IN THE MATTER OF: NATURAL GAS-FIRED,

PEAK-LOAD ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING

FACILITIES (PEAKER PLANTS)

Docket No. R01-10

COMPANION REPORT TO THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD’S INFORMATIONAL ORDER OF

DECEMBER 21, 2000

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction.............................................................................................. 1

II. Background on Peaker Plants ........................................................................ 2

A. Defining “Peaker Plant” ..................................................................... 2

B. Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Turbines............................................. 5

C.

 

Fuels Used...................................................................................... 6

D. Number and Location of Existing and Proposed Peaker Plants ....................... 7

III. Air Emissions ........................................................................................... 8

A. Concerns of Citizens—Generally ........................................................... 8

B. Type and Amount of Air Emissions........................................................ 9

C. Air Pollution Control Regulations.........................................................14

D. Air Emissions Control Technology .......................................................25

E. Air Quality Modeling........................................................................27

F. Air Quality Impacts ..........................................................................31

G. Other Specific Concerns of Citizens ......................................................33

IV. Noise Emissions .......................................................................................33

A. Concerns of Citizens.........................................................................33

 

B. Peaker Plant Noise Emissions..............................................................36

C. Noise Control Methods......................................................................41

D. Noise Pollution Regulation .................................................................44

V. Water Quality ..........................................................................................53

A. Wastewater ....................................................................................53

B. Wastewater Regulation ......................................................................54

 

C. Stormwater Runoff ...........................................................................56

D. Wetlands .......................................................................................57

VI. Solid Waste .............................................................................................57

VII. Water Quantity.........................................................................................58

A. Information from State Government ......................................................58

B. Information from Local Government .....................................................61

C. Information from Industry ..................................................................66

D. Concerns of State Legislators and Citizens ..............................................66

VIII. Restructuring and Its Impacts .......................................................................68

A. Introduction....................................................................................68

B. History of Deregulation .....................................................................70

C. Environmental Effects of Deregulation...................................................78

D. Impact of Deregulation on Local Zoning.................................................78

E. Current and Future Retail and Wholesale Energy Markets ...........................82

F. Supply and Demand for Electric Power ..................................................85

G. The Need for Peaker Plants in Illinois....................................................91

H. Importing and Exporting Power Generated by Peaker Plants ........................93

I. Illinois Lacks a Statewide Energy Plan...................................................96

J. Effects of Peaker Plants on Electric Transmission and Distribution Systems......98

---

IX. Siting .............................................................................................. 103

A. Concerns of Citizens ........................................................................ 104

B. Suggestions of Citizens ..................................................................... 108

C. Information from State Government ..................................................... 114

D. Information from Industry ................................................................. 118

E. Information from Local Government .................................................... 122

X. Moratorium........................................................................................... 127

A. Information from Citizens ................................................................ 127

B. Information from State Government .................................................... 128

C. Information from Local Government ................................................... 129

XI. Health and Safety.................................................................................... 130

A. Health and Safety Concerns Generally ................................................. 130

B. Aviation Concerns.......................................................................... 134

C. Vibration Concerns ........................................................................ 136

D. Decommissioning Concerns .............................................................. 137

APPENDICES

Appendix A Summary of the Informational Order

Appendix B Persons Testifying

Appendix C Exhibit List

Appendix D Public Comments

Appendix E Abbreviation List

Appendix F

Figure 1 Typical Daily Load Curve

Figure 2 Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Power Plant

Table 1 Existing & New Natural Gas-Fired, Simple Cycle and Combined

Cycle Units

Figure 3 Map of Existing & New Natural Gas-Fired, Simple Cycle and

Combined Cycle Units

Figure 4 National Combustion Turbine Projects

Appendix G Chairman Manning’s October 25, 2000 Submittal to the Water Resources

Advisory Committee

Appendix H New York and California Siting Processes

Appendix I Illinois SB 172 Siting Criteria

Appendix J State Laws & Regulations

Appendix K Additional Summaries of Public Comments

---

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 6, 2000, Governor George H. Ryan requested that the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (Board) conduct inquiry hearings on the potential environmental impact of natural gas-

fired, peak-load electrical power generating facilities, known as peaker plants. The Board

opened this docket, R01-10, on July 13, 2000, and has completed its inquiry hearings.

This Report is a companion to the Informational Order that the Board issued on December

21, 2000. The Report summarizes the record on which the Board based its Informational Order.

The record includes the testimony, hearing exhibits, and public comments that the Board received

during the inquiry hearing proceedings.

The Board’s findings and recommendations are not set forth in this Report, but rather in

the Informational Order. In the Informational Order, the Board made several recommendations

to tighten environmental regulations with respect to peaker plants. A summary of the

Informational Order is attached to this Report as Appendix A. The Informational Order and the

Report are available on the Board’s Web site (www.ipcb.state.il.us) and from the Board’s offices

in Chicago (312-814-3620) and Springfield (217-524-8500).

This Report organizes the record information into ten broad subject matters: (1)

background on peaker plants; (2) air emissions; (3) noise emissions; (4) water quality; (5) solid

waste; (6) water quantity; (7) electric industry restructuring and its impacts; (8) siting; (9)

moratorium; and (10) health and safety. The Report also includes a number of appendices, as

described in the preceding table of contents.

Board Hearing Officer Amy Jackson conducted seven days of public hearings at five

locations: August 23 and 24, 2000, in Chicago; September 7, 2000, in Naperville; September

14, 2000, in Joliet; September 21, 2000, in Grayslake; and October 5 and 6, 2000, in

Springfield. All seven Board Members attended each day of hearing. Over 80 persons testified,

including individual citizens, representatives of citizen groups, representatives of State and local

government, and representatives of industry. Please refer to Appendix B for a list of all hearing

participants. The Board appreciates their assistance in developing this record.

A court reporter transcribed each hearing, resulting in nearly 1,300 pages of transcripts.

The hearing transcripts have been available on the Board’s Web site.

1 Hearing Officer Jackson

admitted 69 hearing exhibits into the record, a list of which is attached as Appendix C.

2 In

1 The transcript pages for the first four hearing locations are numbered consecutively,

i.e.

,

Chicago (pp. 1-364), Naperville (pp. 365-574), Joliet (pp. 575-735), and Grayslake (pp. 736-

1,036). These pages are cited as “Tr.1 at [page number].” The transcript for the fifth and

final hearing, in Springfield (pp. 1-263), is cited as “Tr.2 at [page number].”

2 Hearing Officer Jackson identified hearing exhibits by the name of the participant submitting

the exhibit, and by the number of exhibits submitted by the participant. Hearing exhibits are

cited as “[participant] Exh. [number] at [page number].” Hearing exhibits submitted as a

group of exhibits are cited as “[participant] Grp. Exh. [number] at [page number].”

---

2

addition, the Board received 195 written public comments, which also have been available on the

Board’s Web site. Please refer to Appendix D for a list of all public comments.

3 The Board

thanks the commentors for their insights.

II. BACKGROUND ON PEAKER PLANTS

In this part of the Report, the Board summarizes information from the record on (1)

defining “peaker plant,” (2) simple cycle and combined cycle turbines, (3) the types of fuels

used in turbines, and (4) the number and location of existing and proposed peaker plants.

A. Defining “Peaker Plant”

1. Information from State Government

Mr. Thomas Skinner, Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA),

4 explained when peaker plants operate:

Peakers operate only during peak demand situations such as on hot summer days

when residential and commercial usage of electricity creates more demands than

the baseload plants that exist in Illinois make available. Tr.1 at 52.

In its “Peaker Power Plant Fact Sheet,” IEPA further explained that peak demand in Illinois

typically “occurs during the summer months when air conditioning load is high, and the

nuclear and coal burning power plants cannot meet the demand for power.” IEPA Grp. Exh.

2, No. 20.

2. Information from Industry

Mr. Gerald M. Erjavec, Manager of Business Development for Indeck Energy

Services, Inc. (Indeck), described peaker plants:

“Peaking” plants are so named because their practical use is limited to operating

during periods of the highest or “peak” need for electricity. As can well be

imagined, the use of electricity varies over the day. From periods of low use

over night to the time of high use during the day, generating units are turned on,

or dispatched, to meet the needs of the system . . . . During the highest demand

period of the day, particularly in hot weather when there is more need for

electricity to power air conditioners, the peaking units are dispatched on.

Indeck Exh. 1 at 1.

3 Each public comment is assigned a number, beginning with the number one and continuing

through 195. Public comments are cited as “PC [number] at [page number].”

   

4 A list of abbreviations used in the Report is set forth in Appendix E.

---

3

According to Mr. Richard A. Bulley, Executive Director of Mid-America Interconnected

Network, Inc. (MAIN), air conditioning can account for up to 40% of the load on hot summer

days in Illinois. Tr.1 at 321.

Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc. (Reliant), graphed the typical daily load curve

to describe how electricity demand fluctuates. PC 1, Att. 1. The graph is set forth as Figure 1

in Appendix F of this Report. Reliant noted that there are three main categories of electricity

demand: base, intermediate, and peak. Base-load demand is the constant demand for

electricity that exists day and night, season to season. Reliant stated that base-load units “with

low operating costs, such as nuclear and coal-fired plants, are ideally suited to run at full

capacity at all times.” PC 1 at 2. Intermediate demand rises and falls as the day goes on, and

intermediate or load-following plants:

[A]re ramped up and down to follow the daily load curve of electricity demand.

* * * Together, [base-load and intermediate-load plants] cover most of the daily

and seasonal fluctuations in demand. This, however, leaves a few hours in the

year when unusually high demand peaks are encountered. * * * Peaking

units—or peakers—are used to meet these spike demands for power. PC 1 at 2.

Mr. Richard Ryan of Standard Power and Light narrowed the definition of peak

demand to a predictable calendar basis:

Peak really means 5 by 16. It’s five days a week, 16 hours a day. * * * You

have on-peak and off-peak. On-peak months would be May through September,

December, January and February. Off-peak would be all the out months. So

you have on-peak and off-peak months and then you have on-peak and off-peak

hours. Tr.1 at 427.

Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) noted that “electric power is not readily stored.”

ComEd Exh. 1 at 3. To respond efficiently and economically to peak needs for power, a

“peak load plant, or peaker, can be started relatively quickly” to meet the demand not readily

supplied by base or intermediate-load plants. ComEd Exh. 1 at 4. ComEd explained that

peaker plants “have high hourly operating costs, but low capital costs compared to base load

plants. Because of this cost structure, it is economical to supply peak load, in the relatively

few hours required, using this type of plant.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 4.

Besides meeting peak demand, peaker plants can address temporary shortages in power

supply. Mr. Christopher Romaine, Manager of the Utility Unit in IEPA’s Division of Air

Pollution Control, explained:

[I]f there is an unexpected outage of a power plant during the winter period of

time, there is an event to be able to turn on the peaker plant. So that would be a

---

4

time where we might call upon a peaker plant some other period of the year than

summer. * * * [P]eaker plants can also be used to meet an emergency demand

for power, when . . . there is a breakdown of a substation or power lines

(assuming power can still be carried to the area where it is needed). Tr.1 at

179; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 3.

Comparing summer and winter peak loads, ComEd noted that the all-time summer peak

load was 21,243 megawatts (MW) on July 30, 1999, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. central

time. ComEd’s all-time peak load during a winter month was 14,484 MW on December 20,

1999, between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. ComEd Exh. 1 at 3.

The Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (IERG), an affiliate of the Illinois State

Chamber of Commerce, stated:

[T]he industrial community is adjusting to [electric industry] deregulation . . .

by exploring the increased use of on-site co-generation facilities. These

facilities are intended to provide both electricity and steam to the host facility.

IERG Exh. 1 at 3.

Mr. Alan Jirik, Director of Environmental Affairs for Corn Products International, Inc. (CPI)

testified that these co-generation units often use gas-fired turbines. Tr.1 at 631. He explained

that the industrial community seeks not only to use co-generation units to produce steam for its

operations, but also to sell any excess electricity on the grid. Tr.1 at 632.

However, IERG stressed that “a ‘peaker plant’ is very different from on-site units at an

industrial facility, in terms of physical and operational characteristics, as well as financial

investment and return.” IERG Exh. 1 at 4. IERG encouraged the Board to restrict its findings

to “ ‘peaker plants’ and not to other types of electric generating facilities, be they on-site

emergency generators, co-generation units or base-load power plants.” IERG Exh. 1 at 4.

Similarly, Mr. Jirik of CPI emphasized that these industrial co-generation units should

be distinguished from peaker plants:

Industrial cogeneration units are typically base loaded as industrial processes

demand a relatively constant supply of steam and electricity. This constant

demand essentially precludes peak-only operation. Tr.1 at 631. * * * These

units will provide steam and electricity to the manufacturing operation, and by

virtue of their capacity, also provide electricity to the grid. We expect to

maximize our sales to the grid during times of peak pricing, which usually

occurs during periods of peak demand. However, these industrial cogen units

differ from the peakers that are the subject of [these] hearing[s]. Tr.1 at 632.

---

5

3. Concerns of Citizens

Referring to the federal definition of a peaking unit,

5 Ms. Susan Zingle, Executive

Director of the Lake County Conservation Alliance (LCCA), testified that “peaker plants are

expected to operate about 10 percent of the time, approximately 876 hours.” Tr.2 at 169. She

noted that Director Skinner of IEPA, in a May 16, 2000 letter to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) about regulating peaker plants, said that peaker

plants “were expected to run about 20 days a year [or] . . . 300 hours.” Tr.2 at 169. She

contrasted this with “plants [in Illinois] claiming to be peakers [and] being permitted for 2,300,

3,300, 4,000 hours, not 300 to 900 [hours].” Tr.2 at 170. Ms. Zingle concluded:

[T]otal demand on the ComEd system has been as high as about 21,000 [MW],

so peaking power within MAIN should be about 2,000 [MW], not the 22,000

[MW] we have being permitted now. In the applications, most of these plants

have some indication that they plan to operate year-round. I don't believe these

are peakers. These are intermediate load plants. Tr.2 at 170.

After observing the Chicago hearings in August, Ms. Dianne Turnball, a consultant to

several citizen groups, noted at the Naperville hearing that “[w]e keep talking about peaker

plants and we seem to eliminate the combined cycle plants.” Tr.1 at 434. She argued that the

Board should address combined cycle plants. She also suggested that any rule changes should

apply to independent power producers (IPPs), except those that operate base-load plants. Tr.1

at 435.

B. Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Turbines

1. Information from State Government

Recently, most power plant air permit applications filed with IEPA have been for

natural gas-fired, simple cycle combustion turbines ranging in capacity from 25 to 187 MW

per turbine. PC 168, Att. 2. However, not all natural gas-fired peaker plants are simple

cycle. PC 9 at 31. IEPA noted:

All power plants are used to meet peak electricity demands. During periods of

peak electricity demand, base-load power plants and the cyclic [intermediate or

load-following] power plants are in service, which would also include combined

cycle plants. PC 9 at 31.

5 “Peaking Unit means: (1) A unit that has: (i) An average capacity factor of no more than

10.0 percent during the previous three calendar years and (ii) A capacity factor of no more

than 20.0 percent in each of those calendar years . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 72.2.

---

6

Mr. Romaine of IEPA described a gas turbine and explained how it works. A “gas

turbine is a rotary internal combustion engine with three major parts . . . an air compressor,

burner(s) or combustion chamber, and a power turbine.” Tr.1 at 75. The air compressor

compresses incoming air, diverting a portion to the burners where the fuel is burned. “This

very hot gas is mixed with the rest of the compressed air and passes through the power

turbine.” Tr.1 at 75. The hot compressed gas expands to push the blades of the power

turbine. “The power turbine turns the generator and makes electricity.” Tr.1 at 76.

Mr. Romaine also discussed the differences between simple cycle and combined cycle

gas turbines. With simple cycle turbines, the “waste heat from the exhaust from the gas

turbine is directly discharged to the atmosphere with the exhaust gases.” Tr.1 at 76. With

combined cycle turbines:

[T]he hot exhaust gases discharged from the turbine . . . are ducted through a

waste heat boiler and used to generate steam. This steam is then used to drive a

steam turbine generator, as in more traditional steam power plants. * * * The

recovery of heat energy in the exhaust of a gas turbine in this combined cycle

fashion can increase the energy efficiency of a combined cycle plant by about 50

percent as compared to a simple cycle turbine . . . .” Tr.1 at 77-78.

The generation capacity of simple cycle plants ranges from 25 to 800 MW per plant.

The generation capacity of combined cycle plants ranges from 336 MW to 2,500 MW. PC

168, Att. 1.

2. Information from Industry

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck presented a diagram of simple cycle and combined cycle natural

gas-fired plants. This diagram is set forth as Figure 2 in Appendix F of this Report.

3. Information from Citizens

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stated that “[c]ombustion turbines,

particularly combined cycle applications are capable of obtaining 55-60% efficiencies . . . .

Single cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines are considerably less efficient, operating

between 28-35% with combustion controls limiting [nitrogen oxides] NOx emissions to 15-25

ppm [parts per million].” PC 109 at 5.

C. Fuels Used

1. Information from State Government

“Gas turbines . . . rely on the availability of a supply of clean fuel such as natural gas,

kerosene, or light oil. Note that gas turbines are called ‘gas’ turbines because the working

---

7

fluid is a hot gas, not because they burn natural gas.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 5. Mr.

Romaine of IEPA noted that all air permit applications filed with IEPA have “proposed the use

of natural gas as their primary fuel, but some applications have also included provisions to

have fuel oil as a backup fuel.” Tr.1 at 178. He confirmed that some plants originally

intended for natural gas may ultimately use a different fuel should the market allow: “the

plants that are going in with fuel oil capacity are really looking at being able to supply the

winter peaking market.” Tr.1 at 178.

 

Other fuels typically used for peak applications in Illinois include diesel, ethane, jet

fuel, fuel oil, #2 oil, and distillate oil. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Att. 8, 9. According to Mr.

Romaine, the fuel type dictates the character of the air emissions. As for plants using oil, Mr.

Romaine noted that “emissions would certainly be higher.” Tr.1 at 179. “Certainly it is more

difficult to control [nitrogen oxides] NOx as compared to oil than it is burning natural gas. Oil

has more ash than natural gas. Oil has some fats [that create] sulfur dioxide [SO2].” Tr.1 at

180.

2. Information from Industry

Mr. Erjavek of Indeck noted that light oil or diesel can be used to fuel gas turbines, but

that this practice is not as common in the United States as in other countries. Tr.1 at 225.

3. Concerns of Citizens

Ms. Carol Dorge, an attorney and Director of LCCA, expressed concerns about air

pollution from diesel fuel: “We also note that some of these facilities are being permitted to

use diesel fuel. They say they are using diesel for back up, but back up is not defined in their

applications or their draft permits.” Tr.1 at 450.

D. Number and Location of Existing and Proposed Peaker Plants

1. Information from State Government

Director Skinner of IEPA noted the increasing number of peaker plant air permit

applications that IEPA has received over the past year and a half: “We seem to get more every

day.” Tr.1 at 51. As Director Skinner explained, the total number of peaker plants depends

on whether you are counting “facilities” or “units.” A facility may have multiple units or

turbines. As of the August 24, 2000 Chicago hearing, IEPA had received permit applications

for 46 facilities. Tr.1 at 48.

Mr. Romaine stated:

These plants are being proposed throughout the state, not only in rural areas

where new power plants were historically sited, but also in developed and

---

8

developing areas in the greater Chicago metropolitan area. In the Chicago area,

some plants are being sited for existing industrial locations, but many have

selected sites that are not in industrial areas and might be best characterized as

open, often close to residential areas. * * * Like the existing peaker plants,

some [peaker plants being proposed by historic utilities] are occuring at or

adjacent to existing coal-fired power plants. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 3-

4.

As of November 6, 2000, IEPA listed 67 air permits for existing and proposed power

plants using simple or combined cycle turbines. PC 168, Att. 2. A table and corresponding

map based on information from IEPA are set forth as Table 1 and Figure 3, respectively, in

Appendix F of this Report. Of the 67 air permits, 36 are for locations in ozone attainment

areas while 31 are in nonattainment areas (NAAs); 9 are for existing facilities while 58 are for

proposed facilties; 8 are for base load, 56 for peak load, and 3 for either base or peak load. If

all of the proposed facilities are built, total electrical capacity contributed by existing and

proposed gas-fired simple cycle and combined cycle plants will be 27,329 MW. IEPA Grp.

Exh. 2, No. 7; PC 168, Att. 2.

Mr. Charles Fisher, Executive Director of the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC),

provided a USEPA document entitled National Combusion Turbine Projects, which lists

combustion turbine facilities across the United States that have draft permits or recently-issued

final permits. PC 8. A map based on this information is set forth as Figure 4 in Appendix F

of this Report.

2. Concerns of Citizens

As described throughout this Report, individual citizens and citizen groups consistently

expressed concerns over the growing number of proposed peaker plants, the proposed locations

of the plants (including clustering), and the resulting impacts to the environment.

