Must those affiliated parties all be located within the State of Illinois?
b.
Is the purpose of the trading among affiliates to allow Ameren Illinois to transfer
SO
2
and NOx allowances created by these reductions to Ameren Missouri?
c.
Could a unit in the MPS transfer all its SO
2
and/or NOx allowances to a unit that
will not be installing controls and therefore not generating excess allowances
through compliance with the MPS and thereby not have to surrender any
allowances to the Agency?
66.
Is Missouri generally upwind of Illinois?
67.
Is there anything that prevents the Agency from re-selling allowances surrendered to it?
68.
What percentage reduction of SO
2
emissions has Ameren’s Illinois plants, excluding EEI,
achieved since 1998?
a.
What percentage reduction of SO
2
emissions has Ameren’s Illinois plants,
including EEI, achieved since 1998?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
18/35
b.
Have other Illinois systems achieved greater percentage SO
2
reductions since
1998?
69.
Does Ameren burn high sulfur or other bituminous coal in any of its Illinois units?
a.
Did Ameren burn such coal during the 2003-2005 baseline period of the MPS?
b.
Will Ameren continue to burn such coal if it opts in to the MPS?
c.
How many tons of SO
2
could be emitted by Ameren’s Illinois plants each year
under the terms of the proposed MPS?
d.
Is that annual tonnage greater than the annual tonnage Dynegy would emit if it
opted in to the MPS?
e.
In fact, wouldn’t Ameren emit approximately twice as much SO
2
as Dynegy
under the MPS?
f.
Isn’t it true that Dynegy has approximately 2/3 of the generating capacity of
Ameren’s Illinois facilities?
70.
Will Ameren be able to recover its capital costs for compliance with the MPS through
electricity rates it charges its Illinois customers?
a.
Are wholesale electricity providers in Illinois guaranteed recovery of their capital
expenditures for pollution control equipment?
71.
Ameren claims it would make SO
2
and NOx reductions above those required by the
CAIR. Would these reductions be beyond those required under Illinois’ CAIR proposal,
which is more stringent than the federal requirement?
72.
In reaching the MPS agreement with Ameren, did the Agency conclude that postponing
the effective date of the mercury standard from July 2009 until January 2015 was
acceptable for control of mercury from a public health perspective?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
19/35
73.
Isn’t it true that if each of the generators in Illinois elected to take advantage of the MPS,
the mandatory mercury standard, 90% reduction or 0.0080 lbs mercury/GWh, would not
take effect in Illinois until January 2015?
74.
The MPS does not impose the mandatory 90% reduction or 0.0080 lbs mercury/GWh
standard on electric generating units that are less than 90 MW?
75.
Isn’t it true that the imposition of the percentage reduction from base bate emissions if
that leads to a more stringent emission limit does not substantially effect Ameren, given
its base rate?
a.
Isn’t it true that given Ameren’s base rate emissions, under the MPS the
percentage reduction of SO
2
emissions and the SO
2
emission rate beginning
January 2013 are essentially equivalent?
b.
Isn’t it true that given Ameren’s base rate emissions, under the MPS the
percentage reduction of SO
2
emissions and the SO
2
emission rate beginning
January 2015 are essentially equivalent?
76.
Isn’t it true that by postponing controlling emissions of SO
2
until late in or after the years
used to determine the base rate, a company would be allowed to emit more SO
2
in the
future than if it had controlled SO
2
during the years used to determine the base rate?
77.
Isn’t it true that a company that had reduced emissions of SO
2
during the years used to
determine the base rate would be more likely to have a more stringent SO
2
emission rate
limit under the MPS than a company that did not reduce SO
2
emissions during those
years?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
20/35
a.
Isn’t it true that the provision of the MPS that imposes a percent reduction of the
SO
2
base rate would generally grant a higher future emission rate to a company if
it did not control SO
2
emissions during the years used to determine the base rate?
b.
Isn’t it true that the provision of the MPS that imposes a percent reduction of the
SO
2
base rate rewards companies with high emissions of SO
2
during the years
used to determine the base rate relative to companies with low emissions of SO
2
during that period?
c.