6

III. AIR EMISSIONS

In this portion of the Report, the Board summarizes record information on (1) the

general concerns of citizens about air pollution, (2) the type and amount of air emissions from

peaker plants, (3) air pollution control regulations, (4) air emissions control technology, (5) air

quality modeling, (6) air quality impacts, and (7) other specific concerns of citizens about air

pollution.

6 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

9

A. Concerns of Citizens—Generally

Potential air pollution from peaker plants was a major concern of individual citizens

and citizen groups testifying before the Board. In general, they were concerned about (1) the

impact on local air quality,

i.e.

, in the vicinity of peaker plants, (2) the impact on regional air

quality, including attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), (3) the

adequacy of existing regulations and permit requirements to address the unique aspects of

peaker plant air emissions, and (4) the adequacy of emission control technology that peaker

plants use.

Citizens argued that peaker plants need to be regulated more strictly than current air

quality regulations provide. Tr.1 at 458, 919, 994-995; Tr.2 at 113 and 186. They asserted

that peaker plants pose a unique threat with respect to air pollution when compared to other

types of State-regulated facilities. Tr.1 461, 994-995 and Tr.2 at 188. Further, they argued

that if the Board determines that peaker plants should be more strictly regulated or restricted,

the new regulations or restrictions should apply both to existing and new facilities. Tr.2 at

189-190.

Specific concerns that individual citizens and citizen groups raised about particular air

emission subjects are summarized below when the record information on the particular subject

is summarized.

B. Type and Amount of Air Emissions

1. Information from Citizens

Many individual citizens and citizen groups expressed concern about the large amounts

of pollutants that peaker plants may emit during the summer months. Tr.1 at 646, 788, 923,

980. Ms. Carol Stark, Director of Citizens Against Ruining the Environment (CARE), stated

that emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic material (VOM) on hot summer

days contribute significantly to the formation of ground level ozone. Tr.1 at 646. She asserted

that it is not acceptable to have peaker plants in the NAA, which contains “some of the major

polluters in the State.” Tr.1 at 646.

Ms. Lucy Debarbaro of Citizens Against Power Plants in Residential Areas (CAPPRA)

expressed concern about the emission of greenhouse gases. She stated that carbon dioxide

(CO2) emissions from power plants significantly impact global climate change. Tr.1 at 497.

Ms. Debarbaro maintained that if CO2 emissions continue to increase, the greenhouse effect

may cause an irreversible large-scale impact on the environment. Tr.1 at 497.

2. Characteristics of Air Emissions

---

10

a. Information from Government. Mr. Romaine of IEPA testified about the

characteristics of air emissions from peaker plants. He has extensive experience in air

pollution control, including permitting peaker plants. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 1-2.

The characteristics of peaker plant air emissions were also addressed by Versar, Inc. (Versar),

an environmental consultant. Versar was retained by the DuPage County Department of

Development and Environmental Concerns to review environmental issues related to peaker

plants. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 1.

Mr. Romaine stated that peaker plants emit air pollutants because they burn large

amounts of fossil fuel to generate electricity. He stated that these pollutants are combustion

byproducts and include NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), VOM, particulate matter (PM), and

sulfur dioxide (SO2). Tr.1 at 83-84; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 10-11; see also DuPage

County Board Exh. 1 at 14. Mr. Romaine stated that NOx emissions are of particular interest

in part because gas turbines emit more NOx than the other pollutants. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Romaine at 10. Versar stated that “NOx and CO are the pollutants emitted in the greatest

amount from a gas-fired turbine . . . .” However, CO generally causes less concern than NOx

“because NOx plays a role in ozone formation.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 14.

Mr. Romaine relied on a USEPA publication entitled Alternative Control Techniques

Document—NOx Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines to address NOx emissions from

peaker plants. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 2. Gas turbines form NOx in three ways. The primary

way involves forming “thermal NOx.” Thermal NOx is formed in the gas turbine combustor

from a series of chemical reactions. Nitrogen and oxygen in the combustion air dissociate and

subsequently react to form the different NOx. The second way involves forming “prompt

NOx.” Prompt NOx is formed from early reactions of nitrogen in combustion air and

hydrocarbon radicals in fuel. The third way involves forming “fuel NOx.” Fuel NOx is formed

from reactions between the fuel bound nitrogen compounds and oxygen. Because natural gas

has a negligible amount of fuel-bound nitrogen, “[e]ssentially all NOx formed from natural gas

combustion is thermal NOx.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 2 at 3.1-3.

The reaction between nitrogen and oxygen leads to the formation of seven known

oxides of nitrogen. However, only nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are formed in

sufficient quantities to be significant in air pollution. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 4-1. The

formation rate of thermal NOx increases exponentially with increase in temperature. In

addition, NOx formation in gas turbines is influenced by the combustor design, fuel type,

ambient conditions, operating cycles, and power output level. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at

10; IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 4-6.

The combustor design is considered the most important factor affecting NOx formation

because flame temperature, fuel/air mixing, and residence time are controlled by the turbine

design. The type of fuel used to fire the turbine affects NOx emission levels. NOx emissions

are higher for fuels that burn at high flame temperatures. Ambient conditions, such as

humidity, temperature, and pressure, also affect NOx formation. Regarding operating cycles

---

11

(simple/combined), NOx emissions from identical turbines used in a simple cycle and a

combined cycle plant would have similar NOx emission levels, as long as a duct burner is not

used in the heat recovery applications of the combined cycle plant. A duct burner is a

supplemental burner used in combined cycle plants to increase the temperature of exhaust heat

from the gas turbine and thereby produce the desired quantity of steam. With a duct burner,

the NOx emissions level for the combined cycle plant would be higher than that for the simple

cycle plant. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 4-12.

Regarding other air pollutants, Mr. Romaine stated that CO is formed from incomplete

combustion when there is insufficient residence time at high temperatures or incomplete

mixing. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 10. He also noted that gas turbines emit small

amounts of VOM. VOM also results from incomplete combustion. Mr. Romaine stated that

forming both CO and VOM depends on the loading of the gas turbine. A gas turbine operating

under full load will emit lower levels of CO and VOM because full load results in higher fuel

efficiency. Higher fuel efficiency in turn reduces the formation of CO and VOM. However,

higher fuel efficiency is more conducive to NOx formation. Thus, Mr. Romaine asserted that

when combustion modification is considered for reducing NOx emissions, compensatory steps

must be taken to maintain or even improve combustion efficiency. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Romaine at 11.

Mr. Romaine stated that PM results mainly from the noncombustible trace constituents

present in the fuel. He noted that natural gas-fired turbines emit negligible amounts of PM.

Mr. Romaine stated that even turbines burning distillate oil emit very low amounts of PM due

to the low ash content of the fuel oil. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 11. Versar stated that

natural gas is inherently clean burning fuel, and gas-fired turbines generally achieve a level of

combustion efficiency so as to be considered small sources of VOM and PM. DuPage County

Board Exh. 1 at 14. Mr. Romaine stated that peaker plants emit very low levels of SO2. SO2

results from burning sulfur compounds present in the fuel. He noted that SO2 emissions are

not a concern with natural gas-fired turbines. However, SO2 is emitted at higher levels by oil-

fired turbines because of the higher sulfur content of oil. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 11.

b. Information from Industry. Maintaining that air emissions from peaker plants will

be very low, Mr. Erjavec of Indeck compared a proposed peaker plant’s air emissions with the

emissions of a number of different types of sources and the NAAQS. Tr.1 at 246-247; Indeck

Exh. 2, Average Permitted CO Emissions. He noted that the peaker plant’s emissions would

be in the mid-range when compared to other sources, such as steelworks, refineries, foundries,

coal-fired power plants, and airports. Tr.1 at 248. The comparison also illustrated that the

peaker plant’s emission levels would be significantly lower than the applicable NAAQS.

Indeck Exh. 2, Air Quality Impacts. According to Indeck, the emissions are low because:

peaker plants use clean burning natural gas; are equipped with low NOx burners; and are

designed to operate only during peak-load demand. Indeck Exh. 2, Representative Impact

Documentation.

---

12

3. Quantity of Air Emissions

a. Information from Government. Information on rates and amounts of pollutants that

peaker plants emit into the air focused mainly on NOx because peaker plants emit large

quantities of NOx and NOx is an ozone precursor. Tr.1 at 85; IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 4-6.

The amount of NOx emitted from a particular gas turbine model depends on design factors, fuel

type, operating mode, and ambient conditions. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 4-6. Mr.

Romaine testified that “the preferred source of information [on] the expected emissions of a

particular model of turbine is the manufacturer of the turbine.” Tr.1 at 85.

Mr. Romaine stated that turbine manufacturers provide data sheets that include

maximum expected emissions under different operating, load, and ambient conditions. IEPA

Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 11. Manufacturers provide the amount of uncontrolled air emissions

from peaker plants in parts per million by volume (ppmv), which is converted to pounds per

hour based on turbine power output, heat rate, and fuel properties. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4

at A-1. Versar stated that by knowing the number of hours per year the plant operates, the

amount of air emissions for a particular pollutant may be calculated on a tons per year (TPY)

basis. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 14-15.

USEPA has published the uncontrolled NOx emission factors based on manufacturers’

data for a number of gas turbine models. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 2-2. These emission

factors range from 0.397 to 1.72 lbs NOx/mmBtu (million British thermal unit) (99 to 430

ppmv) for natural gas and from 0.551 to 2.50 lbs NOx/mmBtu (150 to 680 ppmv)for distillate

oil fuels. Mr. Romaine stated that actual emission rates may be determined by measuring the

amount of pollutants in the turbine exhaust as it passes through the stack. Tr.1 at 85.

b. Information from Industry. Mr. Erjavec of Indeck presented air permitting

information on total emissions for a proposed 300-MW peaker plant in Libertyville. The

plant’s two turbines, when operated according to permit limits over a period of 2,000 hours,

would emit 173 tons of NOx, 105.4 tons of CO, 20 tons of PM, and 1 ton of SO2. Indeck

Exh.1, Att.

4. Start-Up, Shut-Down, and Low Load Emissions

a. Information from Citizens. Citizens were concerned about peaker plants emitting

greater amounts of pollutants when starting up, shutting down, and operating at low load.

Tr.1 at 789, 995, 998, 1,024; Tr.2 at 139, 148. Dr. William McCarthy, a resident of

Libertyville, stated that emissions during peaker plant start-up and shut-down would account

for a large part of the total emissions from peaker plants. Tr.1 at 995. He said that peaker

plants produce up to 200 parts per million (ppm) of NOx during start-up (when plants operate

at less than 50% load capacity), compared to NOx emissions of 10 to 30 ppm during full-load

operation. Tr.1 at 999-1,000. Ms. Dorge of LCCA also noted that peaker plant emissions are

---

13

much higher during start-up, particularly emissions of CO and VOM. Tr.1 at 451; Tr.2 at

149.

Dr. McCarthy stated that Illinois regulations do not specifically address emissions

during start-up and shut-down of peaker plants. Tr.1 at 998. He noted that because peaker

plants do not have any restrictions on how many times they can start up or shut down, a plant

may turn on and off many times on a given day based on market conditions, producing large

quantities of emissions. Tr.1 at 1,000-1,001.

Dr. McCarthy submitted a California Air Resources Board publication entitled

Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology, which recommends

that start-up and shut-down emissions be regulated by a separate set of limits to optimize

emission control. Tr.1 at 999; McCarthy Exh. 2 at 36-37. The guidance document is intended

to assist the various air districts within that state in making permitting decisions. McCarthy

Exh. 2 at 3. The guidance document notes that natural gas-fired power plants operate with

varying loads and have numerous start-ups and shut-downs, which can contribute substantially

to total annual emissions. It recommends that enforceable permit emission limits be set for

turbine emissions at all potential loads. The guidance document also states that permit

conditions must address limits on the number of daily and annual start-ups and shut-downs, as

well as monitoring the duration and quantity of start-up and shut-down emissions. McCarthy

Exh. 2 at 60.

Ms. Dorge of LCCA urged that the Board adopt regulations requiring turbine

manufacturers to provide information on start-up and shut-down emissions, alleging that the

manufacturers are reluctant or unwilling to provide the information. Tr.1 at 452, 455.

b. Information from Government. IEPA stated that gas turbines emit greater amounts

of pollutants during start-up and shut-down, including NOx, CO, and VOM. This occurs

because combustion efficiency will be at its lowest when fuel is first ignited and emission

control techniques are not effective until flows and temperature in the turbine exhaust reach

certain minimum levels. PC 9 at 13. IEPA acknowledged that emissions during start-up and

shut-down are higher when expressed as an emission factor (pounds of pollutant per mmBtu

heat input). However, IEPA noted that actual emissions may not be higher when expressed in

pounds per hour because the lower heat input during start-up and shut-down compensates for

the higher emission factor. PC 9 at 14.

IEPA relied on actual air quality monitoring information from the Elwood Energy

facility to illustrate that NOx emissions during an hour with start-up are similar or slightly

higher than those during an hour of normal operation. PC 168 at 9. IEPA stated:

The CEMS [continuous emissions monitoring system] data shows that the

peaking turbines presently at Elwood Energy normally operate at about 0.05 to

0.055 lb NOx/mmBtu. (The permit limit is 0.061 lb/mmBtu, based on an

---

14

exhaust concentration of 15 ppm NOx.) During startup, NOx emissions are in

the range of 0.1 to 0.115 lb/mmBtu. Of course, the average firing rate during a

startup is about half of the turbines’ capacity. This indicates that startup of

these peaking turbines does not significantly change the hourly NOx emissions of

these turbines. PC 168 at 10.

IEPA cautioned that a different conclusion would be reached with new turbines being added to

the Elwood Energy facility—because the new units are required to comply with a lower

emission rate during normal operation. IEPA noted that if the start-up emission rate remained

the same as with the existing turbines, the emissions during an hour with start-up could be

about 25% higher than those during a normal hour of operation. PC 168 at 10.

IEPA asserted that higher levels of emissions accompanying start-up and shut-down

occur over a relatively short period (15 to 30 minutes) and do not appear to pose an

extraordinary concern for air quality. IEPA stated that start-up and shut-down emissions are

another example of how emissions from particular units can vary, which must be addressed

during permitting. PC 9 at 14. IEPA noted that it requires peaker plant permit applicants to

account for all emissions (including emissions during start-up and shut- down) when

demonstrating compliance with annual emission limits. PC 9 at 15. IEPA acknowledged that

construction permits generally do not have specific emission limits for start-up and shut-down.

However, IEPA contended that specific limits are necessary only when elevated emissions

during those periods would threaten air quality. IEPA also noted that permit provisions

require that peaker plants implement measures to minimize emissions associated with start-up

and shut-down. PC 9 at 15.

IEPA explained that separate short-term permit limits are set if needed to protect

ambient air quality during low-load operation. PC 9 at 16. IEPA relies on the results of air

quality modeling to determine whether any particular turbine operation, such as low-load

operation, would threaten air quality. PC 9 at 28.

C. Air Pollution Control Regulations

1. Information from Citizens

Citizens expressed concern about the adequacy of existing air pollution control

regulations to address peaker plant emissions. They believe that peaker plants need to be

regulated more strictly than other sources of air pollution. Tr.1 at 450, 514, 782. They

addressed a number of specific issues concerning air pollution control regulations, including

regulating peaker plants as major sources, the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for

NOx, the NOx waiver, start-up and shut-down emissions, and permitting. This information is

summarized below.

---

15

a. Regulating Peaker Plants as Major Sources of Air Pollution. Individual citizens and

citizen groups argued that peaker plants, which are generally being permitted as minor sources

of air pollution, should be regulated as major sources of air pollution. Tr.1 at 453, 466, 514,

787. Ms. Zingle of LCCA testified that peaker plants restrict their hours of operation or fuel

consumption to limit NOx emissions below 250 TPY, thereby avoiding major source status.

Tr.1 at 514. As minor sources, she contended, peaker plants escape all but minimal air

regulations. Ms. Zingle maintained that limiting emissions to stay below the 250 TPY

threshold in no way limits the operating capacity of peaker plants because their emissions come

in just three summer months. Tr.1 at 512-516.

Ms. Dorge of LCCA also maintained that peaker plants should be regulated as major

sources of air pollution because they operate as major sources during the ozone season. Tr.1

at 453. Ms. Sandy Cole, the Lake County Board Commissioner for the 11th District, similarly

stated that peaker plants must be evaluated on the basis of daily emission rate. Tr.1 at 787;

Lake County Exh. 2 at 1. She asserted that because peaker plants operate only during times of

need, their annual emissions generally fall within the minor source category, making it easy for

companies to obtain permits. Tr.1 at 788.

b. NSPS for NOx. A number of citizens noted that the existing NSPS for NOx has

become obsolete. Tr.1 at 454, 1,006. Dr. McCarthy stated that the existing NOx NSPS of 75

ppm, which was adopted 13 years ago, has become outdated. Tr.1 at 1,006. Ms. Dorge stated

that peaker plants equipped with dry-low NOx combustion routinely achieve 9 ppm under

normal operations. Tr.1 at 454.

c. NOx Waiver. A number of citizens and citizen groups expressed concern regarding

the NOx waiver that USEPA granted to the State of Illinois for the Lake Michigan NAA. Tr.1

at 683; Tr.2 at 106, 116. Mr. Keith Harley of the Chicago Legal Clinic testified on behalf of

ten environmental and citizen groups concerning the NOx waiver. He stated that generally a

new source of NOx in a NAA for ozone, such as the Chicago metropolitan area, would be

regarded as a major source if the source had the potential to emit 25 TPY of NOx. Tr.1 at

683-684. Mr. Harley noted that under the federal Clean Air Act’s (CAA) New Source Review

(NSR) regulations, this major source would be subject to the most stringent pollution control

measure called the Lowest Achievable Emission rate (LAER) and would be required to acquire

NOx offsets in the ratio of 1.3 to 1. Tr.1 at 684.

However, Mr. Harley noted that in mid-1990s the State of Illinois obtained a NOx

waiver from USEPA that relieved the sources in the Chicago NAA from NSR requirements,

including the major source designation threshold of 25 TPY of NOx. Tr.1 at 684. He stated

that the NOx waiver was granted on the basis of preliminary information suggesting that

reducing NOx emissions in the NAA would not reduce ozone levels in the NAA. Tr.1 at 685.

Mr. Harley asserted that because of the NOx waiver a peaker plant is not considered a major

---

16

source unless it emits 250 tons of NOx per year. He noted that it is not a coincidence that all

peaker plants are being permitted below the 250 TPY threshold. Tr.1 at 685-686.

Mr. Harley stated that since the granting of the NOx waiver, the basis for the waiver

has been discredited by the USEPA-appointed Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG).

Tr.1 at 686. He noted that the OTAG’s comprehensive study demonstrated that NOx

reductions locally and regionally reduce ozone levels in the NAA. Mr. Harley stated that

USEPA responded to the OTAG findings by imposing statewide NOx reductions in a number

of states, including Illinois,

i.e.

, the NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) call. However, no

action has been taken to reconsider the Illinois NOx waiver. Tr.1 at 686.

Mr. Harley asserted that the NOx waiver provides a loophole for peaker plants to be

built in the Chicago NAA. He maintained that Illinois could voluntarily request USEPA to

rescind the NOx waiver. Tr.1 at 687. Mr. Harley noted that he has filed a petition with

USEPA requesting the federal agency to rescind the NOx waiver for the Chicago NAA. Tr.1

at 688. Mr. Harley’s position on the NOx waiver was echoed by Mr. Brian Urbaszewski, the

Director of Environmental Health Programs for the American Lung Association of

Metropolitan Chicago (ALAMC) and a board member of the Illinois Environmental Council

(IEC). Tr.2 at 107. Mr. Urbaszewski testified that Governor Ryan should request USEPA to

repeal the NOx waiver. Tr.2 at 116.

NRDC recommended that USEPA “withdraw the section 182(f) NOx waiver granted to

the Chicago . . . ozone [NAA], which exempts proposed new single cycle combustion turbines

from obtaining emission offsets or utilizing best available control technology [BACT].” PC

109 at 6.

d. Regulating Start-Up and Shut-Down Emissions. A number of citizens expressed

concern regarding the higher emission levels during start-up and shut-down of peaker plants.

Dr. McCarthy stated that Illinois does not regulate start-up and shut-downs of peaker plants.

Tr.1 at 998. He noted that peaker plants do not have any restrictions on how many times they

can start and shut down. Accordingly, on any given day, based on market conditions, a plant

may turn on and turn off many times, producing large quantities of emissions. Tr.1 at 1,000-

1,001. Ms. Dorge asserted that some of the peaker plants that IEPA permitted as minor

sources (NOx emissions less than 250 TPY) would be major sources if start-up emissions were

included in the overall annual emissions. Tr.2 at 149.

---

17

e. Permitting Issues. Ms. Dorge testified that regulations should better define the

permit application requirements. Tr.1 at 458. She stated that every peaker plant permit

application should include information on duration and expected frequency of start-up and

shut-down emissions, good operating practices, operating factors affecting emission rates,

standard procedures for calculating emission rates during all operational modes, monitoring

procedures, operator information, operator training, and contractual warranties. Tr.1 at 455-

457.