Isn’t it true that the provision of the MPS that imposes a percent reduction of the
SO
2
base rate would impose a lower future emission rate on a company that did
control SO
2
emissions during the years used to determine the base rate?
d.
Would you agree that the provision of the MPS that imposes a percentage
reduction of the SO
2
base rate punishes companies with low emissions of SO
2
during the years used to determine the base rate relative to companies with high
emissions of SO
2
during that period?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
21/35
Questions for C.J. Saladino
1.
Why will annual operation of the SCRs result in such an increase in operational costs of
that equipment?
2.
Would adoption of the mercury rule as proposed inhibit any of Kincaid’s other
environmental operations at the plant?
3.
How do you define “commercially available”?
4.
If EEI were considered part of Ameren’s Illinois fleet or system and City Water Light &
Power in Springfield was not available for averaging because of its pending deal with
Sierra Club, what impact would this have on Kincaid’s ability to effectively average with
other single-facility companies in order to comply with Phase I of the Illinois mercury
rule? Who would be left for Kincaid to average with?
a.
Is such an out-of-system averaging plan a viable alternative for Kincaid?
b.
Why or why not?
5.
Why would other companies have no incentive to enter into an Averaging Demonstration
with Kincaid other than to generate revenue?
6.
In your opinion, does the TTBS truly offer flexibility?
7.
Have you had the opportunity to review the Multi-Pollutant Strategy (“MPS”) proposed
by Ameren on July 28?
a.
If so, in your opinion, does the MPS offer Kincaid opportunities for flexibility?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
22/35
Questions for Anne Smith
1.
Did anyone assist you with the preparation of your written testimony on behalf of
Ameren or the responses to these questions?
a.
If so, who?
b.
Did you receive any guidance from or have any conversation with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (the “Agency”) concerning your testimony or
responses to these questions?
c.
Were you instructed by anyone to include or exclude any analyses or discussion
from your testimony or responses to these questions due to input by or concerns
of the Agency, any other state agency or employee, or any environmental group?
d.
Did the Agency, any other state agency or employee, or any environmental group
review a draft of or provide comments on your testimony or the responses to these
questions?
e.
If so, who?
f.
Did you perform any analyses or studies for Ameren in connection with this
proceeding not discussed or referred to in your testimony?
g.
If so, please describe all such analyses or studies.
2.
At page 3 of your testimony you state that to “simulate the IL Rule with the MCS [
SIC], I
assumed that only Ameren would make use of the MCS provision,” and that “I did not
attempt to evaluate whether other companies would also find the MCS provision to be a
preferred alternative.” Does this mean that:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
23/35
a.
You are not offering any testimony concerning whether the MPS
1
would be a
beneficial alternative for any company other than Ameren?
b.
All of your comparisons of costs and emission levels associated with the proposed
Illinois mercury rule with and without the MPS assume that only Ameren
participates in the MPS?
c.
Other companies may in fact find that the MPS creates disadvantages for them
because, for instance, they have lower NOx or SO
2
emissions during the baseline
period and the MPS, if adopted, would require them to reduce baseline emissions
by specified percentages?
3.
On page 3 of your testimony, you describe three simulations you performed using
NEEM.
a.
The first was CAIR/CAMR.
i.
Did that include co-benefits Ameren would obtain from CAIR for
complying with CAMR?
ii.
Did the first simulation include co-benefits that other Illinois generators
would realize under the CAIR/CAMR program?
b.
You describe your second simulation as “the effects of Illinois imposing the
IEPA’s mercury rule” while the rest of the country implements CAIR/CAMR.
i.
Did the cost to Illinois generators for CAIR compliance increase in this
simulation?
ii.
If so, why?
1
Note: Ms. Smith used the term “MCS.” We believe that refers to the Multi-Pollutant
Strategy, called the “MPS.” Although Ms. Smith uses the term “MCS” in her testimony, our
questions regarding it will use the term “MPS” that is used consistently elsewhere.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
24/35
iii.
Did you quantify those increased costs?
iv.
If so, how much were those increased costs?
c.
Was your third simulation the same as the second except you included the MPS
with only Ameren utilizing the MPS?
i.
What was the cost difference between this simulation and the second
simulation?
ii.
What were the causes of this difference?
iii.
What was the cost difference to Illinois generators between your first and
third simulations?
iv.
What were the causes of this difference?
d.
You indicated for Ameren that you included the multi-pollutant controls for
meeting the MPS requirements. Did you do any analysis of the increase in costs
to other Illinois generators for meeting beyond CAIR SO
2
and NOx requirements
if Ameren does not have to meet any such requirements?
4.
You state that you assumed only Ameren would make use of the MPS provision.
a.
What are the reasons or bases for that assumption?
a.
Did you have any inputs from or discussions with anyone from Ameren
concerning this assumption?
b.
With whom and when?
c.
Please describe the nature and content of these inputs or discussions.
d.
Did you have any inputs from or discussions with anyone from the Agency
concerning that assumption?
e.
If so, please describe.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
25/35
f.
To your knowledge, did Ameren have any inputs from or discussions with anyone
from the Agency concerning that assumption?
g.
If so, please describe.
5.
On page 6 of your testimony, you state that regional haze will be improved by the
proposed MPS.
a.
What is the basis for this assertion?
b.
Did you perform or have you reviewed any haze modeling that both includes and
excludes the MPS?
c.
Have you ever performed haze modeling?
6.
On page 6 of your testimony you state that SO
2
emissions are a “precursor” to “ambient
concentrations of fine particulate matter” and that “the additional reductions of Illinois
SO
2
emissions would be helpful to Illinois in achieving attainment with the . . .” PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”).
a.
Will the Agency require reductions of SO
2
beyond the SO
2
reductions by Ameren
under the MPS, if adopted, and CAIR to achieve attainment with the PM2.5
NAAQS?
b.
Has the Agency identified electric generating units as a source of such additional
SO
2
reductions?
c.
Is Ameren exempt from any such additional SO
2
reductions if the MPS were to be
adopted and Ameren opted in to the MPS?
d.
To determine what additional SO
2
reductions are needed to achieve attainment
with the PM2.5 NAAQS, do you need to know what reductions in Illinois would
occur as a result of the state’s adoption of rules to implement CAIR?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
26/35
e.
At this point, Illinois has not adopted any CAIR implementation rule; is that
correct?
f.
Is CAIR implementation the subject of an entirely different rulemaking?
7.
On page 6 of your testimony, you state that “five of the FGD projects assumed under the
MCS scenario would cost between $3,600/ton and $4,800/ton SO
2
removed, which is
four to five times higher than the range of SO
2
allowance prices that is projected by EPA
and others.”
a.
In what document or documents does EPA project such allowance prices?
b.
Who are the “others”?
c.
Does this statement mean that the proposed Illinois rule with the MPS is
significantly less cost-effective than CAIR in reducing SO
2
emissions?
d.
Do you agree that the projected SO
2
reduction costs under the MPS are not cost-
effective as compared to the SO
2
reductions required by CAIR?
e.
Does this mean that Ameren’s customers and/or stockholders will be subject to
costs for SO
2
control four to five times higher than Ameren might otherwise have
incurred?
8.
On pages 7-8 of your testimony you state that the “two SCR projects at Newton assumed
under the MCS scenario would cost between $20,000/ton and $26,000/ton removed,
which is about ten times higher than the range of NOx allowance prices that is projected
by EPA and others.”
a.
In what document or documents does EPA project such allowance prices?
b.
Who are the “others”?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
27/35
c.
Does this mean that the proposed Illinois rule with the MPS is significantly less
cost effective than CAIR in reducing NOx emissions?
d.
Do you agree that the projected NOx reduction costs under the MPS are not cost
effective as compared to the NOx reductions required by CAIR?
e.
Does this mean Ameren’s customers and/or stockholders will be subject to costs
for NOx control about 10 times higher than Ameren might otherwise have
incurred?
9.