Further, Ms. Dorge stated that it is important to know what constitutes a complete

permit application. Using a permit application that Carlton, Inc. filed as an example, Ms.

Dorge identified what she considers to be a number of inconsistencies and deficiencies in the

information that the applicant provided. Tr.2 at 144-147.

Ms. Turnball expressed concern regarding public access to permit information. Tr.1 at

441. She suggested that the permit applicant should be required to provide public notice

concerning the proposed plant to all property owners within 500 feet of the proposed facility.

Ms. Turnball also stated that all information that an applicant provides in an air permit

application should be verified by actual operating data. Tr.1 at 438. Dr. McCarthy noted that

there is no need to have any operating data to obtain a construction permit in Illinois. Tr.1 at

1,007. In addition, Ms. Turnball urged the Board to make permanent the requirement for a

public hearing on construction permits for peaker plants that is currently being imposed at the

discretion of IEPA Director Skinner. Tr.1 at 513.

f. NOx SIP Call. Ms. Dorge stated that the 40 or so proposed peaker plants would

account for approximately 10,000 tons of NOx per year compared to roughly 30,000 tons

allocated to Illinois under the proposed NOx trading program. Tr.1 at 450. She noted that this

comparison clearly shows that peaker plant contribution to the ozone problem will be

significant. Tr.1 at 450. Ms. Zingle also expressed concern regarding the implications of

siting a large number of peaker plants on existing NOx emitters in the context of the NOx SIP

call. Tr.1 at 660.

Mr. Larry Eaton is an attorney formerly with the Illinois Attorney General’s office in

environmental enforcement. Mr. Eaton testified on behalf of three organizations associated

with the conservation community known as Prairie Crossing: Prairie Crossing Homeowners

Association; Liberty Prairie Conservancy, a foundation dedicated to preserving Prairie

Crossing and other communities; and Prairie Holdings Corporation, the developer of Prairie

Crossing. Tr.1 at 864, 905; Eaton Exh. 1 at 1. Mr. Eaton stated that the NOx SIP call

requires Illinois to quickly and radically reduce NOx emissions. Tr.1 at 882. He asserted that

the SIP call demonstrates the need for better planning and regulations for power plant industry.

Tr.1 at 883.

Mr. Patricio Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator of NRDC, stated that, while the

NOx SIP call is a tool to achieve the one-hour ozone standard, it will have a technology forcing

---

18

edge. Tr.2 at 90. However, Mr. Silva asserted that the NOx waiver will negate the use of

innovative technology. He argued that the allocation methodology under the proposed SIP call

regulations favor the existing sources at the expense of future sources with cutting-edge

technology. Tr.2 at 91.

Mr. Urbaszewski of ALAMC and IEC echoed Mr. Silva’s concern regarding the

allocation methodology under the proposed NOx SIP call rules. Tr.2 at 111. Further, he

asserted that the NOx allocation methodology does not support energy efficiency and renewable

energy projects. Tr.2 at 112. Mr. Urbaszewski did not agree that the NOx SIP call would

address all the concerns related to NOx emissions from peaker plants. Mr. Urbaszewski stated

that the new units may have to import allocations from other states in the trading region

because a very small portion of the NOx budget is set aside for these new sources under the

proposed allocation methodology. Tr.2 at 122. He argued that the amount of allowances

imported would go down if peaker plants are required to emit NOx at low levels. Tr.2 at 122.

2. Information from Government

Mr. Romaine of IEPA testified about the air pollution control regulations governing the

peaker plants. Tr.1 89-93; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1. He explained the

applicability of the federal regulations:

If emissions from a proposed new source of air pollution or from a modification

to an existing source are considered major, the source must undergo federal . . .

NSR . . . analysis as part of the construction permitting process. Different NSR

rules govern areas that attain the . . . NAAQS . . . for pollutants and in areas

that do not attain the NAAQS. These national standards are established by

[USEPA] under Section 109 of the [CAA] (42 U.S.C. Section 7401-7661q

(CAA) and are set at a level that protects the public health with an adequate

margin of safety and protects public welfare from known or anticipated adverse

effects. Peaker plants emit the following pollutants for which [USEPA] has

established national standards: . . . NO2 . . . , . . . PM . . . SO2 . . . CO . . . .

In addition, . . . VOM . . . and sometimes . . . NOx . . . emissions, both of

which are emitted by peaker plants are subject to regulation as precursors to

ozone. Attainment NSR is addressed under the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program found at 40 C.F.R. Section 52.21. IEPA Grp.

Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 1.

Further, Mr. Romaine explained that if “an area does not attain the NAAQS, it is

considered a [NAA] and proposed new or modified major sources are subject to nonattainment

NSR . . . . Illinois’ [nonattainment] NSR requirements are found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 203.”

IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 2.

---

19

a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.

  

Versar,

environmental consultant for the DuPage County Department of Development and

Environmental Concerns, also discussed the air pollution control regulations. DuPage County

Board Exh. 1 at 27. Versar stated that the PSD program is designed “to ensure that the

current NAAQS levels are not degraded such that exceedences of the standard would occur.”

DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 28. Mr. Romaine stated that IEPA implements the federal

PSD regulations under a delegation agreement with USEPA. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at

13. Mr. Romaine explained the applicability of PSD to peaker plants:

Under PSD, a new source or a modification to an existing minor source is

considered major if potential emissions of a pollutant are 250 [TPY] or more

unless the source is one of the listed categories at 40 CFR Section

52.21(b)(1)(i)(a). If a source is one of the listed categories, it is considered

major if its potential emissions of a pollutant are 100 [TPY] or more.

Id.

This

list includes fossil fuel steam electric plants of more than 250 [mmBtu] per hour

of heat input. Peaker plants that use simple cycle gas-fired turbines are not

covered by this category or any other listed categories, as the turbines used in

peaker plants do not generate steam. Therefore, the PSD threshold for simple

cycle peaker plants is 250 [TPY]. If the gas-fired turbine produces electricity

by steam through a waste recovery system, often referred to as combined cycle

turbines, the plant would be reviewed under the 100 [TPY] or more threshold.

Once a proposed source qualifies as major for one pollutant, other pollutants

only need be emitted in a significant amount, as defined at 40 CFR Section

52.21(b)(23) to be subject to PSD. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 1-2.

Mr. Romaine stated that PSD can have an effect on peaker plants because a plant that

qualifies as major for a pollutant is subject to additional requirements for that pollutant. He

noted that a major plant must be operated to comply with control requirements that represent

BACT for the pollutant, as determined and approved on a case-by-case basis during issuance of

the construction permit for the project. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 13. In addition, Mr.

Romaine explained that a permit applicant for a major source or modification “must perform

modeling to determine the air quality impact of its proposed project, using dispersion modeling

for pollutants other than ozone.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 2. He added:

To address the air quality impacts from individual sources of ozone precursors,

[USEPA] has developed screening tables based on generic airshed ozone

modeling. Dispersion modeling is not relied upon under PSD to address the air

quality impact from ozone precursor emissions because ambient ozone is formed

by atmospheric reactions of precursor compounds and the impact of a single

source cannot typically be measured through modeling. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Romaine, Att. 1 at 2.

---

20

Mr. Romaine discussed the applicability of PSD to peaker plants to address public

concern over why all peaker plants are not considered major sources. He stated that the need

for a PSD permit is triggered for a new peaker plant if the permitted emissions of a pollutant

(NOx, SO2, CO, PM, or VOM) that the applicant requests equal or exceed the major source

threshold for PSD. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 14. Mr. Romaine noted that the major

source threshold for PSD is set at annual emissions of 100 tons or more for 28 listed

categories, and 250 tons for all other categories of sources. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at

15. Further, regarding the issue of why the PSD program is not applied on the basis of

seasonal emissions,

i.e.

, summer months, Mr. Romaine maintained that the applicability

provisions of the PSD rules do not provide a basis to trigger applicability of PSD on any

emission totals other than annual emissions. He noted that Section 169 of the federal CAA

clearly provides that for purposes of PSD, major sources are to be defined in terms of their

annual emissions. Mr. Romaine stated that peaker plants are not the only plants that are

seasonal in nature. He noted that some boilers at heating plants operate primarily in winter.

IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 15-16.

Mr. Romaine also addressed the issue of why IEPA was considering PSD for NOx in

the Chicago NAA. He stated that if NOx was considered an ozone precursor in the NAA, a

proposed peaker plant would have to comply with the Major Stationary Sources Construction

and Modification (MSSCAM) regulations. The applicability threshold for MSSCAM is annual

emissions of 25 tons of an ozone precursor. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 16. However,

Mr. Romaine stated:

[USEPA] has granted the states bordering Lake Michigan a NOx waiver under

Section 182(f) of the [CAA]. This waiver is based on scientific analyses that

found that controlling NOx emissions only in the [NAA] would actually increase

ozone levels in the area. Instead, for NOx reductions to improve ozone air

quality, they must be provided on a statewide basis and preferably on a multi-

state regional basis. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 16.

Mr. Romaine stated that because of the public concerns regarding the applicability of

PSD to peaker plants, IEPA formally sought guidance from USEPA on implementing PSD.

He noted that USEPA confirmed that IEPA is properly implementing the applicability

provisions of the PSD rules for these plants. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 17.

b. Nonattainment NSR.

  

Mr Romaine stated that in an area that is designated as

nonattainment for a pollutant, PSD does not apply to a proposed project for emissions of the

nonattainment pollutant or, in the case of ozone nonattainment, the ozone precursors. He

stated that a separate state permit program called MSSCAM or nonattainment NSR (35 Ill.

Adm. Code 203) addresses emissions of nonattainment pollutants from a proposed source in

the area. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 14. A proposed project that qualifies as major under

the applicability thresholds of MSSCAM must control emissions of the nonattainment pollutant

to the LAER, rather than BACT. The project must also provide “offsets” for its emissions.

---

21

Mr. Romaine explained that “[o]ffsets are emission reductions that have not been relied upon

to demonstrate attainment [and] that have or will occur from existing sources already in the

[NAA].” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 14, n. 4.

Mr. Romaine explained that in the Chicago area, which is designated as severe

nonattainment for ozone, a source may be considered major if it has potential to emit 25 tons

or more of VOM per year. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Romaine, Att. 1 at 2. He noted that NOx

emissions are sometimes regulated as an ozone precursor. However, in the Chicago NAA,

NOx is reviewed under PSD because USEPA has granted a NOx waiver. (Issues concerning

the NOx waiver are discussed further below.) In the Metro-East/St.Louis area, which is

designated as moderate NAA for ozone, Mr. Romaine noted that a source is considered as

major if it has potential to emit 100 tons of VOM or NOx. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Romaine, Att. 1

at 2. Further, Mr. Romaine noted that like the PSD program, the applicability of

nonattainment NSR is determined on the basis of potential annual emissions, even if a relevant

air pollution problem is seasonal in nature, such as ozone pollution that only occurs during

summer months. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Romaine, Att. 1 at 4.

c. NOx Waiver. Ms. Kathleen Bassi, Assistant for Program and Policy Coordination

for IEPA’s Bureau of Air, responded to citizen concerns regarding the NOx waiver that

USEPA granted for the Chicago NAA. In responding to the citizens’ position that the waiver

should be revoked, Ms. Bassi stated that the removal of the NOx waiver would have

ramifications well beyond the scope of the inquiry proceedings. Tr.2 at 204-205. She noted

that NOx waiver affects all NOx source in the Chicago NAA and not just peaker plants. In

light of this, Ms. Bassi asserted that any decisions on the NOx waiver should be made by

USEPA in the context of its review of the attainment demonstration for the Chicago NAA.

Tr.2 at 206. She noted that USEPA would be performing its review of the State’s attainment

demonstration in the very near future. Tr.2 at 207. Ms. Bassi also clarified that the NOx

waiver does not limit the scope of control measures or reductions that may be required of

power plants.

d. NSPS.

  

Mr. Romaine stated that USEPA promulgated NSPS for emissions from

new turbines under Section 111 of the CAA, found at 40 C.F.R. 60, Subpart GG. IEPA Grp.

Exh. 2, Romaine, Att. 1 at 5. He noted that IEPA implements the federal NSPS in Illinois

pursuant a delegation agreement with USEPA. Mr. Romaine explained the applicability of

NSPS to gas turbines:

These standards apply to stationary gas turbines with a heat input at peak load

equal to or greater than 10.7 gigajoules per hour that commence construction,

modification, or reconstruction after October 3, 1977. The limit for NOx

emissions from large turbines, such as those used in peaking power plants, is

approximately 75 [ppm]. The exact limit varies by model of turbine because the

limit is adjusted for the efficiency of the turbine. Additionally, such turbines

may not use any gas that contains [SO2] in excess of 0.015 percent by volume at

---

22

15 percent oxygen on a dry basis and sulfur in excess of 0.8 percent by weight.

IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Romaine, Att. 1 at 5.

Versar noted that NSPS also contain monitoring, testing, reporting, and record keeping

requirements that the operator of a peaker plant must follow to prove the standards are being

attained and the equipment is properly maintained. DuPage County. Bd. Exh. 1 at 28.

Mr. Romaine agreed with the citizens that the NSPS no longer reflects the Best

Available Control Technology (BACT) for new equipment. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Romaine, Att.

1 at 5. He noted that new natural gas-fired turbines are routinely designed to achieve 25 ppm

of NOx and low sulfur oil that meets the sulfur content limitations is readily available.

e. Hazardous Air Pollutants. Mr. Romaine stated that if a new or reconstructed peaker

plant is considered major for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), it must undergo

review under Section 112(g) of the CAA, which is implemented in Illinois under Section

39.5(19)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/39.5(19)(e) (1998)). He

noted that a source is considered major for HAPs if it emits 10 TPY or more of any individual

HAP or 25 TPY or more of all HAPs aggregated. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 5.

Mr. Romaine explained that a new major source of HAP emissions must achieve the

maximum degree of reduction that is deemed achievable for new sources in a category or

subcategory and may not be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the

best controlled similar source, often referred to as the Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT). IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 5. He stated that MACT is

implemented on a case-by-case basis during construction permitting until a National Emission

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is promulgated for the relevant source

category. Mr. Romaine noted that USEPA intends to develop a NESHAP to address HAPs

that stationary combustion turbines emit. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 7. He said

that USEPA expects to propose this NESHAP, which is likely to address peaker plants, before

the end of the year and finalize a standard in 2002. 65 Fed. Reg. 21,363 (April 21, 2000).

Mr. Romaine stated that peaker plants generally are not known to emit more than

de

minimis

levels of HAPs. He did note that natural gas-fired combustion units emit

formaldehyde, which is listed under Section 112(b)(l) of the CAA. However, emission levels

from peaker plants in Illinois have not been great enough to trigger new source analysis under

Section 112(g) of the CAA. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 5.

f. Title IV Acid Rain Requirements. Mr. Romaine stated that new peaker plants are

considered affected sources for acid rain deposition under 42 U.S.C. § 7642(e). He noted that

existing units that were operational before the 1990 amendments to the CAA may be entitled to

an allocation of SO2 allowances. However, new sources are required to obtain allowances after

January 1, 2000. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 5. Some existing peaker plants in

Illinois are not considered affected sources for acid rain deposition because they do not serve

---

23

generators with a nameplate capacity of more than 25 MW (42 U.S.C. § 7641(8)) and are,

therefore, not subject to requirements under Title IV. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at

6. Mr. Romaine noted that peaker plants must also obtain an acid rain permit from IEPA

before starting to operate. These permits are issued in Illinois under the authority of the Clean

Air Act Permit Program (CAAPP) at 415 ILCS 5/39.5(17). IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att.

1 at 6.

g. Operating Permit Requirements. Mr. Romaine stated that because peaker plants are

affected sources for acid rain deposition under Title IV of the CAA, they are required to obtain

a CAAPP operating permit pursuant to Section 39.5 of the Act. He explained that a peaker

plant operator must obtain an acid rain permit before operating. However, the operator must

apply for the very detailed CAAPP operating permit one year after starting to operate the

facility. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 6.

h. State Requirements. In addition to the federal regulations described above, Mr.

Romaine stated that peaker plants may be subject to certain State regulations.

i.

PM.

Mr. Romaine stated that the Board’s generic regulations that prohibit emissions

of visible PM emissions into the atmosphere apply to peaker plants. However, he noted that

natural gas-fired peaker plants do not generally emit significant amounts of PM emissions if

proper combustion occurs. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 6.

ii.

Emissions Reduction Market System (ERMS).

Mr. Romaine stated that if a peaker

plant located in the Chicago ozone NAA emits at least 10 tons of VOM during the ozone

season (May through September), the plant would be subject to the Emissions Reduction

Market System (ERMS) requirements under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 205. He explained the

applicability of the ERMS program:

If the source was operating prior to May 1, 1999, it will be allotted trading units

by [IEPA] based on past emissions, with certain adjustments, and will be

required to hold sufficient trading units to account for its seasonal emissions

each year. If the source was not operating prior to May 1, 1999, it will not be

issued trading units by [IEPA] in most instances but will be required to obtain

trading units sufficient to account for its seasonal emissions each year. If a new

source was issued a construction permit prior to January 1, 1998, it will be

allotted trading units by [IEPA] based on its first three years of operation.

IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 6.

Regarding VOM emissions from peaker plants, Versar stated that natural gas is

inherently clean burning fuel, and gas-fired turbines generally achieve a level of combustion

efficiency to be considered small sources of VOM. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 14.

---

24

iii.

NO x Trading Program (NOx SIP Call) for Electrical Generating Units (EGUs).

In

July of this year, IEPA proposed a rule to the Board to reduce statewide emissions of NOx

from electrical generating units (EGUs). As Director Skinner described, “[t]his proposal was

in response to [USEPA’s] call for [SIPs] requiring significant reductions in emissions or the so

called NOx SIP call, an area in which Illinois, as a state, has been the leader nationwide among

the states and has put in a significant amount of work over the course of the past five to 10

years.” Tr.1 at 60.

Mr. Romaine discussed the NOx trading regulations that the Board adopted for first

notice at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217, Subpart W. He stated that the proposed Subpart W is

intended to reduce NOx emissions in Illinois during the ozone season (May - September) from

EGUs by determining source allocations and providing for participation in the national NOx

trading program. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 7.

Proposed Subpart W applies to fossil fuel- fired stationary boilers, combustion turbines

(such as peaker plants) or combined cycle systems that serve generators with a nameplate

capacity greater than 25 MW that have at any time produced electricity for sale. Mr. Romaine

stated that the new sources that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 1995,

may receive allowances based on an emission rate and heat input. Initially, these sources may

acquire allowances from a new source set aside but eventually will receive allowances from the

main trading budget based on when the source commenced commercial operation. Under the

proposed rule, NOx emission reductions will occur beginning in May 2003.

7 IEPA Grp. Exh.

1, Romaine, Att. 1 at 7.

7 The Board adopted the NOx trading program rules on December 21, 2000. See Proposed

New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217, Subpart W, The NOx Trading Program for Electrical Generating

Units, and Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 and 217 (December 21, 2000), R01-9. The

Board notes that the final rules require sources to begin complying with the trading program in

May 2004, instead of May 2003.

---

25

3. Information from Industry

Industry representatives testified that Illinois’ current air quality statutes and

regulations, and additional federal regulations are adequate for regulating peaker plants. Mr.

Erjavec of Indeck argued that peaker plants are highly regulated under the Act. Indeck Exh. 1.

He asserted that any additional regulations would be unjustified and counterproductive. Ms.

Arlene Juracek of ComEd stated that peaker plants are subject to State and federal

environmental regulations. Tr.1 at 291-292. She maintained that there is no need for new or

stringent regulations. Ms. Juracek argued that additional regulations may have a negative

effect on the State’s generating capacity. Tr.1 at 293.

Ms. Deirdre Hirner, Executive Director of IERG, testified that the current State and

federal air quality standards are adequate for regulating peaker plants. Tr.1 at 310-311. She

noted that peaker plants, like any other facility, must comply with regulations, such as NSPS

and PSD, if they trigger the applicable regulatory thresholds. Tr.1 at 311. She asserted that

even if these plants do not trigger PSD, restrictions like operating limits, monitoring and

testing would be placed in the permits to assure that the facility does not exceed the protective

upper limit on emissions. Tr.1 at 312. In addition, Ms. Hirner asserted that, because all

peaker plants would be subject to the proposed NOx trading program, fears that additional

peaker plants will increase the total tonnage of NOx in the overall region are unfounded. Tr.1

at 313.

Ms. Freddi Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel, Midwest Independent

Power Suppliers (MWIPS), also argued that the current regulations are adequate for regulating

peaker plants. Tr.1 at 327. She maintained that a strict set of regulations applies to peaker

plants, and that these plants do not pose a threat to air quality, human health or the

environment. Tr.1 at 327. Mr. Mike Kearney, Manager of Economic Development, Ameren

Corporation (Ameren), stated that the current regulations governing the peaker plants are

appropriate and provide each stakeholder to an opportunity to become involved in the process.

Tr.1 at 341. He maintained that additionally regulating peaker plants is not warranted or

needed at present. Mr. John Smith, a representative of the Illinois Section of the American

Water Works Association (ISAWWA), also stated that peaker plants should not be singled out

and regulated more strictly with regard to air quality. Tr.2 at 24. A similar position was

taken by Mr. Brent Gregory, a representative of the Illinois Chapter of the National

Association of Water Companies. Tr.2 at 30.

With respect to the NOx SIP call, Indeck suggested that “natural gas-fired peaking

plants should be encouraged rather than discouraged” to help achieve reductions that the NOx

SIP call requires. Indeck noted that gas-fired turbines “are among the lowest emitters of NOx

per kilowatt-hour [kWh] produced, when compared to other means of electrical production.”

PC 173 at 2.

---

26

D. Air Emissions Control Technology

1. Information from Citizens

Ms. Stark of CARE testified that peaker plants were being permitted with inadequate

emission control technology. She stated that a peaker plant that Rolls Royce Power Ventures

proposed in Lockport was permitted at 55 ppm for NOx, which will make it the “dirtiest”

peaker plant in the State. Tr.1 at 648. Ms. Dorge stated that residents of Illinois and

Wisconsin are entitled to air that is as clean as can be achieved with modern technology. Tr.1

at 454. She asserted that peaker plants “should install LAER and every effort should be taken

to prevent backsliding particularly in the case of NOx and VOM emissions.” Tr.1 at 454.

Ms. Turnball stated that peaker plants emitting more than 25 TPY should be required to

meet BACT. Tr.1 at 926. She noted that Indiana requires BACT for any emitter over 25

TPY. Tr.1 at 925. Further, Ms. Turnball maintained that the treatment goal in the NAA areas

should be LAER. Tr.1 at 926. Ms. Cindy Skrukrud, a resident of Olin, Mills, McHenry

County, also recommended that peaker plants be required to meet BACT. Tr.1 at 1,024.

Ms. Terry Jacobs, a resident of Libertyville, noted that technology to substantially

lower emissions to as low as 4.5 ppm is readily available. Tr.1 at 982. She stated that peaker

plants must be required to meet lowest achievable emissions. Tr.1 at 983. Dr. McCarthy

submitted information on a specific NOx control technology called XONON™. McCarthy Exh.

3. He asserted that the XONON™ technology is capable of reducing NOx emissions to 2.5

ppm. Tr.1 at 1,004. Dr. McCarthy stated that the XONON™ technology is being used by

General Electric on 250-MW turbines in Southern California. Tr.1 at 1,005. He urged the

Illinois officials to review the XONON™ technology to determine whether it can be used in the

State.

Mr. Robert Brooks of Waukegan presented information on power generation

technology capable of producing very low NOx and CO2 emissions. According to the April 15,

2000 issue of Ward’s Engine and Vehicle Technology Update, solid oxide fuel cell turbine

engine EGUs—fueled by natural gas and built by Siemens Westinghouse—have 60 to 70%

efficiency, produce less than 1 ppm NOx, require no water, and can be modified so that its CO2

output is captured for injection into the ground. “The later CO2-capturing version is planned

for demonstration with Shell Oil Co. and is expected to be the first hydrocarbon-fueled

generator that can be classified as emitting no CO2.” In the October 1, 2000 issue, the

periodical notes that a 220-kilowatt (kW) unit was installed at a California electric utility plant

earlier this year and is performing well. A 1,000 kW unit is planned for an EPA facility

demonstration in Maryland in 2002. PC 13 at 2.

NRDC stated that combined cycle turbines are capable of obtaining 55-60%

efficiencies. Simple cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines “are considerably less

efficient, operating between 28-35% with combustion controls limiting NOx emissions to 15-25

---

27

ppm.” PC 109 at 5.

2. Information from State Government

The criteria pollutants from gas turbines targeted for emissions control are NOx, CO,

and VOM. Mr. Romaine of IEPA explained that turbine emissions “can be reduced by

combustion modifications and by add-on control devices.” Tr.1 at 93. Combustion

modifications are the preferred control method for NOx and CO pollutants from gas turbines.

Types of combustion modifications include water injection, air to fuel mix adjustment, and

catalytic combustion. Tr.1 at 93-94.

•

 

Injecting water into the burner slows down the combustion process and reduces the

formation of NOx by as much as 60% or more. Tr.1 at 94. NOx emissions levels for

water injection systems range from 42 ppmv for natural gas-fired turbines to 45-75

ppmv for most oil-fired turbines. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 5-11, 5-15. However,

water injection is not feasible for turbines already achieving emission rates less than 25

ppm through advanced burner design. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 22. Besides

reducing NOx formation, water injection also increases CO and VOM emissions and

decreases fuel efficiency. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 18.

•

 

Adjusting the air to fuel mix in a “dry low NOx burner” minimizes “hot spots” in the

combustion flame where NOx is formed and can achieve a reduction in NOx of 90% or

more for natural gas fuel. Tr.1 at 94. For oil, dry low NOx burners are not as

effective. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 19. For frame turbines, dry low NOx

burners can yield emissions of 9-12 ppm. Aero-derivative turbines will yield about 25

ppm. PC 9 at 22.

•

 

A third type of combustion modification is catalytic combustion known as XONON™

that Mr. Romaine described as a “promising technology for improving burner

performance.” However, its application is currently limited to turbines much smaller

than those proposed for Illinois, around 1.5 MW in size. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine

at 19.

Mr. Romaine further explained: “add-on control devices are not commonly used for

NOx emissions from simple cycle gas turbines.” Tr.1 at 94-95. Although not commonly used,

a catalyst material can reduce NOx to nitrogen and water using ammonia in a chemical reaction

known as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Tr.1 at 95. In a similar process, selective

noncatalytic reduction also uses ammonia, but requires higher operating temperatures and no

catalyst. IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 4 at 5-87. Using ammonia in these add-on controls presents

its own environmental concern because unreacted ammonia may be released into the

atmosphere, contributing to acidification of surface waters and soil. Mr. Romaine noted that

---

28

none of Illinois’ new peaker plants are using or proposing to use SCR. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Romaine at 20.

Besides NOx, add-on control devices are also available for CO and VOM emissions.

Because CO and VOM are products of incomplete combustion, add-on control devices use an

oxidation catalyst to drive the combustion reaction to completion in the exhaust ductwork

without the need for supplemental heat. Tr.1 at 96. These systems generally achieve a 90%

reduction, but reduction varies depending on the model of gas turbine. Mr. Romaine noted,

“The new peaking plants in Illinois, which rely on good combustion practices to minimize

emissions, are not routinely using oxidation catalyst systems.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at

21. A newer add-on control device is the proprietary catalytic technology SCONOX™ for

control of NOx, CO and VOM. However, because SCONOX™ is only effective at

temperatures below 700º F, it is not suited for simple cycle gas turbines, which are not

equipped with a heat recovery steam generator. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Romaine at 21-22.

3. Information from Industry

Indeck commented on the control technologies that citizens suggested at the hearings:

[T]hese technologies have not been proven on a commercial-sized scale

sufficiently that most developers will risk committing to a permit that relies on

such unproven technology for compliance. PC 173 at 2.

As to the feasibility of utilizing add-on controls, Indeck noted that although aero-derivative

turbines may be more conducive to add-on controls than frame turbines, they generally

consume more water, produce more CO, operate less efficiently at high temperatures, and

incur additional capital and maintenance costs. PC 173 at 2.

Mr. Ryan of Standard Power and Light provided his company’s IEPA air permit

application for a peaking facility in West Chicago that would use add-on controls to achieve a

NOx emission rate of 3.5 ppm. Challenging his competitors to reduce their emissions to below

5 ppm NOx and appealing to the legislature to impose stricter emission standards, Mr. Ryan

stated that the new Standard Power and Light peaker plant would be “the lowest emissions

source of any peaking power plant in the entire country.” Tr.1 at 427-429. Mr. Ryan pointed

to available air emissions controls like SCR, SCONOX™, and XONON™. He conceded that

the investment may be expensive, but emphasized that, “[r]egardless of what technology is

used, something has to be used.” Tr.1 at 428. “It’s the right thing to do.” Tr.1 at 429.

E. Air Quality Modeling

1. Information from Citizens

---

29

Individual citizens and citizen groups complained that the air quality modeling that

IEPA requires is not accurate and reliable. Tr.1 at 439, 649, 660, 782. Ms. Turnball stated

that the air quality modeling should be done using parameters that reflect the actual conditions

of humidity, wind pattern, and temperature. Tr.1 at 439-440. She noted that the modeling

must show the point of maximum impact for each regulated pollutant. Tr.1 at 440. A number

of citizens stated that modeling should be done to evaluate the cumulative effects of all

proposed and existing peaker plants and other industrial sources. Tr.1 at 460, 660 and 782.

In addition, Ms. Turnball urged the Board to make permanent the air quality modeling

requirement that is currently being imposed on peaker plants at the discretion of IEPA Director

Skinner. Tr.1 at 513.

2. Information from State Government

a. Function of Air Quality Modeling. As elucidated by Mr. Robert Kaleel, Manager

of IEPA’s Air Quality Monitoring Unit, “[a]ir quality is predicted through modeling or

measured through monitoring. . .” Tr.1 at 109. Models “are applied in an engineering or

analytical way to identify the causes of existing problems and in a planning or predictive way

to project and avoid future problems.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at 2. “Modeling provides a

quantitative link between sources of air pollutants and ambient air quality. Such a link is

necessary when regulatory decisions must be made within the framework of the . . . NAAQS

. . . and . . . PSD . . . increments.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at 3.

To assess potential impacts on air quality, IEPA has been requiring air quality modeling

for all peaker plants since at least January 2000. Generally, existing law only requires air

quality modeling when a source triggers PSD requirements. Tr.1 at 107. However, as

Director Skinner pointed out, IEPA made an administrative change to require modeling for all

peaker air permit applications to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential

environmental effects. Tr.1 at 59.

Air quality modeling is a set of mathematical equations relating the release of air

pollutants to corresponding concentrations of pollutants in the ambient atmosphere. Modeling

is used to identify and evaluate the level of controls required to solve industrial and urban air

pollution problems. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at 2. According to Mr. Kaleel, “[t]here are a

number of different types of air quality models that [IEPA] uses for a range of different

applications.” Tr.1 at 109. The models range in degree of sophistication. The most

frequently used simulation model for evaluating the “dispersion of atmospheric contaminants”

is the Industrial Source Complex model that USEPA developed. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at

4. That model:

[I]s an appropriate model to evaluate local, or neighborhood scale, effects where

chemical reactions in the atmosphere are relatively unimportant in determining

peak impacts. The [Industrial Source Complex] model was used for air quality

impact analyses for those “criteria” pollutants (

i.e.

, pollutants for which

---

30

[USEPA] has established an NAAQS), such as [PM] 10 microns in aerodynamic

diameter (PM 10), . . . SO2 . . . CO . . . NO2 . . ., where peak impacts from the

natural gas-fired peaking plants are expected to be local in scale. IEPA Grp.

Exh. 1, Kaleel at 4-5.

The dispersion models are not appropriate for ozone. As Mr. Kaleel explained, “[i]n

fact, the ozone modeling techniques that are required are very complex . . . as a result of a

complex series of chemical reactions in the atmosphere.” Tr.1 at 117. These models are not

required of individual applicants. Modeling for ozone uses urban airshed models to address

the urban- and regional-scale problem of ozone formation and transport. The ozone modeling

that IEPA uses is a photochemical grid model, called the Urban Airshed Model—Version V

(UAM-V). IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at 10.

b. Parameters Used in Modeling. IEPA used both dispersion modeling and

photochemical modeling to ascertain the potential air quality impacts of the proposed peaker

and combined cycle plants.

Dispersion modeling parameters were based on source characteristics (stack location,

height, diameter, flow rate, emission rate, exit velocity), wake effects, aerodynamic

downwash, and five years of meteorological data. IEPA explained that, “[a]s a result,

modeling determines worst-case pollutant concentrations that may result from a proposed plant.

* * * However, actual monitoring data . . . are not used to specifically verify the results of

dispersion modeling.” PC 9 at 26-27.

The parameters used in the photochemical modeling were derived from historic high

ozone episodes that occurred in the Lake Michigan region during 1991 and 1995. The

parameters used in the ozone air quality modeling were based on meteorological, emissions,

and source characteristic data. Meteorological data derived from those high ozone episodes

included: wind direction and speed, temperature, pressure, humidity, and turbulence. Data

for cloud and precipitation fields were drawn from National Weather Service observations.

Data for chemical reactions between pollutants and meteorological conditions was calculated

from a numeric algorithm. Emissions data was based on an emissions inventory that includes

hourly emissions for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and CO. Sources included in

the inventory were: man-made, naturally-occurring (plants and soil), motor vehicles (on-road

and off-road), industrial or point (smoke stacks), and area sources (fuel combustion, solvents,

etc

.). As IEPA explained, to determine the worst-case pollutant concentrations that might

result from a proposed plant, modeling also included emissions from all new simple cycle and

combined cycle plants with active permits or applications. PC 9 at 23-26.

In general, IEPA’s photochemical modeling of the peaker plants was based on the

future year, attainment modeling of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. This

modeling takes into account growth in each source category as well as air pollution control

measures. The control measures include the NOx SIP call, Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and

---

31

Maintenance, Phase II-reformulated gasoline, Tier 2 automotive standards, low sulfur gasoline,

heavy-duty vehicle standards, and other measures required by the CAA. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Kaleel at 5-6.

c. Results of Air Quality Modeling. In its review of dispersion modeling studies

submitted for proposed peaker plants, IEPA found that emissions from these natural gas-fired

units are typically small. Of the criteria pollutants that these units are expected to emit, IEPA

observed quantities ranging from 40-60 TPY for NO2, 60-700 TPY for CO, 10-360 TPY for

PM 10, 5-250 TPY for SO2, and 2-130 TPY for VOCs. “From the studies reviewed to date,

none of the modeled impacts from these projects have been determined to exceed either the

NAAQS or PSD increments for any of the relevant air contaminants.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Kaleel at 5-6.

In evaluating the effect of peaker plants on ozone air quality, IEPA relied on results of

the photochemical UAM-V model for the attainment year 2007. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at

10. Results of modeling based on expected reductions from the NOx SIP call suggest “that the

impact of peaker emissions on overall daily maximum ozone levels is small.” IEPA Grp. Exh.

1, Kaleel at 12-13. With all peaker plants operating simultaneously on a high ozone day,

modeling results suggest that ozone concentrations would increase 1 to 4 parts per billion

(ppb). An increase of 1 ppb can be expected in the highest ozone area, which typically occurs

over Lake Michigan. Higher impacts are predicted in areas where modeled concentrations are

less than the NAAQS. The modeling indicated no change in the Metro-East/St. Louis area.

Mr. Kaleel concluded, “[t]he model’s response to projected emission increases is small relative

to the improvements in ozone air quality achieved to date and to improvements expected in

coming years from control programs yet to be implemented.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Kaleel at

13-14.

3. Information from Industry

Reliant provided a synopsis of the air quality modeling it performed for its Aurora

peaker project in DuPage County. Dispersion modeling included emissions from both its

proposed peaker plant plus all other industrial facilities in that area. Reliant concluded that

maximum NOx emissions from the plant would be fifty times less than the NAAQS and found

in a small area radiating a few hundred feet to the north of the Reliant property. Reliant

concluded that residential neighborhoods one-half mile or more beyond the affected area would

register no measurable impact of NOx emissions on air quality. PC 1 at 3-4.

Indeck also provided information on its air dispersion modeling for NOx, SO2, CO, and

PM 10 for its proposed Libertyville plant. To predict the worst case effect, modeling was

conducted using the five-year worst hourly meteorological conditions and maximum operating

rates of 8,760 hours per year rather than the restricted hours in the air construction permit.

Indeck suggested that the modeled impacts of the specific pollutants were not significant

impacts, either in terms of ambient air standards or in terms of health effects. “In fact, the

---

32

predicted ambient air quality impacts from this facility are less than the predicted impacts from

a boiler at a typical school and about the same as the impact from one gas heated home.”

Indeck Exh. 2, Representative Impact Documentation.

---

33

F. Air Quality Impacts

1. Information from Citizens

A number of citizens stated that cumulative or combined effect of all existing and

proposed peaker plants should be considered in the permitting process. Tr.1 at 460, 980,

1,024. Ms. Terry Jacobs, a resident of Libertyville, noted that the current ability to cluster

peaker plants, if permitted by local zoning, does not take into account the cumulative impact.

Tr.1 at 980. She stated that the cumulative emissions from peaker plants must be evaluated on

a regional level. Tr.1 at 980-981. Dr. McCarthy noted that at present there is no law or

regulation for siting multiple peaker plants within close proximity. Tr.1 at 1,010. Ms. Dorge

also stated that a number of peaker plants are being sited within close proximity of one

another.

CARE’s Ms. Stark, stated that peaker plants are being proposed within very close

proximity to residences and elementary schools. Tr.1 at 647. She asserted that children’s

health is not being taken into consideration, especially children with asthma and other

respiratory conditions. Tr.1 at 647.

NRDC stated that “[n]atural gas-fired combustion turbines represent the best available

large-scale fossil fuel generation in terms of minimal adverse air quality impacts.” However,

“the aggregate impact of the proposed combustion turbine projects in Illinois would amount to

several hundred tons, likely to be emitted during the worst ozone episodes.” PC 109 at 5-6.

According to NRDC:

In isolation single cycle natural-gas fired combustion turbines do not pose a

greater threat to public health and the environment than other types of state-

regulated facilities, particularly coal-fired steam turbine generating units.

However, the aggregate impact of siting several single cycle natural gas-fired

combustion turbines should be thoroughly evaluated since these units can emit

quantities of NOx . . . CO . . . PM 10 . . . VOCs . . . SO2 . . . and sulfuric acid

mist . . . in quantities sufficient to trigger permit review thresholds under the

[CAA]. * * * [Peaker plants can] also emit toxic air pollutants, including

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, lead, mercury and beryllium in quantities

sufficient to trigger permit review thresholds under the [CAA]. Toxic air

pollutants emissions increase significantly at single cycle combustion turbines

equipped to burn distillate fuel oils as an alternative fuel source. PC 109 at 6.

2. Information from State Government

a. Impact on Illinois’ Ability to Attain the NAAQS. Mr. Kaleel desribed the trends in

ozone readings: “Back in the ’87 to ’89 time frame, the highest design values [for ozone] in

---

34

the region were occurring just at the Illinois, Wisconsin border.” That reading was 190 ppm

of ozone. In Michigan City, the highest reading was 180 ppm. In downtown Chicago, the

highest reading was 70 ppm. Tr.1 at 119. In the last three-year period, Northern Illinois has

not experienced any violations of the ozone design values. Tr.1 at 120.

Mr. Kaleel recognized “we had a pretty serious problem 10 years ago, and, of course,

the IEPA proposed many things, and the Board has acted on many things to reduce precursor

emissions over the last 10 years and, through the limitation of those programs and programs

required by [USEPA], made tremendous strides.” Tr.1 at 120. According to Mr. Kaleel,

although “there have been major improvements on ozone[,] [w]e still have a little ways to go.

We’re still not showing attainment.” Tr.1 at 120.

Regarding the impact peaker plants will have on Illinois’ ability to attain the NAAQS

for ozone, Mr. Kaleel remarked: “So does this result of a peaker complicate our efforts to

showing attainment? It clearly complicates our efforts. It would be easier to demonstrate

attainment without having synergies.” Tr.1 at 129. IEPA is currently preparing its ozone

attainment demonstration due in December of this year. Mr. Kaleel believed that Illinois

would be able to show attainment with “improvements that are seen from all of the programs

that have been implemented to date [because they] far exceed the negative consequences of

peaker emissions.” Tr.1 at 130. With the modeling to date showing that peaker plants have a

noticeable but small effect on ozone concentrations, IEPA expects to be able to demonstrate

attainment of the one-hour ozone standard based on the requirements of the NOx SIP call. PC

9 at 29.

b. Localized Impacts. To ensure that localized impacts are considered, IEPA has

required all applicants for peaker plants to perform air quality modeling at the locations where

the highest impacts are expected, even as close as the source’s fence line. According to IEPA,

“[t]he modeling has consistently demonstrated that the air quality impacts of the peaker are

small, if not insignificant, and will not cause or contribute to violations of the NAAQS.” PC 9

at 6.

3. Information from Industry

Mr. Richard Trzupek is the Air Quality Manger with Huff & Huff, Inc. (Huff &

Huff), an environmental consulting firm that assists electric facilities with air permitting. Mr.