On page 6 of your testimony, you indicate the SO
2
reduction resulting from Ameren’s
compliance with the MPS would be unlikely to occur under CAIR/CAMR or
CAIR/CAMR with the Illinois mercury rule in place.
a.
How much of this reduction would occur if Ameren simply reduced its existing
average SO
2
emission rate to the existing average of the other coal-fired electric
generators in Illinois?
b.
Did you analyze what level of SO
2
emission reductions would be required in
Illinois beyond CAIR?
c.
Would these reductions be greater than just the reductions from Ameren under the
MPS?
d.
Wouldn’t these greater reductions result in a line ultimately lower than either of
those shown on Figure 1 in your testimony?
e.
Wouldn’t these greater reductions have to be achieved by the sources in Illinois
other than Ameren because Ameren would not be required to make any reductions
beyond those in the MPS?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
28/35
10.
On page 7 of your testimony, you indicate the NOx reductions resulting from Ameren’s
compliance with the MPS would be unlikely to occur under CAIR/CAMR alone or
CAIR/CAMR with the Illinois mercury rule in place.
a.
Did you analyze what level of NOx emission reductions would be required
beyond CAIR?
b.
Would these reductions be greater than just the reductions obtained from Ameren
under the MPS?
c.
Wouldn’t these greater reductions result in a line ultimately lower than either
shown on Figure 2 in your testimony?
d.
Wouldn’t these greater reductions have to be achieved by all the sources in the
state other than Ameren because Ameren would not be required to make further
reductions?
11.
Regarding Figure 3 at page 9 of your testimony:
a.
Is it correct that this figure shows that in 2009, mercury emissions from existing
coal-fired power plants in Illinois would be about 500 pounds higher under the
proposed Illinois mercury rule with the MPS as compared to the proposed Illinois
mercury rule without the MPS?
b.
Please explain why mercury emissions are projected to be higher in 2009 under
the MPS scenario.
c.
To generate the results shown on this figure, what company or companies did you
assume would opt in to the MPS?
d.
If this figure assumes that only Ameren would opt in to the MPS, does that mean:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
29/35
i.
That the higher mercury emissions in 2009 under the MPS scenario are
attributable solely to lesser reductions of mercury emissions by Ameren?
ii.
That if other companies were to opt into the MPS, then the difference
between the projected mercury emission levels in 2009 would be even
greater?
e.
Do you have an understanding as to whether the higher levels of mercury
emissions under the MPS scenario is acceptable to the Agency?
i.
What is that understanding?
ii.
What is the basis of that understanding?
f.
In projecting mercury emissions under the MPS scenario:
i.
What mercury controls did you assume would be installed at each unit
subject to the MPS?
ii.
What level of mercury reduction did you assume for each such unit?
iii.
What are the bases for each of these assumptions?
g.
Do you agree that ACI without a baghouse will not achieve a 90% mercury
emission reduction level at some or all of Ameren’s units?
h.
If you believe that ACI without a baghouse will not achieve 90% reduction at
some Ameren units, which ones and why?
i.
Do you believe this is also true for other, non-Ameren units in Illinois?
12.
Regarding page 8 of your testimony where you state that “Illinois mercury emissions
with the MCS provision still achieve 83 percent of the reduction that would occur under
the IL Rule without the MCS in 2009, rising to 87 percent of the IL Rule’s reduction in
2010, and 94 percent by 2013”:
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
30/35
a.
Please explain how you calculated the 83%, 87% and 94% figures.
b.
Do the percentages in this statement refer to reductions only from Ameren units,
or do they refer to reductions from other units that also would be subject to the
proposed Illinois rule if adopted?
c.
Does your statement assume that the proposed Illinois mercury rule without the
MPS would achieve a 90% reduction in mercury emissions in Illinois from units
subject to the mercury proposal?
d.
Is each of the percentages listed in this sentence a percentage of 90% (
e.g.
, 83%
of 90%)?
e.
If so, then does this statement mean that, if the MPS were adopted, in 2009
mercury emissions from units subject to the proposed Illinois mercury rule would
be reduced by about 75%?
f.