Trzupek said that “[w]hile coal technology has made massive strides toward becoming a

cleaner fuel, it cannot be as clean as natural gas.” Huff & Huff Exh. 1 at 13. Comparing

emissions from current utility sources to potential emissions if 10,000 MW of coal generating

capacity in MAIN were replaced by natural gas, Mr. Trzupek estimated a 27% reduction in

NOx, 29% in SO2, and 25% in PM. Mr. Trzupek suggested there would be “a significant

environmental benefit to the region by substituting natural gas for coal.” Huff & Huff Exh. 1

at 7. Mr. Trzupek cautioned that further restrictions on constructing natural gas-fired

generation “will have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for the state to

---

35

meet both energy demand and air quality goals.” Huff & Huff Exh. 1 at 13.

G. Other Specific Concerns of Citizens

1. Regulating Multiple Peaker Plants with a Single Owner or Operator

Mr. Eaton, attorney for Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Prairie Holdings Corporation,

and Prairie Crossing Homeowners Association, stated that some companies were avoiding

major source review for individual plants by building multiple plants, each having contaminant

levels just under the major source threshold. Tr.1 at 871. He noted that efforts made by a

company or business entity having common ownership to obtain permits to construct and

operate multiple plants in a vast NOx airshed constitutes an effort to dilute emissions. Tr.1 at

873. Mr. Eaton asserted that “total emissions from all such plants need to be reviewed as one,

not individually, to avoid a circumvention precluded by that regulation.” Tr.1 at 873.

2. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Ms. Verana Owen, Co-Chairperson of Zion Against Peaker Plants, stated that the

impact of a peaker plant on the environment must be evaluated by conducting an environmental

impact statement (EIS). Tr.1 at 943. She noted that an EIS, at a minimum, should address

issues concerning hydrology and water quality, water use, water runoff, air quality, loss of

habitat, loss of agricultural land, land use, socioeconomic impact, impact on local services

including traffic, noise, and public health and safety. Ms. Owen stated that Indiana, Ohio, and

Wisconsin require EISs for peaker plants. Tr.1 at 943.

8

IV. NOISE EMISSIONS

In this part of the Report, the Board summarizes information from the record on (1)

citizen concerns about noise emitted from peaker plants, (2) peaker plant noise emissions, (3)

methods to control noise, and (4) noise pollution regulation.

A. Concerns of Citizens

Many citizens raised concerns about the potential for peaker plants to cause noise

pollution. Individual citizens and citizen groups raised the specific concerns described below.

1. Noise Emissions and Proximity to Residences

•

 

Gas-fired turbines generate significant sound power and can negatively impact nearby

8

For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K.

Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

36

property. Sargis Exh. 1 at 7-8.

•

 

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Prairie Crossing Homeowners Association, Liberty Prairie

Conservancy, and Prairie Holdings Corporation, participated in the public hearings

held before the Village of Libertyville Plan Commission regarding a 300-MW peaker

plant proposed by Indeck. Those proceedings involved more than 20 hearing sessions

over 10 months. Mr. Eaton also represented a citizen group in Bartlett with respect to a

proposed peaker plant. Tr.1 at 864, 905; Eaton Exh. 1 at 1. Mr. Eaton asserted that,

for residents in close proximity to proposed peaker plants, “noise may well be the

single most serious and acute environmental problem posed by these plants.” Eaton

Exh. 1 at 12.

•

 

Mr. Eaton stated that a “number of the approximately 50 pending peaker plant

applications for installations are proposed for locations quite close to residences” and

many of the residential areas at issue were found to be “extremely quiet.” Eaton Exh.

1 at 12, 14.

2. Permitting and Pre-Construction Review

•

 

Illinois has no permit program or pre-construction review for noise emissions. Eaton

Exh. 1 at 12; Sargis Exh. 1 at 7-8.

•

 

Mr. Mark Sargis, an attorney with the law firm of Mauck, Bellande & Cheely, has

practiced environmental, land use, and zoning law during the past 15 years. He is

representing a group of citizens concerned generally about the effects of peaker plants

and specifically about a peaker plant proposed in DuPage County near property that the

citizens own. Sargis Exh. 1 at 1. Mr. Sargis stated:

Generally, it is reasonable to expect that, under current regulations,

noise emissions from peaker plants would operate closer to or past the

point of non-compliance than would air emissions. The fact that there is

a comprehensive air permit program, but no required review of noise

impacts, indicates an inconsistency in regulation between these two

media. Sargis Exh. 1 at 9.

•

 

If noise control is not addressed when designing a peaker plant, adding controls after

construction may be ineffective, difficult or impossible, or much more expensive.

Sargis Exh. 1 at 7-9.

3. State Noise Standards and Enforcement

•

 

Mr. Eaton asserted that, “even if we had the most rigorous enforcement of current

---

37

standards,” the State’s noise standards are “inadequate”:

[T]he noise regulations are written for 9 octave bands. However, we

believe it is fairly well accepted that the nighttime

9 noise regulation

limits for emissions from industrial sources to residential receptors can

be referred in the shorthand as approximately 51[dB(A),

i.e.

, A-

weighted decibels

10]. That may be fine in a place where these plants

perhaps ought to be located, such as existing industrial locations,

brownfield areas, or areas where there is already a substantial amount of

noise and/or virtually no residences in the vicinity . . . . However, . . .

many of these plants have been proposed to be built in or near residential

areas. Many of those areas we have found to be extremely quiet. For

example, in both Libertyville and Bartlett, background noises,

particularly at nighttime and particularly on weekends (when these plants

may well operate), are extremely low, running sometimes below 30 [dB,

i.e.

, decibels], and many times in the low 30s in [dB(A)]. Noise doubles

approximately every 6 [dB] that the level of sound is increased.

Accordingly, to go from 33 [dB] to 39 [dB] would double the noise; to

go from 39 [dB] to 45 [dB] would double the noise again; and to go from

45 [dB] to 51 [dB] would double the noise again. Thus, at 51 [dB],

noise is eight times as loud as it is at 33 [dB], . . . a fairly common level

of noise to be found in or near many of our residential neighborhoods.

Eaton Exh. 1 at 13-14.

•

 

Mr. Sargis stated:

[B]ecause of how the noise regulations in Illinois work, allowing one

peaker plant in an area can make it easier for a second, nearby facility to

meet applicable noise standards, due to increased ambient noise levels

caused by the first facility. This problem is especially apparent because

of the areas identified as “preferred” from the standpoint of energy

9 Nighttime hours are from 10 pm to 7 am, local time. Daytime hours are from 7 am to 10

pm, local time. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.101.

10 “A-weighting measurements attempt to compensate for the fact that generally a sound with a

given decibel level at a higher frequency seems louder to the human ear than a sound with the

same decibel level at a lower frequency. * * * For a given sound measurement, decibels are

either subtracted or added at various frequencies using a scale, then the weighted values for

each frequency ‘are combined to give a single A weighted decibel level for the sound.’”

Charter Hall Homeowner’s Association v. Overland Transportation System, Inc. (October 1,

1998), PCB 98-81, slip op. at 22 (quoting Noise Pollution Control Regulations (July 31,

1973), R72-2, slip op. at 11).

---

38

supply lines. Sargis Exh. 1 at 9.

•

 

There is little, if any, State enforcement of Illinois’ noise standards. Eaton Exh. 1 at

12; Sargis Exh. 1 at 9.

•

 

Mr. Eaton asserted:

[A]t present, there is inadequate IEPA noise enforcement. Illinois’ noise

regulations are virtually unenforced by IEPA, contrary to the purposes of

the Act. Greg Zak, IEPA’s noise director, is a one-man noise section

and is the only person reviewing this area . . . . [T]here is virtually no

ability to enforce these regulation[s], an inability which is due to

insufficient staffing and budget restrictions which preclude properly

dealing with this critical area. Eaton Exh. 1 at 12.

4. Local Noise Standards and Enforcement

•

 

Local noise regulations are often out-dated or inconsistent with the State standards.

Sargis Exh. 1 at 9.

•

 

Local enforcement mechanisms are unlikely to be effective. Sargis Exh. 1 at 9.

B. Peaker Plant Noise Emissions

1. Information from State Government

Mr. Greg Zak is the Noise Advisor for IEPA. He has 28 years of experience

measuring noise, controlling noise, and assessing the effects of noise on people. His

experience includes industrial, commercial, residential, urban, rural, and construction noise.

Tr.1 at 130-131; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 1. Mr. Zak stated:

Peaker plants pose a greater threat than other types of State regulated facilities

with respect to noise pollution because the gas turbine engine used in peakers is

one of the most powerful (loudest) noise sources in the U.S. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1,

Zak at 3.

He also testified that the noise emissions that must be contained and neutralized in the peaker

plant are “tremendous” and that the potential for releasing “great amounts of sound power

poses a greater threat than most other types of State regulated facilities.” Tr.1 at 132.

Mr. Zak, referring to the Board’s noise regulations, stated that noise emissions from

peaker plants may be characterized as “nuisance noise (35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102),

---

39

broadband noise (35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.102(b)), and tonal noise (35 Ill. Adm. Code

901.106).” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 3. He stated that “very low frequency (rumble) noise”

is associated with large gas turbines. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 4. He added that uncontrolled

peaker plant noise emissions may significantly depress neighboring property values. Tr.1 at

136.

Mr. Zak stated that IEPA has received no noise complaints regarding existing peaker

plants. However, “with the new influx of permit applications and peakers coming on-line,

we’re keeping an eye on that to see if we do have a . . . problem.” Tr.1 at 170; IEPA Grp.

Exh. 1, Zak at 6. He stated that peaker plant noise emissions can greatly exceed the limits that

the Board requires in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102, 901.102(b), and 901.106. IEPA Grp. Exh.

1, Zak at 3. These exceedences can occur if the noise emissions are not controlled in the

peaker plant housing, or the land buffer or setback needed is not considered when choosing a

site. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 3.

2. Information from Local Government

The DuPage County Department of Development and Environmnetal Concerns retained

Versar, an environmental consultant, to review environmental issues related to peaker plants.

DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 1. Versar stated that peaker plant noise may be a concern. It

explained that combustion turbines are “very similar to the technology of jet air craft engines,

and some, but not all, of the combustion turbines used in peaker plants are derived from

aircraft designs.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 16. Versar cautioned, however, that there

are limits to comparing peaker turbines and jet aircraft engines:

This can lead to inappropriate comparisons between peaker plants and aircraft

noise, which are generally not true. A jet aircraft engine provides power by

exhausting a high-velocity gas stream for propulsion, and capturing only enough

energy from the exhaust to compress inlet air. A ground-based turbine, such as

a peaker plant, extracts much more energy from the exhaust to perform the

mechanical work of generating electricity. A peaker plant will also have much

larger inlet and outlet structures, that will reduce noise both indirectly and by

design. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 16.

Nevertheless, Versar noted that the “residual noise from the turbine train may be

significant to surrounding residential, commercial and industrial neighbors, and a peaker plant

may have other components that can generate noise.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 16.

Versar identified the following potential noise sources at peaker plants:

•

 

Air inlet structures;

•

 

Combustion turbine casings;

---

40

•

 

Air exhaust from stacks;

•

 

Fans from exhaust vents;

•

 

Auxiliary compressors, pumps, and other equipment;

•

 

Transformers; and

•

 

Cooling towers. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 17.

Versar noted that impulsive sounds, which are “generally associated with activities that are

intermittent, usually with a duration of one second or less, such as drop forging or blasting,

. . . would not generally be anticipated to be located at a peaker plant . . . .” DuPage County

Board Exh. 1 at 35.

Versar provided information on six proposed peaker plants, five in Illinois and one in

Maryland:

Developer Location Size (MW) Noise Analysis Results

Indeck Libertyville 300

•

 

From modeling, facility will

produce 47-51 dB(A) at

nearby residences (1,200

feet), 41-45 dB(A) at 2,400

feet

•

 

Existing noise is higher with

43-61 dB(A) in residential and

57-69 dB(A) in commercial

areas

Reliant Aurora 950

•

 

From modeling, facility will

produce 55-57 dB(A) at

nearest residential receptors,

60 dB(A) at nearest

commercial receptors

•

 

Plant is expected to operate

only during the day

Constellation West Chicago 300

•

 

From modeling, facility will

not meet Board noise

standards without noise

suppression

---

41

•

 

Applicant committed to install

noise suppression to meet the

standards

•

 

No quantitative data

Reliant Cecil County,

Maryland

1,125

•

 

From modeling, facility will

produce 58-64 dB(A)

•

 

Existing daytime noise

measured at 38-59 dB(A)

•

 

Plant is expected to operate

only during the day

Dynergy East Dundee 398

•

 

No pre-approval analysis

identified

•

 

Most recent Village resolution

(for expansion to 398 MW)

required the developer to fund

noise measurements to verify

that the constructed project

complies with Illinois and

Village noise requirements

Reliant Shelby County 328

•

 

Applicant stated that plant

would meet 70 dB

(represented as the “county

standard,” but not further

explained) at the property

boundary

•

 

Applicant stated that the plant

would meet 61 dB(A)

(represented as the “state

standard”) at the property

boundary and emit 55-56

dB(A) at the nearest residence

DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 17-18.

3. Information from Industry

---

42

Indeck’s Mr. Erjavec asserted that the lack of any noise complaints to IEPA about any

of the approximately 100 peaker plants in Illinois supports the proposition that peaker plants do

not pose a unique threat, or a greater threat than other types of State-regulated facilities, with

respect to noise pollution. Tr.1 at 241; Indeck Exh. 1, 2. He added that when the McHenry

County Board toured a peaker plant operated by the local utility in Springfield, one of the

county board members standing 1,500 feet from the peaker plant said: “We didn’t hear

anything. The corn was louder than the plant.” Tr.1 at 24; Indeck Exh. 2, PowerPoint. Mr.

Erjavec offered further anecdotal evidence that residents near peaker plants find the plants to

be quiet. Tr.1 at 241-242; Indeck Exh. 2, PowerPoint.

 

An independent environmental assessment report on Indeck’s proposed 300-MW

facility in Libertyville concluded that the proposed facility, with careful design, should be able

to meet the Board’s nighttime numeric standards. Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 36, 38.

Indeck’s consultant, Acentech, Inc. (Acentech), identified the major noise sources at the

proposed facility:

•

 

Combustion turbine/generators (noise radiated from the air inlet, exhaust, and casing);

•

 

Transformers;

•

 

Cooler fans;

•

 

Equipment (

e.g.

, combustion turbine compartment) and building ventilation systems—

in-line or rooftop exhaust fans and fresh air inlet openings; and

•

 

Miscellaneous equipment (

e.g.

, motors, pumps, air compressors, and fuel gas flow

valves, regulators, and heaters). Indeck Exh. 2, Representative Impact Documentation,

App. 2.0 at 7-8.

4. Information from Citizens

Midwest Environmental Assistance Center (MEAC), a consultant, performed noise

analyses for several groups (including a homeowners association) concerned about Indeck’s

proposed peaker plant in Libertyville. MEAC conducted noise monitoring at several locations

in Libertyville and Grayslake to determine area background noise levels:

The results of that monitoring . . . show background nighttime sound levels in

Prairie Crossing as low as 35 dB(A) on weekdays and as low as 33 dB(A) on

weekends, and daytime background levels on weekends also ranging as low as

35 dB(A), levels typical of quiet suburban environments with little industrial

activity.

---

43

Octave band background sound level measurements for residential areas near the

proposed Indeck plant site show background noise levels in the lowest regulated

frequencies (31.5-125 [Hertz]) as low as 35-40 dB during both daytime and

nighttime hours. These levels are more than 30 [dB] below [State] nighttime

noise regulation limits of 69 dB, 67 dB and 62 dB for these frequency bands. A

30 dB increase would increase by over 30 times the low frequency background

sound found in this area. Readings in other octave bands, although less

pronounced are nevertheless also very significant. PC 6, MEAC report at 1.

Based on its monitoring data and its review of Acentech’s noise studies on the proposed peaker

plant, MEAC concluded:

[I]t is anticipated that noise from the proposed Indeck plant would totally replace

the existing background sound climate in areas including portions of Prairie

Crossing, Bull Creek and Harris Road residential areas, during weekend

daytime and nighttime hours, and would be the major contributor to the noise

climate during weekday nighttime hours.

* * *

The existing, characteristic quiet suburban residential nighttime and weekend

daytime background sound conditions will be replaced by the steady noise

source propagations of the proposed 300 MW turbine generator peaker plant.

* * *

      

If the noise levels predicted were only 5 to 10 dB over the existing background

sound level at Prairie Crossing, Bull Creek or the nearest Libertyville resident,

then some moderate noise abatement procedures might possibly create a

reasonable new noise condition. But when the existing background sound levels

are to be violated by 15, 20 or 25 to 30 dB at various octave band frequencies,

even the casual observer is bound to conclude that this type of large industrial

facility belongs in [an] . . . industrial area . . . . PC 6, MEAC report at 1, 10,

12.

C. Noise Control Methods

1. Information from State Government

Mr. Zak of IEPA testified that primarily four strategies are used to control noise

emissions from peaker plants: air intake silencers; turbine enclosures; air exhaust silencers;

and setbacks. First, properly designed and installed combustion air intake silencers reduce

intake noise by approximately 99.999 to 99.99999% in the average peaker plant. Second, a

---

44

hardened acoustic enclosure completely containing the gas turbine similarly controls noise

radiated from the turbine’s outer shell. Third, properly designed and installed combustion gas

exhaust silencers reduce exhaust noise by approximately 99.9999 to 99.999999%. Tr.1 at

132-134; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 3-4.

The fourth noise control strategy is a setback or land buffer. Mr. Zak explained that

the size of the setback should correspond to the distance needed to ensure that noise emitted

from the peaker plant will have dissipated so as to meet State standards at the peaker plant’s

property line. He added, therefore, that the setback distance needed would depend upon the

level of noise control included in the peaker plant’s initial design. Mr. Zak explained that the

peaker plant should control the setback land to eliminate the concern of residential

development moving in next to the peaker plant. Tr.1 at 133-134; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at

4.

Mr. Zak also testified about a new noise control technology called “active noise

cancellation.” Tr.1 at 133. This technology has the potential to abate “much of the very low

frequency, rumble type sound associated with large gas turbines . . . .” However, the

technology is “unproven . . . when used in low cost applications.” Tr.1 at 133. He added that

active noise cancellation could be considered “when the more traditional silencer technology is

not able to satisfactorily address the rumble problem.” Tr.1 at 133-134.

2. Information from Local Government

In its report prepared for the DuPage County Department of Development and

Environmnetal Concerns, Versar indicated that peaker plant noise usually can and must be

accounted for in designing the project. Means of noise control include buffer zones, inlet and

outlet silencers, noise-reducing housings for the turbines and other mechanical equipment, low-

speed fans, structural barriers, and prohibiting nighttime operation. DuPage County Board

Exh. 1 at 16-17.

The Lake County Board’s legislative program for the 2000 session of the Illinois

General Assembly provides that the county board would seek to directly sponsor legislation

that would have the State establish a siting process, similar to the current landfill siting

process, that would review noise emissions from peaker plants among other factors. Lake

County Exh. 5 at 8.

3. Information from Industry

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck stated that because peaker plants may be called upon to operate

at any time and because sound attenuation cannot be increased at night, peaker plants are

designed to meet the Board’s nighttime numeric noise standards at all times. Tr.1 at 240-241.

He added that peaker plants are meeting Illinois noise standards through buffer zones or

designed noise silencing measures. Tr.1 at 242; Indeck Exh. 1, 2. Noise silencing measures

---

45

include mufflers and enclosures of turbine areas. The enclosures are made of acoustical

material. Tr.1 at 266.

Mr. Erjavec testified that if a peaker plant has a large buffer zone, the plant “may not

need to put quite as much acoustical treatment onto [the] facility.” Tr.1 at 268. Likewise,

engineered noise controls may eliminate the need for a large buffer zone. Tr.1 at 268. Mr.

Greg Wassilkowsky, another Manager of Business Development for Indeck, testified that the

University of Illinois has gas turbines located across the street from a hospital. Tr.1 at 268-

269.

Indeck budgeted approximately six to eight million dollars for acoustical treatment on

its proposed 300-MW peaker plant in Libertyville. Tr.1 at 269; Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at

38. Indeck’s consultant, Acentech, identified the major noise sources at the proposed facility

and the corresponding noise control measures proposed:

Noise Source Noise Control Measure

Combustion turbine/generators (noise radiated

from the air inlet, exhaust, and casing)

•

 

Air inlet noise—parallel-baffle muffler in

the inlet ductwork to each unit;

acoustically-lined inlet duct or lined inlet

plenum

•

 

Turbine exhaust noise—contain in the

ductwork by thermal/acoustical lagging or

enclosures; reduce as it travels through the

exhaust flow path by a muffler typically

located in the ductwork between the

turbine and the stack or within the stack

•

 

Casing-radiated noise and noise from

ancillary equipment—enclose in acoustical

structure

Transformers

•

 

High-efficiency transformers designed to

have lower internal magnetic flux densities

and lower magnetostrictive forces

•

 

Acoustical barrier walls or partial or full

enclosures around transformers

Cooler fans

•

 

Specify reduced-speed, low-noise fans

•

 

Locate units to take advantage of shielding

that other structures provide

---

46

•

 

Barrier walls near the units

Equipment (

e.g.