Are these calculations based on the assumption that only Ameren opts in to the
MPS?
g.
Would the percentages be lower if others opted in?
h.
Do these percentages consider any units complying with the TTBS?
i.
Do you understand that this level of mercury emission reductions is satisfactory to
the Agency?
j.
At page 10 of your testimony, you state that the lesser level of mercury emission
reductions under the proposed Illinois rule with the MPS is not “meaningful.”
What is the basis for this statement?
k.
Have you had any discussions with or are you otherwise aware of whether the
Agency agrees with that statement?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
31/35
13.
At page 10 of your testimony, you state that modeling may suggest that “Illinois is better
off (has ‘lower costs’) when its generators are harmed competitively by regulation.”
Please explain what is meant by the quoted phrase.
14.
On page 10 of your testimony, you indicate a state could “seriously mislead itself” by
relying on standard cost output models such as IPM without additional calculation. Has
the Agency, in the TSD, seriously misled itself?
15.
Regarding Figure 4 at page 12 of your testimony:
a.
Does this figure show that the cost of complying with the proposed Illinois
mercury rule, with or without the MPS, is substantially more than the cost of
complying with both CAIR and CAMR?
b.
Are there costs associated with being unable to trade NOx and SO
2
allowances
under the MPS?
c.
If so, what are those costs?
d.
Are they reflected in Figure 4?
e.
Will Illinois power companies that are subject to the proposed Illinois mercury
rule (assuming that it is adopted) be at a competitive disadvantage if neighboring
states, such as Missouri, Iowa, and Indiana, adopt CAMR?
16.
Figure 5 on page 13 of your testimony is labeled “Overnight Capital Expense for Ameren
Projected Using NEEM under CAIR/CAMR Alone, the IL Rule and the IL Rule with
Ameren Using the MCS.” What is meant by the phrase “Overnight Capital Expense”?
17.
On page 13 of your testimony, you indicate the MPS is “a good environmental deal” for
Illinois.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
32/35
a.
Doesn’t that “deal” include higher mercury emissions in the short term – at least
compared to the Illinois mercury rule without the MPS – and no greater mercury
reductions in the long-run?
b.
If reductions of NOx and SO
2
beyond those obtained under CAIR are required in
Illinois, doesn’t that “deal” mean those additional reductions will be borne
disproportionately by Ameren’s competitors?
18.
On page 13 of your testimony, you indicate, for several reasons, the MPS is a “prudent
trade-off” for Ameren.
a.
Are you aware of any other reasons this was a prudent trade-off, a good deal, for
Ameren?
b.
Would being exempt from any beyond CAIR SO
2
and NOx requirements be a
good deal for Ameren?
c.
Are you aware of anything else Ameren received or would receive from the
Agency and/or the state administration for agreeing to the MPS?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
33/35
Questions for Dianna Tickner
1.
What is the basis for Prairie State’s general concerns with the feasibility of a 90%
reduction in mercury emissions?
2.
Why is it important that vendors provide guarantees for a 90% removal of mercury?
3.
What is the typical sulfur content of the coal that Prairie State plans to burn?
4.
Has there been any testing, to your knowledge, at units burning coal with a sulfur content
higher than at the Conesville Power Plant?
5.
Do you intend for your specific comments on the proposed rulemaking that are included
in the attachments to your testimony to be considered by the Board as testimony, as
opposed to comments?
6.
Were any of your comments addressed by way of alterations to the proposed mercury
rule before it was submitted to the Board or since then?
7.
Is Prairie State subject to the federal Acid Rain Program?
a.
If so, is Prairie State allocated allowances under Title IV?
b.
If Prairie State is not allocated allowances under Title IV, will Prairie State be
required to purchase allowances?
c.
If Prairie State must purchase allowances for the Acid Rain Program, would it be
the same for CAIR?
d.
If all of the eligible EGUs in Illinois opted in to the MPS, would this have any
effect on Prairie State’s ability to obtain sufficient SO
2
allowances to operate?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
34/35
Questions for Andy Yaros
1.