, combustion turbine

compartment) and building ventilation

systems—in-line or rooftop exhaust fans and

fresh air inlet openings

•

 

Lower-speed, reduced-noise fans

•

 

Mufflers or acoustical lining in the air

paths

•

 

Locate units to take advantage of shielding

that other structures provide

•

 

Barrier walls near the unit

Miscellaneous equipment (

e.g.

, motors,

pumps, air compressors, and fuel gas flow

valves, regulators, and heaters)

•

 

Specify noise limits

•

 

Install inside facility buildings or in

smaller, acoustically-designed enclosures

or lagging

Indeck Exh. 2, Representative Impact Documentation, App. 2.0 at 7-8.

Independent consultants for Libertyville stated that Indeck proposed a “serious design

effort to mitigate potential noise impact” and that a typical noise control budget for that type of

facility is two million dollars. Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 38. The independent consultants

concluded that public concerns over Indeck’s proposed noise control measures were not

warranted:

While it is true that low frequency noise is more difficult to mitigate than high-

frequency noise, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be controlled at all. For

example, a reasonably substantial building envelope can contain much of the

equipment noise inside the building, and barriers can provide a noise reduction

of at least five [dB] at any frequency, provided they block the line of site

between the noise source and receiver. In addition, silencers such as [Indeck’s]

planned 80-ft long exhaust silencer can provide substantial noise reductions,

even at low frequencies. Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 38.

D. Noise Pollution Regulation

1. Pre-Construction Permitting or Review

a. Information from State Government. Mr. Zak of IEPA stated that to avoid

problems with peaker plant noise, “compliance reviews (on paper) are essential to insure future

compliance” with the Board’s noise regulations. IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 5. He stated that

turbine manufacturers could provide a substantial amount of noise information. IEPA Grp.

Exh. 1, Zak at 6. He added that “before full operation is started, the peaker should show that

---

47

it can be operated at or below the nighttime noise limits (35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.102(b)).”

IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 5. Mr. Zak stated that “if a peaker plant could not show

compliance through a demonstration, the problems could be resolved at the beginning.” IEPA

Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 5. He also testified that “the design and noise compliance review of that

design are the most important project events.” Tr.1 at 135. Illinois regulations do not require

noise permits or any pre-construction design review for compliance with the numeric noise

standards. Tr.2 at 239; IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 5-6; IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Att. 20.

Mr. Zak testified that “[d]esigning and adding on noise compliance after the plant is

built may be next to impossible.” Tr.1 at 135. He explained that “[u]pgrading costs would be

extremely high, if not prohibitive, for added noise control.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 6. He

noted that incorporating noise control measures during the design stage of a peaker plant is

much less expensive than adding those measures after the plant is operational. Tr.1 at 137.

Because “[s]ilencing equipment comprises the bulk of the peaker plant and is carefully tuned to

match the turbine,” in some instances “it may be less expensive to install a whole new unit

than try to upgrade the old one.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 6.

IEPA stated that for several years it has had an “internal mechanism for insuring a

demonstration of compliance with numeric noise standards” as part of the land permit

application process for gas turbines used to generate electricity from landfills. PC 9 at 34.

IEPA also stated that its air construction permit application does not require noise pollution

information. IEPA added:

Assuming adequate funding and personnel (neither of which exist today), if

information addressing noise pollution were submitted with air construction

permit applications, [IEPA] could coordinate the permit review process by

routing the noise portion of the air permit application to the appropriate

personnel. PC 9 at 34.

b. Information from Local Government. Developers of peaker plants often have noise

modeling performed before construction to assess potential peaker plant noise against

applicable noise standards. The noise analyses can involve a complex evaluation of current

and proposed noise sources, noise control measures, and neighboring land uses. DuPage

County Board Exh. 1 at 17-18. Versar, the consultant for DuPage County, cautioned however

that existing noise regulations “limit actual noise impacts from facilities once they are

constructed . . . .” “Before-the-fact analyses” might be requested as part of the zoning

application process, but they are not “automatically required.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1

at 44.

Five of the six peaker projects that Versar reviewed for the DuPage County Department

of Development and Environmental Concerns, including four projects in Illinois and one in

Maryland, provided “pre-approval noise analysis . . . with supporting material for either the

state air permit or a specific local approval.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 44. However,

---

48

Versar noted that the methodologies and level of detail in proposing noise control measures

varied considerably among the studies. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 44.

 

Versar stated that DuPage County may wish to consider:

[R]equiring applicants to conduct noise analyses and/or fund analyses to be

conducted by the County, either as part of its Conditional Use approval process

for electric power generating stations or on an ad hoc basis with individual

applicants, assuming that sufficient authority exists in current ordinances.

DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 45.

Mr. Paul Hoss, Zoning Manager with the DuPage County Department of Development

and Environmental Concerns, stated that DuPage County is considering amending its zoning

ordinance and standards because of concerns over peaker plants and similar industries.

Specifically, DuPage County is considering requiring these petitioners seeking conditional or

special use approval to “submit a noise-modeling study, which indicates that the facility will be

in compliance with DuPage County noise requirements” and to use “noise controls sufficient to

meet county noise requirements.” DuPage County Board Exh. 3 at 4. Mr. Hoss elaborated:

Requiring the petitioner to submit noise modeling before and as part of the

special use process and before any permits are issued. This is a similar type

process I understand that the developer of peaker plants has to go through for air

emissions, submitting . . . air modeling so that the IEPA can review what the

impacts—potential impacts could be. We’re proposing to do a similar type

modeling with respect to noise to ensure or to, at least, glean some information

as to whether or not these facilities will comply at least in the model with county

noise ordinances.

 

* * *

[E]ssentially what we would be looking for is to have them show that the peaker

plant operating at full capacity would meet the county noise standards for

nighttime and daytime at the property line and we would want to make sure that

their model shows that, in fact, it would meet that requirement. Tr.1 at 400-

401, 406.

Mr. Hoss explained that DuPage County would need to retain a professional consultant to

review noise studies because the county staff lacks the expertise to assess them. Tr.1 at 413-

414.

Versar also expressed concern over how facilities modeled to show compliance with

daytime but not nighttime standards would be restricted to daytime operations:

---

49

[T]he noise analysis for Reliant facilities in Aurora, IL and Cecil County, MD

indicate noise levels in compliance with daytime limits, but not with applicable

nighttime standards. This is apparently considered not to be a problem because

the plants will operate during daytime peaks. However, it is not clear how the

plants may be restricted from nighttime operations that would apparently exceed

allowable levels.

* * *

Each analysis [for the five projects] indicated that the respective project would

comply with state and local noise limits during daytime. Results for only one

project indicated compliance with nighttime levels based on reported analysis,

and that was for residences at a considerable distance, not at property

boundaries. Project sponsors may be focusing on daytime operations as the

most likely scenario, but it was not apparent that nighttime operations would be

precluded. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 17, 44.

c. Information from Industry. Mr. Erjavec of Indeck testified that peaker plant designs

account for Illinois noise regulations because the plants must comply with the regulations even

though noise compliance is not part of the permitting process. Tr.1 at 283.

When Indeck proposed a 300-MW peaker plant in Libertyville, Indeck guaranteed that

it would “limit noise from [its] facility to levels that are 2 [dB] below the applicable Illinois

nighttime regulation [at each octave band for sound emitted from Class C to Class A land] at

the nearest residence, located 1,200 feet northwest of the proposed site.” Indeck Exh. 2, ERM

report at 35, 57, Representative Impact Documentation. Indeck’s consultant, Acentech,

predicted the noise levels from the proposed plant based measurements of existing ambient

noise and on “vendor and Acentech octave-band data for the major plant noise sources, and on

estimates of sound attenuation (loss) with distance that considered geometrical spreading of

sound [based on the standard sound propagation model for hemispherical spreading from a

point source] as well as some atmospheric absorption of sound [at higher frequencies (1,000

hertz and above)].” Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 36-37, 56, Representative Impact

Documentation. For the Libertyville proceeding, Acentech provided noise impact predictions,

but not evidence of actual measured results from a similar facility. Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report

at 57.

MEAC, a consultant for several groups, including a homeowners association, raised

concerns about Acentech’s predictions. Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 35-36. Independent

consultants for Libertyville concluded the following about the predictions of Indeck’s

consultant:

While it is true that noise levels can increase under downwind or temperature

inversion conditions, this increase is largely due to the reduction or elimination

---

50

of sound attenuation due to ground absorption, foliage or shielding by barriers.

Because [Indeck’s consultant’s] estimates do not include any of these effects, we

believe that their predictions fairly represent “worst case” sound propagation

conditions. Beyond that, however, there appears to be little margin of safety in

[Indeck’s consultant’s] estimates to achieve the noise limits guaranteed by

Indeck. Thus, while we believe that Indeck can meet [its] noise guarantee, we

also believe that this will not be easy and will require careful design. Indeck

Exh. 2, ERM report at 36.

The independent consultants recommended that a Libertyville permit require Indeck to

pay for an acoustical engineer to conduct “a noise compliance test on behalf of [Libertyville] to

ensure that all noise limits are met prior to allowing the facility to initially go ‘online’ (revenue

operation).” Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 39. The consultants also recommended that

Libertyville require that similar compliance tests be performed annually “after the start of

operation to ensure that the repeated start-up and shut-down of the peaking plant has not

affected the performance of the acoustical treatments.” Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 39.

d. Information from Citizens. Mr. Mark Sargis, an attorney representing a group of

DuPage County citizens concerned about the effects of peaker plants, emphasized the

importance of considering noise concerns during design and not relying solely on enforcement:

[T]he reality is that noise control is best addressed in the design phase of a

facility, because it is difficult if not impossible to retrofit such equipment after

construction to correct noise violations. In addition, it is important to accurately

and correctly measure ambient noise before a facility goes on-line.

Furthermore, public policy is better served by encouraging appropriate design

before construction, rather than rely on enforcement mechanisms for violation

that are, at best, uncertain and, at worst, ineffective.

* * *

At a minimum, the Board and [IEPA] should consider policy and/or regulations

that would require an applicant for certain types of large facilities, including

peaker plants, to submit detailed information about ambient noise and projected

noise emissions as part of the review of a construction or development permit.

In this way, concerns about noise impact on nearby property can be more

effectively addressed in the design phase of a facility, rather than leading to

noise complaints after construction, at which time additional controls may be

difficult, ineffective, or much more expensive.

* * *

Although [reviewing noise impacts during design] may require some minimal

---

51

additional [IEPA] personnel, the incremental cost seems a small price to pay to

address what is becoming a significant issue, particularly for peaker plants.

Sargis Exh. 1 at 7-9.

Mr. Sargis also provided his views on the legal authority for requiring noise analyses as

part of the permitting process:

On occasion, [IEPA] has reviewed projected noise emissions for individual

projects on a case-by-case basis in the context of other permit programs in the

Bureaus of Land and Air. Despite this practice, it is my understanding that the

Air Bureau, for example, will no longer consider noise emissions in the context

of air permit applications. I agree that examination of noise issues should not be

conducted on an

ad hoc

basis. However, there is clear authority for Illinois to

consider noise emissions in any permit proceeding, and it makes sense to do so

for facilities such as peaker plants that have potentially significant noise impacts.

Section 39 of the . . . Act states that “it is the duty of [IEPA] to issue . . . a

permit upon proof by the applicant that the facility, equipment, [etc.] will not

cause a violation of [the] Act or of regulations hereunder.” 415 ILCS 5/39.

Under that authority, [IEPA] should not issue a permit, even an air permit, if

there is a question of whether that facility would violate applicable standards for

other media, including noise.

11 In other words, [IEPA] need not necessarily

establish a separate permit program for noise emissions to be able to fulfill its

statutory duty under the act. The State

could

, however, implement a permit

program for certain categories of facilities with reasonable application fees that

would help fund the program. Sargis Exh. 1 at 8.

 

Mr. Eaton, an attorney representing several groups (including a homeowners

association) concerned with peaker plants, stated that the failure to assess noise emissions as

part of IEPA’s permitting process is a “problem that needs to be rectified, either by including

noise as a part of [the existing] permitting process, or requiring a separate noise permit for

new installations.” Eaton Exh. 1 at 12.

2. Illinois’ Current Noise Regulations

a. Information from State Government. IEPA stated that it is unaware of any concerns

with peaker plant noise emissions that warrant changing the Board’s current numeric noise

standards. IEPA accordingly found no merit in changing the requirements so that the more

11 Citing to Section 39(a) of the Act, Director Skinner stated that one of the important

objectives of IEPA is to ensure that “[n]o permit shall be issued for the construction of a

peaker plant unless the permit applicant proves that the facility will not violate existing

environmental laws and regulations.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Skinner at 2-3.

---

52

stringent nighttime numeric standards apply all weekend, for example. IEPA emphasized that

local units of government can impose more stringent noise requirements as appropriate for the

respective communities. PC 9 at 33-34. IEPA also noted that the Board’s numeric standards

already account for background noise,

i.e.

, ambient noise. PC 9 at 33 (citing 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 900.103(b), which requires that measurements and measurement procedures “correct or

provide for the correction of such emissions for the presence of ambient noise . . . .”).

Mr. Zak did state that the Board’s numeric noise standards do not address low

frequency noise or vibrations (infrasonic sound) that could be associated with peaker plants.

He explained that the lowest frequency in the Board’s numeric noise standards is 31.5 hertz;

“infrasonics typically occur below 20 hertz.” Tr.1 at 199. IEPA stated, however, that the

“issue of low frequency noise, specifically infrasonics, (

i.e.

, vibrations) does not lend itself to

a numerical standard at this time.” PC 9 at 33.

Mr. Zak suggested that if a peaker plant emitted this low frequency sound, and it

became a problem for residents, the residents could bring an enforcement action before the

Board alleging nuisance noise. Nuisance noise allegations could be corroborated with

measurements. Mr. Zak concluded that, for enforcement and health purposes, Illinois’ current

noise regulations are adequate to address any noise problems that peaker plants may create

because those regulations include not only numeric standards, but also the nuisance noise

prohibition. Tr.1 at 198-200; Tr.2 at 238-239; PC 9 at 33 (citing the nuisance noise

prohibition at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102).

b. Information from Local Government. Versar, the consultant for DuPage County,

concluded that the State’s numeric noise standards are “quite stringent” and “appear to be an

ample basis for ensuring acceptable environmental impacts from peaker plants.” DuPage

County Board Exh. 1 at 45. Versar also referred to peaker plant applicant Reliant’s

assessment of the stringency of Illinois’ standards: “allowable impacts to residential land

would be on the order of a residential air conditioner at a distance of 15 feet.” DuPage County

Board Exh. 1 at 44.

c. Information from Citizens. Mr. Eaton asserted that the State’s noise standards

“need to be revisited, and new emission levels consistent with background noise levels in quiet

residential neighborhoods need to be taken into account.” Eaton Exh. 1 at 14. Mr. Eaton

acknowledged that it may be “impracticable for these [peaker] plants to meet noise levels in the

low 30s.” He asserted, however, that if that is the case, the plants “simply should not be built

in locations where they will be disturbing people.” Eaton Exh. 1 at 14. He concluded:

These and other new facilities need either to be required to comply with far

more stringent noise requirements than the present regulations require, or to

find a location where they can comply with those regulations, where

background noise levels are not so extremely low as is the case with a number

of these proposed sites. Eaton Exh. 1 at 14.

---

53

3. Enforcement of Illinois Noise Regulations

a. Information from State Government. Presently, the State does not enforce Illinois

noise regulations. Instead, IEPA provides technical assistance to persons who wish to bring

enforcement actions. Individual citizens as well as local authorities may bring actions before

the Board to enforce Illinois’ noise regulations. Tr.2 at 238-239; IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, Att. 20.

b. Information from Local Government. Mr. Hoss of the DuPage County Department

of Development and Environmental Concerns testified about how DuPage County would

address a facility causing a noise problem:

What we currently do, for instance, if a peaker plant were operating and there

were a noise problem, we would hire . . . a noise expert to determine if they

were in violation. If they were, we would actually file a complaint with the . . .

Board on that violation and prosecute it in that manner. Tr.1 at 407.

Versar, DuPage County’s consultant, cautioned however that “[w]ith the exception of East

Dundee, where applicant funding for post-construction noise monitoring was required, it is not

now clear what resources would be available to analyze or enforce compliance.” DuPage

County Board Exh. 1 at 45.

c. Information from Citizens. Mr. Eaton described the lack of any State enforcement

of its own noise standards as an “intolerable state of affairs . . . due to a lack of manpower.”

Eaton Exh. 1 at 13. He urged that, “[a]t a minimum, having the IEPA check sources for

noise, and having IEPA regulate noise emissions by enforcing their standards through a permit

process that has some teeth in it, would be a major step forward.” Eaton Exh. 1 at 13.

4. Noise Regulation in Other Jurisdictions

a. Information from State Government. Mr. Zak’s review for noise regulations in

other states revealed that 43 states lack noise regulation, six states have very little noise

regulation, and Illinois is “more active than the others in regulating noise.” Tr.1 at 135; IEPA

Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 5; IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 19. Mr. Zak stated that “[p]eaker noise is not

regulated by the other [USEPA] Region 5 states [

i.e.

, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,

Wisconsin], California, Texas, or New York.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Zak at 5. Mr. Zak

cautioned, however, that local governments in these states may regulate noise by ordinance.

Tr.1 at 135. He added that “peaker noise is not regulated on the federal level.” Tr.1 at 136.

Mr. Zak testified that local governments might be reluctant to adopt stringent noise

standards for peaker plants:

---

54

I think the reluctance on some of the local government, though, is the cost of the

personnel and the instrumentation in order to enforce that type of noise

regulation . . . . [T]he instrumentation is expensive and typically the salaries are

also expensive for the folks that can take those kind of measurements and

enforce those kinds of regulations. Tr.1 at171.

b. Information from Local Government. The Versar report, prepared for the DuPage

County Department of Development and Environmental Concerns, compared the noise

standards of DuPage County with those of the State:

[T]he allowable daytime and nighttime sound impacts on residential property

compare completely. For business property, the County allowable sound levels

make no distinction between the land designations for the source of the sound

and are only equivalent to the impact levels on Class C Land. Thus, the

business and residential property allowable sound levels are less stringent than

the State’s. The impulsive limits set by the State are slightly more stringent than

the County limits, which also make no distinction between the land designation

for origination of the sound. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 35.

Because of concerns over peaker plants and similar industries, DuPage County is considering

replacing its noise standards for all property uses with the State standards. Tr.1 at 398, 407;

DuPage County Board Exh. 3 at 3.

DuPage County is also considering requiring that the facility’s “operational area” be

“at least 1,000 feet from all parcel boundary lines that adjoin any zoning district.” DuPage

County Board Exh. 3 at 4. DuPage County would define “operational area” as “all facilities

used to generate the services (i.e.: towers, cooling equipment, exhaust or venting equipment

and structures housing such equipment)” and exclude items, such as wires and pipes, used to

transport the power off-site. DuPage County Board Exh. 3 at 4; Tr.1 at 401. In addition,

Versar noted that the DuPage County ordinance lacks any provision “to oversee enforcement

of the noise limits, except based on noise complaints.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 35.

The Versar report refers to Maryland residential noise standards of 65 dB(A) for

daytime and 55 dB(A) for nighttime. The same report refers to the Village of East Dundee

passing a resolution requiring a peaker plant developer to fund post-construction noise

measurements to verify that the plant complies with Illinois and village noise requirements.

The Versar report also identifies a noise standard of “70 dB (not further defined)” for Shelby

County. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 18.

c. Information from Industry. A group of independent consultants prepared a report

for Libertyville, assessing the anticipated environmental impact from Indeck’s proposed 300-

MW peaker plant. The report described several local noise ordinances. Libertyville’s zoning

code has a noise performance standard that “prohibits a facility from producing noise that is

---

55

detectable at any location beyond the facility’s lot.” Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 35.

Libertyville’s consultants concluded that Libertyville’s noise standard “is not realistic, since

audibility is rarely, if ever, used as a criterion for noise acceptability.” Indeck Exh. 2, ERM

report at 36. The Illinois communities of Gurnee, Island Lakes, and Lincolnshire have noise

ordinances with octave-band limits that are as much as 10 [dB] more stringent than the

corresponding State noise standards. Indeck Exh. 2, ERM report at 35.

d. Information from Citizens. Mr. Eaton, an attorney representing several groups,

including a homeowners association, recommended that local governments be formally

apprised, through State guidelines, that local governments have the “right and ability to impose

more stringent noise requirements than does the State.” Eaton Exh. 1 at 17; Tr.1 at 900. He

described how local regulations might be structured:

[S]uch noise regulations may well be appropriately tied to a plant’s proximity to

residential areas. It might thus be possible, and we believe this should be

encouraged, for an IPP to construct a plant more cheaply, with less expensive

noise attenuation, if it is located further away from residential locations, and is

located, we would suggest, in a more appropriate location such as a brownfield

and/or an existing industrial site where the noise levels are already high and the

potential impact on residences is low. Eaton Exh. 1 at 17.