On page 3 of your testimony, you quote from a DOE/NETL report. Just to clarify, is this
document the report of the activities and conclusions of the Pleasant Prairie
demonstration?
2.
What is the source of your information regarding the Meramec demonstration?
3.
What is a “full-scale” test demonstration?
4.
With respect to the Monroe demonstration, what is “ADA-ES”?
5.
With respect to the St. Clair demonstration, you state that the mercury capture rate
averaged 93% over the first 25 days of the 30-day demonstration.
a.
What were the averages for the other five days?
b.
How do those averages affect the 30-day average? That is, what is the 30-day
average?
6.
Did the St. Clair demonstration include tests of 100% subbituminous coal in addition to
the testing of the 85/15 blend of subbituminous and bituminous coals?
7.
What is a “low-rank” coal?
8.
In your opinion, how may the difference in speciation of the subbituminous coals burned
at Kincaid (55% Hg
0
) compared to the speciation at Meramec (38% Hg
0
and 62% Hg
II
)
affect mercury removal?
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
Questions Posed by Dynegy and Midwest Generation
35/35
Respectfully submitted,
DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION, INC. and
MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,
by:
/s/
Kathleen C. Bassi
One of Their Attorneys
Dated: August 7, 2006
Sheldon A. Zabel
Kathleen C. Bassi
Stephen J. Bonebrake
Joshua R. More
Glenna L. Gilbert
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312-258-5500
Fax: 312-258-5600
CH2\ 1492360.1
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify that on this 7
th
day of August, 2006, I have served
electronically the attached
DYNEGY AND MIDWEST GENERATION’S QUESTIONS
FOR MICHAEL MENNE, C.J. SALADINO, ANNE SMITH, DIANNA TICKNER, AND
ANDY YAROS AT THE HEARING COMMENCING AUGUST 14, 2006
, upon the
following persons:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
and electronically and by first-class mail with postage thereon fully prepaid and affixed to the
persons listed on the
ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
.
/s/
Kathleen C. Bassi
Kathleen C. Bassi
Sheldon A. Zabel
Kathleen C. Bassi
Stephen J. Bonebrake
Joshua R. More
Glenna Gilbert
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312-258-5500
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
SERVICE LIST
(R06-25)
Marie Tipsord
Hearing Office
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
tipsorm@ipcb.state.il.us
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, Illinois 62794-9276
john.kim@epa.state.il.us
charles.matoesian@epa.state.il.us
gina.roccaforte@epa.state.il.us
William A. Murray
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of Public Utilities
800 East Monroe
Springfield, Illinois 62757
bmurray@cwlp.com
N. LaDonna Driver
Katherine D. Hodge
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue, P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
nldriver@hdzlaw.com
Christopher W. Newcomb
Karaganis, White & Mage., Ltd.
414 North Orleans Street, Suite 810
Chicago, Illinois 60610
cnewcomb@k-w.com
Bill S. Forcade
Katherine M. Rahill
Jenner & Block
One IBM Plaza, 40
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60611
bforcade@jenner.com
krahill@jenner.com
Faith E. Bugel
Howard A. Learner
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
fbugel@elpc.org
Keith I. Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic
205 West Monroe Street, 4
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
kharley@kentlaw.edu
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006
SERVICE LIST
(R06-25)
David Rieser
James T. Harrington
Jeremy R. Hojnicki
McGuireWoods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
drieser@mcguirewoods.com
jharrington@mcguirewoods.com
S. David Farris
Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety
Office of Public Utilities, City of Springfield
201 East Lake Shore Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62757
dfarris@cwlp.com
Bruce Nilles
Sierra Club
122 West Washington Avenue, Suite 830
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
bruce.nilles@sierraclub.org
James W. Ingram
Senior Corporate Counsel
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, Texas 77002
Jim.Ingram@dynegy.com
Mary Frontczak
Dianna Tickner
Prairie State Generating Company, LLC
701 Market Street, Suite 781
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
DTickner@PeabodyEnergy.com
mfrontczak@peabodyenergy.com
CH2\ 1401949.11
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, AUGUST 7, 2006