12

V. WATER QUALITY

In this portion of the Report, the Board summarizes information from the record on (1)

wastewater, (2) wastewater regulation, (3) stormwater runoff, and (4) wetlands.

A. Wastewater

Mr. Steve Nightingale of IEPA’s Bureau of Water and others discussed wastewater

generated from peaker plants, which varies depending on the type of peaker plant. Waste

streams identified in permit applications submitted to IEPA include one or more of the

following: evaporative cooling water blowdown; cooling tower blowdown; blowdown from a

water treatment system; reverse osmosis waste discharge; demineralization blowdown; filter

backwash; chiller system water; various drains; and a small amount of sanitary waste.

Pollutants expected to be in the wastewater (excluding sanitary wastewater) depend on the type

of wastewater generated. They include: total suspended solids; total residual chlorine; pH;

temperature; total dissolved solids; calcium; magnesium; iron; manganese; sulfate; chloride;

oil and grease; water conditioning chemicals for biofouling and corrosion control; and

12 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

56

radioactive isotopes (in some areas). Mr. Nightingale did not address isotopes because

isotopes are under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety. Tr.1 at 141-

142; IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale 6-8; DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 19; Indeck Exh. 1, Att. 1

at 7.

DuPage County claimed that peaker plant blowdown is fairly innocuous. It has

enriched minerals from the supply water and residuals of water treatment chemicals. The

treatment chemicals “could include cooling tower biocides . . . or chlorine.” The chlorine

could affect a receiving water if it is not discharged to a publicly owned treatment works

(POTW). DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 19-20.

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck stated that wastewater from peaker plants is minimal. Incoming

water may have to be softened before it goes into the evaporative coolers, and the softening

equipment may have to be backwashed occasionally. The backwash is sent to local treatment

plants. Both Mr. Erjavec and DuPage County agreed that most of the water sent to the

evaporative coolers evaporates, so the wastewater stream coming out is much less than the

incoming water stream. Indeck’s proposed plant for Libertyville generates about 10,000

gallons of wastewater per day. Tr.1 at 239, 280-281; Indeck Exh. 1, Att. 2 at 33; DuPage

County Board Exh. 1 at 9.

Mr. Nightingale of IEPA said that although peaker plants may generate a wastewater

that contains a thermal component, the quantity would be small compared to other types of

power plants. Tr.1 at 142; IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale at 7-8. Mr. Erjavec of Indeck stated

that thermal discharges from simple cycle peaker plants are practically nonexistent and that

there are no thermal discharges from the peaker plants that Indeck is proposing. Tr.1 at 281-

283.

Mr. Erjavec said that there may be thermal discharges from an open cycle plant. Open

cycle plants do not send wastewater to a sewer. These plants use surface water and then send

it back out again. He was not sure if IEPA still permits open cycle plants. Tr.1 at 281-282.

Mr. Erjavec stated that there are thermal discharges from combined cycle plants. Heat is

generated from cooling the steam that runs through turbines of a co-generation facility. This

heat results in a thermal discharge. Tr.1 at 282-283.

IEPA expects that all sanitary wastewater will be discharged to a sanitary sewer. Tr.1

at 142; IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale at 8. Indeck estimated that sanitary waste flow from its

Libertyville peaker plant would have been about 300 gallons per day. Indeck Exh. 1, Att. 1 at

6-7, Att. 2 at 33.

The Village of Libertyville’s consultants reported that Libertyville could have handled

the wastewater discharges from the proposed Indeck facility and that the discharge would not

have a significant impact on Libertyville’s wastewater tratment plant. Indeck Exh. 1, Att. 2 at

34. A subsurafce septic system for a peaker plant is an unlikely treatment option due to the

---

57

large amount of wastewater generated. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 46.

B. Wastewater Regulation

IEPA Director Skinner said that some peaker plants require a permit from IEPA’s

Bureau of Water. Tr.1 at 54; IEPA Exh. 1, Skinner at 3. Mr. Nightingale of IEPA’s Bureau

of Water pointed out that not all peaker plants produce wastewater. He testified primarily

about wastewater discharge permitting for simple cycle peaker plants. Tr.1 at 138-139; IEPA

Exh. 1, Nightingale at 2. Mr. Nightingale said that wastewater from simple cycle peaker

plants is either subject to the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit program or the State construction and operating permit program, depending

on how wastewater is disposed. IEPA administers both programs. Wastewater routed to

surface waters would be addressed by IEPA’s NPDES permitting program. Tr.1 at 139; IEPA

Exh. 1, Nightingale at 2; DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 46.

Mr. Nightingale said simple cycle peaker plants that dispose of their wastewater to

surface waters will be required to obtain an NPDES permit in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 122

and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309. Permit limitations that apply to peaker plant discharges are the

water quality limitations from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302, the effluent limitations found in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 304, or other technology-based limitations based on “Best Professional Judgment”

at 40 C.F.R. § 125.3. Because there is no steam generated at a simple cycle peaker plant,

surface discharges are not subject to any federal industrial categorical effluent guideline

discharge limitation. Thus, limits are established on a permit-by-permit basis. In addition,

any pollution control equipment installed for reducing pollutants in the wastewater below

NPDES permit limitations will be subject to a construction authorization in accordance with 35

Ill. Adm. Code 309.154. Tr.1 at 139-140; IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale at 2-3, 5.

Mr. Nightingale testified that peaker plants discharging to a POTW will be required to

obtain a State construction or operating permit in accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 309.

Permit limits are established by the local POTW pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 307 and federal

general pretreatment regulations at 40 C.F.R. 403. Tr.1 at 140-141; IEPA Exh. 1,

Nightingale at 3, 6.

Mr. Nightingale reported that engineers in IEPA’s Bureau of Water review permit

applications based on the federal and State regulations described above. The engineers also

establish numeric limitations, mixing zones, and zones of initial dilution. The engineers

perform a nondegradation evaluation in accordance with the draft nondegradation policy.

13

Engineers will also verify that the discharge location is not to a stream that has been identified

as an impaired water for certain pollutants of concern in accordance with Section 303(d) of the

13 The Board is currently reviewing IEPA’s new antidegredation proposal, which could replace

the nondegredation proposal. See Revisions to Antidegredation Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.105, 303.205, 303.206 and 106.990-106.995, R01-13.

---

58

Clean Water Act. Once engineers have set technology limitations, they will include in the

draft permit the more stringent of the water quality or technology-based effluent limitations.

The draft permit also includes appropriate monitoring and verification requirements. Tr.1 at

140; IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale at 4.

Mr. Nightingale said that IEPA then provides notice of the draft permit to the public,

the Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), municipalities, and IEPA field offices. There is an

opportunity to comment and request a public hearing to address concerns about the draft

permit. If no hearing is requested, IEPA reviews all comments, makes appropriate changes,

and issues a permit. IEPA schedules a hearing if a request is made and there is significant

public interest. Before taking final action on the permit, IEPA staff evaluates comments made

at hearing and received during the comment period. Tr.1 at 140-141; IEPA Exh. 1,

Nightingale at 4-5.

Director Skinner said that IEPA has recently instituted a policy of holding hearings for

every peaker plant construction permit. Tr.1 at 58-59. He also said that IEPA is now

conducting annual inspections at peaker plants (instead of the old practice of inspecting every

three years). IEPA maintains its policy of conducting inspections at any regulated facility

(including peaker plants) if it receives complaints. Tr.1 at 57, 174.

As of July 20, 2000, IEPA’s Bureau of Water had received eight permit applications

from peaker plants. One application each had come from Ford, Perry, Madison, Shelby,

DuPage, and Vermilion counties. Two applications had come from Will County. Two of the

eight plants were discharging to surface waters and six were discharging to POTWs. As of

July 20, 2000, IEPA had granted five of the permits for the peaker plants discharging to

POTWs. Wastewater flows in the applications ranged from 25,000 to 361,000 gallons per

day. IEPA Exh. 2, Att. 18.

Mr. Nightingale said, for regulatory purposes, some combined cycle plants could also

be considered peaker plants. In addition to the regulations outlined in his testimony, combined

cycle plants are also subject to the federal effluent guideline discharge standards in 40 C.F.R.

423. IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale at 3.

Mr. Nightingale said that IEPA’s Bureau of Water does not anticipate any adverse

environmental impact on the waters of the State from peaker plant discharges, provided those

plants receive appropriate permits and follow the limitations set in the permits. IEPA Exh. 1,

Nightingale at 8.

DuPage County has incorporated the Board’s regulations by reference. DuPage County

Board Exh. 1 at 36. All industrial facilities in DuPage County must submit a Spill Prevention

and Slug Control Plan to address accidental discharges to POTWs. DuPage County also

regulates connections to public sewers. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 36-37.

---

59

C. Stormwater Runoff

DuPage County stated that stormwater effects from a peaker plant will be similar to

those of any other industrial or commercial facility. Lubricating oil, transformer insulating

oil, or other maintenance chemicals could contaminate surface runoff if not managed well.

One advantage that peaker plants have over other industrial or commercial facilities is that the

quantity of stormwater may be smaller. There are no large buildings, and the only other

impervious surfaces are pads for some of the equipment. The quality of stormwater from a

peaker plant built on a brownfield would depend on pre-existing conditions. DuPage County

Board Exh. 1 at 21.

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck stated that “[s]tormwater is captured on site [and] . . . sent to

storm sewers after the retention just as you would do with any other development.” Tr.1 at

239. Mr. Nightingale of IEPA testified that, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 122, permits for

stormwater discharges during construction activities would be required if more than five acres

are disturbed. IEPA Exh. 1, Nightingale at 3. DuPage County regulates stormwater runoff

through its County Code. All developments must have a Stormwater Management Permit.

DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 37.

---

60

D. Wetlands

DuPage County stated that the United States Army Corps of Engineers has resources

and experience to address concerns related to peaker plants sited on or near wetlands. DuPage

County Board Exh. 1 at 42. DuPage County’s Stormwater Ordinance provides for wetland

delineation, mitigation, and possible participation in a wetlands banking program. DuPage

County maintains that its ordinance is sufficient. DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 42.

14

VI. SOLID WASTE

In this part of the Report, the Board provides a summary of record information on solid

waste that peaker plants generate and how the waste is regulated. Mr. Todd Marvel of IEPA’s

Bureau of Land commented:

Peaker plants may generate various types of waste that must be managed in

accordance with waste disposal regulations found in Subtitle G of Title 35 of the

Illinois Administrative Code. By comparison, peaker plants are no different

than any other generator of the following types of waste in terms of how the

waste is regulated. Any municipal waste generated at the facility, such as

general office waste, must be sent to a facility permitted to treat, store or

dispose of municipal waste. Any special waste generated at the facility must be

managed properly in accordance with the regulations applicable to the specific

type of special waste generated. * * * All special waste is subject to the

requirements for making a hazardous waste determination under 35 Ill. Adm.

Code Section 722.111. Tr.1 at 147-148; IEPA Exh. 1, Marvel at 1.

Mr. Marvel said that special waste is regulated in certain ways depending on whether it

is hazardous or non-hazardous special waste. Requirements for generators of hazardous

special waste become increasingly stringent as the amount of waste generated per month

increases. Mr. Marvel estimated that most peaker plants will generate 100 kilograms of waste

or less per month and will be classified as conditionally-exempt small-quantity generators

(CESQGs). Tr.1 at 149; IEPA Exh. 1, Marvel at 2.

Mr. Marvel testified that CESQGs are primarily regulated pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 721.105(g). CESQGs must complete a proper hazardous waste determination for each

special waste generated at the facility. Hazardous waste generated must be accumulated in

tanks or containers. Finally, these wastes must be sent to a permitted hazardous waste

treatment, storage, or disposal facility. Tr.1 at 149; IEPA Exh. 1, Marvel at 2. If a peaker

14 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

61

plant meets these requirements, IEPA Bureau of Land would not require the plant to secure a

permit. Tr.1 at 150.

Mr. Marvel mentioned that peaker plants may be located on brownfields. IEPA can

provide information on reported releases at brownfields in addition to information on

documented cleanup activities. Tr.1 at 150; IEPA Exh. 1, Marvel at 2-3.

15

VII. WATER QUANTITY

In this portion of the Report, the Board summarizes record information on the potential

impact that simple cycle and combined cycle plants may have on the quantitiy of the State’s

waters. The Board first summarizes information on this subject from State government, then

information from local government, and then information from industry. Lastly, the Board

provides a summary of concerns raised by State legislators and citizens regarding water

quantity.

A. Information from State Government

1. IEPA

Mr. Romaine of IEPA explained how peaker plants use water. As air used in the

turbine becomes denser, more air can be pushed through the turbine, which allows more fuel

to be burned. As a result, power output will be higher. Air becomes denser as it gets colder,

but peaker plants are generally needed most on hot days. Thus, simple cycle turbines used in

peaking plants usually have devices to cool the air going into the turbine. IEPA Exh. 1,

Romaine at 8.

There are several different types of air cooling systems. In the simplest system, water

is injected directly into the incoming air. The air becomes colder by evaporative cooling.

This system requires clean demineralized water to prevent excess build up of scale or erosion

of the blades in the air compressor. In more advanced systems, water may also be injected

into the air compressor. The inlet air may also be cooled indirectly by using cooling coils. In

this case, water may still be used in an open cooling tower where evaporation of water

dissipates the heat generated by a refrigeration unit. A dry cooling system may also be used.

IEPA Exh. 1, Romaine at 9.

Another approach to boost power output is to inject clean water or steam into the

burners or to inject steam after the burners. These techniques increase the gas flow through

15 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

62

the power turbine and thus increase its power output. IEPA Exh. 1, Romaine at 9.

Mr. Richard P. Cobb is Manager of the Groundwater Section of IEPA’s Bureau of

Water. Mr. Cobb described the Illinois Water Use Act of 1983 (Water Use Act) (415 ILCS

45/1 (1998)),

 

which abolished the rule on absolute ownership of groundwater. The Water Use

Act, to resolve groundwater conflicts and mitigate potential shortages, established a

“reasonable use” rule. However, Mr. Cobb said that most Illinois court decisions have

interpreted “reasonable use” for groundwater as being any use except for malicious or wasteful

purposes. IEPA Exh. 1, Cobb at 2-3.

Mr. Cobb reported that Governor Ryan, by Executive Order, established the Water

Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC). The WRAC will focus on water resources and

water use, including the effects of peaker plants. The WRAC will also examine economic and

social issues related to other power facilities and water use. The WRAC is to present

recommendations to Governor Ryan.

16 IEPA Exh. 1, Cobb at 3.

2. DNR

Dr. Brian Anderson is the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Analysis

(OSRA) within DNR. He testified that there is little State regulation of water withdrawals

from surface waters and groundwater. However, withdrawals from Lake Michigan are

regulated. Dr. Anderson asked Dr. Derek Winstanley, Chief of the Illinois State Water Survey

(ISWS), a division of the OSRA of DNR, to summarize some of the water quantity issues

relating to peaker power plants. Tr.1 at 151-152; DNR Exh. 1 at 2.

Dr. Winstanley stressed that peaker plant water use and

 

the impacts on groundwater

resources should be examined in the context of overall demand for water, including demand

from domestic use, municipal use, agricultural use, and other industrial uses. Tr.1 at 153.

The water demands from peaker power plants vary widely, depending upon how the

plants are designed and used and how many days they operate. Dr. Winstanley studied simple

cycle plants producing from under 100 MW to about 1,000 MW and operating from 20 to 90

days per year. They use approximately 0.07 to 2 million gallons of water per day. Annually,

the range would be about 1.4 to 180 million gallons of water per year. Tr.1 at 153-154; DNR

Exh. 2 at 2.

16 To assist the WRAC in its work, Chairman Manning, who sits on the WRAC on behalf of

the Board, forwarded a letter to the WRAC on October 25, 2000, attaching summaries of

information on water use from these inquiry hearing proceedings and on the regulatory

frameworks that other Midwestern states have with respect to water use. Chairman Manning’s

submittal is attached as Appendix G.

---

63

Dr. Winstanley also examined combined cycle plants, which range from 500 to several

thousand MW of electricity and are intended to operate almost continuously. These plants

consume about 5 to 20 million gallons of water per day. Annually, this would equal

approximately 1.5 to 6 billion gallons of water per year. Thus, simple cycle plants consume a

fraction of 1% to about 3% of the water that typical base-load combined cycle plants use. Tr.1

at 154-155.

For comparison purposes, Dr. Winstanley examined municipal water use in

Champaign-Urbana, which has a population of about 120,000. Champaign-Urbana currently

consumes about 20 million gallons of groundwater per day, which translates into an annual use

of about 7.3 billion gallons per year. In comparison, a simple cycle plant would use the same

amount of water as 25 to 3,000 people. Tr.1 at 155.

Dr. Winstanley then discussed sustainable yield (also called potential yield) for

groundwater. Basically, sustainable yield is the amount of groundwater that can be maintained

over the long term so that it can be used both by the current population and by future

generations. Determining sustainable yields is a complex exercise involving variables, such as

rainfall, recharge rates, and geology. Currently, there is not an accurate estimate of

sustainable yield for most Illinois aquifers. Better scientific data and modeling capabilities are

needed for more accurate estimates, but these studies are costly. Tr.1 at 155-156.

Dr. Winstanley thinks that there should be studies on public values regarding water use,

coupled with studies on the amount of water used. Tr.1 at 156. Water quality is also an

important parameter. Natural variations of chemicals and minerals in the groundwater

throughout Illinois can effect the operation of and discharge from peaker plants. Tr.1 at 156-

157.

Dr. Winstanley stressed that aquifers must be paramount in an analysis of groundwater.

Groundwater typically is found in discrete aquifers, and aquifers usually transcend political

jurisdictions. Individual communities cannot solve groundwater problems in the long term.

Illinois would benefit by establishing “comprehensive regional water resource planning and

management” that would entail planning based on aquifer boundaries. Winstanley also

stressed that surface and groundwater use (

i.e.,

aquifers, river basins, and water sheds) must

be considered together. Tr.1 at 157-158.

Dr. Winstanley pointed out that the current law of “reasonable use” does not impose

quantitative restrictions on water use. DNR Exh. 2 at 4. Although new laws and regulations

may be necessary, Dr. Winstanley maintained that the State should encourage local

communities to solve their own water resource problems. Tr.1 at 159. Dr. Winstanley cited

an “excellent model” of water resource planning in Central Illinois. The Mahomet Aquifer

extends from the Illinois River across to Indiana and lies underneath 15 counties. Recently,

the local communities in those 15 counties formed the Mahomet Aquifer Consortium. The

Consortium is planning for future use of water resources by better characterizing and managing

---

64

the aquifer. Tr.1 at 159.

Dr. Winstanley expressed concern about other aquifer systems that transcend political

boundaries. Limiting groundwater withdrawals in one community will not solve groundwater

supply problems if other communities do not limit withdrawals. Water supplies in the

Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer underneath Northeastern Illinois may be strained if too many

simple cycle and combined cycle facilities use the aquifer. DNR Exh. 2 at 3.

Dr. Winstanley also reported that allocating water from Lake Michigan is constrained

by Supreme Court decree and international agreement. The State has the power to limit

diversions of water from large rivers to maintain minimum base flows. However, the State

does not have this power over moderate-sized streams, and large diversions could adversely

affect aquatic habitat, wastewater assimilation, and recreation. DNR Exh. 2 at 3-4.

B. Information from Local Government

1. Will County

Mr. Michael Shay, Senior Planner for Will County, is responsible for long-range

planning. He testified that one of Will County’s biggest concerns with respect to peaker plants

is its aquifer reserve water of about 66 million gallons per day. This reserve is Will County’s

water supply. Mr. Shay said that there is also some concern about the quantity of river water.

His research indicates that combined cycle plants use five to 12 million gallons a day per

facility and that simple cycle plants use roughly a million gallons a day per facility. Mr. Shay

is very concerned that simple cycle plants in Will County will be converted to combined cycle

facilities in the future. It would only take a few combined cycle facilities to use up the entire

reserve water capacity for Will County. Tr.1 at 707, 709-710.

Mr. Shay added that Will County is the fastest growing county in Illinois. He

predicted that problems may arise as simple cycle plants and combined cycle plants compete

with a growing population for reserve water capacity. Tr.1 at 710-711. Mr. Shay is also

concerned about the manner in which a combined cycle facility collects its water. The facility

would drop a well into an aquifer and pull it up at a rate that creates a drawdown. The level of

the aquifer would drop in the shape of a reverse cone with a radius of six miles, a 300-foot

drawdown at the point of the well, and a 35 to 50-foot drawdown at the six-mile radius. If this

drawdown were to occur across the county, thousands of residential, industrial, and group

wells might fail. Tr.1 at 711.

Chairman Manning and Board Member Kezelis asked Mr. Shay where he obtained the

figures regarding drawdown and the amount of water used by simple cycle plants and

combined cycle plants. Mr. Shay replied that the information on aquifers and reserve capacity

came from the ISWS, including the ISWS Web site. Mr. Shay said that the numbers on the

water demand at simple cycle and combined cycle plants came “from the industry itself.” For

---

65

example, Will County officials talked to engineers who have built a simple cycle unit in

Elwood and are planning two additional simple cycle units there. The engineers said that if the

three simple cycle units all became combined cycle units, water use at Elwood would total 16

million gallons of water per day. Tr.1 at 719-721, 729-730.

Board Member McFawn asked Mr. Shay if Will County is only concerned about the

drawdown from simple cycle and combined cycle plants, as opposed to drawdown from other

industries. Mr. Shay replied that simple cycle and combined cycle plants are the only concern

now. It is the only industry Will County knows of that draws such a large amount of water in

a short period of time. To illustrate his point, Mr. Shay said that three combined cycle

facilities, each with water needs of 16 million gallons of water per day, could use up all of the

water in the Fox River if their intakes were located in St. Charles. Tr.1 at 719.

Board Member Kezelis asked Mr. Shay how Will County is currently addressing the

potential water problem. Mr. Shay replied that Will County has passed an initial set of

regulations to govern water use. Will County is in the process of researching a second set of

regulations. Mr. Shay speculated that the second set would “prohibit the use of aquifer water

for electric generation.” Tr.1 at 713. Board Member Girard asked Mr. Shay if the probable

prohibition on using aquifer water would also apply to facilities inside a municipality in Will

County. Mr. Shay replied that the prohibition would not affect municipalities. Tr.1 at 721-

722.

Board Member Flemal asked Mr. Shay how government should regulate water use.

Mr. Shay said that he would favor statewide or national regulation of drawing water from

wells. He said that aquifers do not fit jurisdictional boundaries and local authorities are

“played against each other by the private industry.” Tr.1 at 724.

2. Lake County Board

Ms. Bonnie Thomson Carter is the Lake County Board Commissioner for the 5th

District and Chair of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Tr. 1 at 778; Lake

County Exh. 3 at 1.

  

Ms.

 

Carter received a call in 1998 from two of her constituents. They

were concerned about a base-load power plant to be located near their homes in the Village of

Island Lake. Ms. Carter learned about the potential adverse effects of the base-load plant, and

the biggest environmental concern was the projected water use. The plant would have used

four to eight million gallons of water per day, which, according to the ISWS, is greater than

the demand for the entire village. Tr. 1 at 792-793.

Although the Island Lake base-load plant proposal was withdrawn, Ms. Carter

remained concerned about water use in simple cycle plants. Even though water use is not as

great with simple cycle plants, they can easily be converted to combined cycle plants. Tr. 1 at

794, 798-799.

---

66

In February 1999, Ms. Carter and her constituents met with two State legislators, IEPA

Director Skinner, and other officials from IEPA and DNR. Ms. Carter learned that no State

agency had authority to limit groundwater withdrawals. Ms. Carter said that the Water Use

Act and the Water Authorities Act do not give counties the authority to regulate groundwater

withdrawal. She also said that IEPA officials were “frustrated” that they could not consider

the regional impact of peaker plants in reviewing construction applications. Ms. Carter was

“surprised and shocked” that each bureau at IEPA did its own review of peaker plant

applications without consulting each other. She was pleased that IEPA’s review process for

peaker plants was subsequently lengthened from 90 days to 180 days. Tr. 1 at 794-795, 800.

Ms. Carter asked the Board to consider the cross-jurisdictional water use problems that

multiple peaker plants could cause if sited in close proximity to each other. “The water

consumed in one village not only limits the supply of its immediate neighbors, but impacts the

supply of further villages, commercial wells and deep community wells which draw from the

same aquifer.” If the Island Lake proposal had been approved, the taxpayers of the Village of

Wauconda would have incurred expenses of $1 million to reset the pumping well head in two

municipal wells. These taxpayers had no voice during the application review. Tr. 1 at 796-

797.

Collecting and studying groundwater data is an expensive process. It would cost

several million dollars to determine a sustainable level of water use in Lake County. Local

communities cannot reasonably shoulder the burden of paying for collection and analysis of

groundwater data. However, communities need this data to make informed water use

decisions. Tr. 1 at 797.

In August of 1999, Dr. Winstanley of DNR reported that Lake County will maximize

its water use around 2030. Water demand is up, but water supplies are limited. Northern

Illinois has already reached the maximum sustainable level of water use in deep bedrock, and

water from Lake Michigan is already fully allocated. Tr. at 797-798.

Research indicates that excess withdrawal of groundwater can decrease water

availability for streambeds, wetlands, and lakes. The quality of the existing water may be

threatened, which may harm animal and plant life. Tr. at 798.

Ms. Carter wants to share her expertise with all relevant State agencies to make proper

decisions about the power industry. She said that construction applications should indicate

whether proposed power plants are simple or combined cycle. In addition, simple cycle plant

applicants should indicate if they intend to convert a simple cycle plant to a combined cycle

plant. A regional group with regulatory authority should review applications. Ms. Carter said

that the Lake County Board has recommended legislation that regulates aquifer drawdowns.

She wants the Sate to determine the meaning of “reasonable use.” As a member of the

WRAC, Ms. Carter said that the WRAC was scheduled to address these issues and make

recommendations to Governor Ryan in December 2000. Tr. 1 at 799, 800-801.

---

67

Ms. Carter stated that the Board does not have the authority to regulate groundwater

withdrawal. However, she asked that the Board institute a moratorium on all pending and new

applications for peaker and base-load plants until government agencies have addressed the

negative consequences of peaker plants. Tr. 1 at 800.

Ms. Carter realizes that, besides power plants, residential, commercial, and other

industrial development will burden water sources. She also realizes that electricity may be in

short supply. However, she is not convinced that locating peaker plants in Lake County will

alleviate a possible power shortage there. Tr. 1 at 799.

3. Lake County Public Water District

Mr. Daniel J. Kucera, an attorney with Chapman & Cutler, testified on behalf of the

Lake County Public Water District. The District has a peak demand of six million gallons of

water per day, and an average demand of between three and four million gallons of water per

day. Tr.1 at 761, 776.

 

Mr. Kucera said that combined cycle plants, which use steam to generate a portion of

electrical output, can be expected to use more water than small simple cycle plants, which use

water only for cooling. Tr.1 at 761-762. He was concerned that generally there is no

permitting process or regulatory oversight of water use by peaker plants. IEPA acknowledged

that it currently has no responsibility over peaker plant water use. Tr.1 at 763.

Mr. Kucera said that a public water supply would need permission from DNR to supply

a new peaker plant with Lake Michigan water. Diverting and allocating water from Lake

Michigan is limited by statute. See 615 ILCS 50/1

et seq.

Tr.1 at 763-764. Mr. Kucera

claimed that Lake Michigan water is perceived to be superior to groundwater and that there is

a great demand for domestic use of Lake Michigan water. Accordingly, he thinks that the use

of Lake Michigan water in peaker plants should be limited or prohibited. Tr.1 at 763-765.

Mr. Kucera testified about the problems with water from sources other than Lake

Michigan. Water from aquifers in Northern Illinois often has high levels of iron, manganese,

and other constituents that raise aesthetic issues and that can require costly treatment facilities.

Water from deep wells often contains radium or alpha particles. In parts of Northern Illinois,

water levels are lower in aquifers, and some deep wells have been mined into salt water. Tr.1

at 763, 765.

Mr. Kucera pointed out that groundwater is a limited resource in certain portions of the

state, especially in parts of Central Illinois. He stated that aquifers in Northern Illinois have

also been diminished. Tr.1 at 765-766.

Mr. Kucera testified that the Water Use Act provides that the rule of “reasonable use”

---

68

applies to groundwater withdrawals, but it does not provide for permitting or regulation of

reasonable use. Section 5 provides that the owner of a proposed well expected to withdraw

over 100,000 gallons of water per day must notify the local soil and water conservation

district. The district must notify other units of local government whose water systems may be

impacted. The district must also review the impact and make findings. However, the Water

Use Act provides no enforcement mechanism, and it does not apply to areas of Illinois near

Lake Michigan. Tr.1 at 763-764.

Mr. Kucera wants regulatory oversight of water use at peaker plants because they use

upwards of several million gallons of water per day. The potential effects of the drawdown

upon aquifers and groundwater should be evaluated as part of the permitting and regulatory

process. Tr.1 at 765. Mr. Kucera also wants peaker plant withdrawals from surface water to

be evaluated. He claimed that the withdrawals could reduce the resource value of the water

body for domestic water supply, aquatic life, or recreation. Tr.1 at 766.

Mr. Kucera shared his concerns about decommissioning peaker plants, specifically with

respect to accountability. He asked who would be responsible for resulting excess capacity in

the local public water supply, for capping a peaker plant's wells, and for leakage from a plant

that contaminates a local utility’s or residential well’s source of water. Mr. Kucera thinks that

there should be a decommissioning procedure to protect water sources and the public. At the

very least, there should be a state-administered trust account, funded by peaker plants, to

provide remediation and restoration funds if owners abandon plants without protecting water

resources. Another possibility is to require owners of peaker plants to post a surety bond or

letter of credit. Tr.1 at 767-768.

Mr. Kucera expressed concern about siting clusters of plants. Currently, siting of

electric generating plants is a local issue. If some recent proposals are approved, multiple

peaker plants could be sited in close proximity to each other. Mr. Kucera is concerned about

the impact of multiple drawdowns on an aquifer at one location. Tr.1 at 768-769.

Mr. Kucera is also concerned about the lack of regulation for cross-connections. As an

example, he described a peaker plant that is partially served by a public water supply and

partially served by the plant’s own wells. The public water supply may provide water for

domestic use and fire protection. The peaker plant uses its own wells for process water.

However, the public water supply might also provide backup if the wells are out of service. A

local government may not have the staff or the skills to monitor for cross-connections at peaker

plants. Mr. Kucera asked who would regulate cross-connections and protect the public water

supply. Tr.1 at 770-771.

Mr. Kucera is aware that the WRAC may consider water issues related to peaker

plants, but he does not know if the WRAC is soliciting public comments. Therefore, Mr.

Kucera asked that the Board include water use issues when reporting to Governor Ryan on

peaker plants. Tr.1 at 771.

---

69

In conclusion, Mr. Kucera suggested that Illinois adopt a regulatory oversight

requirement (including permitting) for process water used by all electric generating facilities.

Tr.1 at 771.

 

C. Information from Industry

1. ComEd

Ms. Arlene A. Juracek and Mr. Steven T. Naumann of ComEd asserted that during the

planning and development of any peaker plant, they carefully assess the possibility of water

contamination and the affect on water supply. They noted that the WRAC will examine peaker

plants’ impact on water resources and water use. ComEd Exh. 1 at 13-14.

2. MWIPS

Ms. Greenberg of MWIPS asserted that the simple cycle technology currently used for

peaker plants typically places a small demand on water resources. As a basis of comparison,

she noted that one peaker plant in Kane County used no more than 2.5 million gallons of water

per year. In contrast, an average golf course in the Great Lakes region uses almost 31 million

gallons of water per year. She recommended that the Board consider the WRAC report on

water supply. MWIPS Exh. 1 at 7.

3. Indeck

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck testified that water consumption depends on humidity and

temperature. Little water will be used on high humidity days. Maximum consumption occurs

on hot and dry days. He noted that a typical 300-MW plant uses a maximum of 80 gallons of

water per minute, and an average of about 40 gallons per minute. Eighty gallons per minute is

equal to 11 homes watering their lawns at the same time. Tr.1 at 222, 226, 238-239.

4. CPI

Mr. Jirik of CPI testified that his company’s plant currently takes its non-contact

cooling water from the Sanitary and Ship Canal for use in its corn wet milling operation. The

cooling water is then returned to the Canal. CPI plans to use its existing cooling water flow to

supply cooling water to its new co-generation operation. After servicing the co-generation

operation, CPI will return the water to the Canal as is does now. The co-generation operation

will not increase CPI’s current water withdrawal and will not result in any new discharges.

Tr.1 at 630, 634.

D. Concerns of State Legislators and Citizens

---

70

1. State Legislators

State Senator Terry Link testified that regulators must address peaker plants on a regional

basis because peaker-related issues, such as air quality, water supply, natural gas supply, noise,

and taxes are cross-jurisdictional. Tr.1 at 751-753. State Representative Susan Garrett testified

that she is concerned about water supplies from aquifers. Tr.1 at 754-755. Ms. Sally Ball

testified on behalf of State Representative Lauren Beth Gash. Ms. Ball said that Representative

Gash’s constituents are understandably worried about the impact of peaker plants on air quality

and water supplies. Tr.1 at 757.

2. Citizens

NRDC commented that “many of these proposed single cycle combustion turbine

projects maybe converted in the future to combined cycle . . . . A single cycle generating unit

may not tax available water resources for example, but its conversion to combined-cycle

operation could create significant allocation quandaries for the host community.” PC 109 at 6.

NRDC stated that “[s]ingle cycle combustion turbines are not particularly water intensive,

consuming less than 100,000 gallons per day,” but “[w]hen firing distillate fuel oil, water

consumption rises to up to 1,000,000 gallons per day when steam injection is employed to

reduce NOx emissions. In comparison a 1,000 MW combined cycle natural gas-fired

combustion turbine relying upon wet cooling consumes approximately 7,000,000 gallons per

day.” PC 109 at 7.

Ms. Zingle of LCCA testified that some peaker plants use vast amounts of water. She

stated that water supply is not a local issue. She further alleged that the proposed peaker plant

for Zion is going to use as much as the entire city of Zion uses. Tr.1 at 507, 516. Ms. Cathy

Johnson, Vice Chair of the Rural and City Preservation Association, testified that the proposed

standards in McHenry County barely consider water. She argued that it is ridiculous that a

new peaker plant only has to report how the water it uses affects the area within one-quarter

mile of the plant. Tr.1 at 545, 552.

Ms. Connie Schmidt, a representative of River Prairie Group of the Illinois Sierra

Club, testified that, despite living in the incorporated town of Warrenville in DuPage County,

she and her neighbors have wells and septic tanks on their properties. Groundwater use and

disposal of the groundwater after it has been used are realistic concerns in her area. Tr.1 at

463, 467. Mr. Mark Goff, also a resident of Warrenville testified that he lives 2,000 feet from

a proposed peaker plant site. He is also concerned about the effect on his well water. Tr.1 at

468-469.

Ms. Stark of CARE testified that the aquifers located beneath the closed Texaco

Refinery in Lockport are joined together. The aquifers are the primary source of municipal

water in Lockport and she is concerned that a local peaker plant could use thousands of gallons

---

71

of water per day.

17 Tr.1 at 644-646, 654.

VIII. RESTRUCTURING AND ITS IMPACTS

In this part of the Report, the Board summarizes the information from the record on the

electric industry restructuring and its impacts. Specifically, the Board summarizes (1)

introductory information on the resructuring or deregulation of the electric industry, (2)

information on the history of deregulation, (3) information on the environmental effects of

deregulation, (4) information on the impacts of deregulation on local zoning, (5) information

on current and future retail and wholesale energy markets, (6) information on the supply and

demand for electric power, (7) information on the need for peaker plants in Illinois, (8)

information on importing and exporting power generated by peaker plants, (9) information on

Illinois’ lack of a statewide energy plan, and (10) information on how peaker plants affect

electric transmission and distribution systems.

A. Introduction

Providing electricity to retail customers can be broken down into the generation,

transmission, and distribution of power. The electricity that a power plant generates is

typically transmitted over a national power grid at high voltages from generating plants to

substations and distributed at lower voltages to homes and businesses. Tr.1 at 17.

Historically, regulated and vertically integrated monopolies provided all three services as a

single bundled product to customers. State commissions approved siting of generators based

on the need for power and rates for utilities according to their cost of providing the service.

ComEd Exh. 1 at 5.

Federal and State laws have largely restructured the electric industry over the last ten

years. As Mr. Christopher Zibart of ComEd noted, the federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 and

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) directed utilities to “transmit power for

others pursuant to a tariff, on an open access, non-discriminatory basis, assuring that new

generating sources will be able to sell and move their power.” PC 164 at 5. Executive

Director Fisher of the ICC stated that “excess power generated by a company in one area [of

the electric grid] may . . . be sold and delivered over transmission lines to a company in

another area for [resale] to customers in that utility’s service territory.” Tr.1 at 17.

Introducing the “wholesale wheeling” of electricity spurred states to further restructure

the electric industry. Several states, including Illinois, are beginning to move away from

monopoly-based market structures, towards much more competitive market structures. Tr.1 at

17 For summaries of aditional public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

72

16. In 1997, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law to freeze 1996 electric rates until

2004 and to progressively deregulate the electric industry. See 220 ILCS 5/8-503. Under the

new structure, a “customer’s generation, transmission, and distribution may be supplied by

different companies.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 5. In the next few years, Illinois residents will be

able to choose between different retail suppliers of electricity. “Generation, in particular, is

becoming a competitive industry, and market forces [of] supply and demand will set energy

rates.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 5. According to ComEd, “a free market for electric generation will

lead ample capacity at reasonable prices.” PC 164 at 1.

A number of factors are attracting new generators to provide power during peak

demand hours. Those factors include deregulation, rising energy costs, increased demand for

power, the relatively low cost of constructing modern gas-fired turbines per kW of generating

capacity, the speed of construction and operation, the closure of base-load electric plants, and

the adversity to building new transmission lines. These new peaker plants use combustion

turbines that the ICC states cost less to run, are easier and faster to build and operate, and can

use natural gas, which until lately, has been a less expensive source of fuel. Tr.1 at 25-27;

ICC Exh. 1 at 3-5.

With the shift from regulation to a market-driven field, the only remaining controls are

environmental protection and local zoning procedures. Reliant stated that Illinois must balance

the benefits of meeting the State’s demand for electricity with “continued progress in cleaning

up the air, protecting its water supply, avoiding noise pollution and protecting property values

in communities where these plants are located.” PC 1 at 5. ComEd stated that changing the

regulatory system will impact the market for power generators, and could adversely affect the

retail price of electricity. ComEd Exh. 1 at 5. IERG stated that “each obstacle or cost added

to constructing peakers will, at best, be reflected in the cost of electricity and, at worst, will

deter any decision to construct [generating plants].” Tr.1 at 309-310. “The decision could

leave Illinois without necessary electric capacity.” Tr.1 at 309-310.

Illinois deregulation has shifted the burden of siting generators from the ICC to local

zoning boards. Tr.1 at 246; PC 107 at 6. State and federal changes attract construction of

non-utility generators to satisfy the peak demand for electrical power. ICC Exh. 1 at 5. While

the ICC had and continues to have siting authority for utility generators, the new IPPs do not

fall under the certificate program. The shift in the trend towards building peaker plants has

largely left municipal zoning boards to decide whether to place plants in their area. ComEd

Exh. 1 at 8; PC 107 at 6; Tr.1 at 868. Several groups testified that the municipal boards do

not have the ordinances, experience, or resources to properly address the concerns surrounding

peaker plants. Tr.1 at 386, 389-390, 436-437, 460, 511, 868, 916-917 and 1,021-1,022.

Citizens testified that both municipalities and residents must expend a large amount of money

in either reviewing or opposing the new plants, and may face legal fees if the IPP decides to

sue the municipality for voting not to site the plant. Tr.1 at 521-522, 550, 972.

The electric industry largely believes that Illinois must construct peaker plants to match

---

73

the growing rate of demand. The companies claim the shrinking reserve margins for electric

power and the 1998 wholesale market price spikes show the need for increased supply of

electricity. Tr.1 at 324. According to ComEd, Ameren, and MWIPS, placing peaker plants

within a utility’s control area increases the system’s reliability. Tr.1 at 324, 340. Mr. Earl

Struck, President of the Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives (AIEC), stated that

“[s]ufficient generation capacity is absolutely essential to fulfilling the responsibility of

providing adequate, reliable energy at an affordable price.” PC 111 at 3.

Many citizens question whether the explosive number of requests to build peaker plants

is excessive compared to the growth of peak-demand for electricity. Tr.1 at 390, 494-495,

502-503, 510, 542, 557-559, 701. They are concerned that companies will build plants that

will export power to other states at the detriment of the health and environment of local

communities. Tr.1 at 390, 502-503, 542 and 559. Citizens also expressed concern that the

proliferation of the peaker plants cuts against programs that use alternative fuel resources.

Tr.1 at 496 and 649. They feel that we can use several viable forms of alternative fuel

resources to help meet the growth in peak demand for electricity. Tr.1 at 496, 649.

The reduced ICC regulation of the industry also leads to a lack of statewide oversight of

the supply and demand of electric power. Because the ICC no longer can require utilities to

provide reports on the generation, import and export of power, it cannot continue to play a

formal role in maintaining an energy portfolio for the State. Moreover, ComEd claimed that

MAIN, which provides regional oversight of electric power generation and transmission, is

being phased out on the federal level in favor of new transmission organizations. Tr.1 at 38-

39. Illinois currently has not designated a government body to formally track statewide supply

and demand of electric power. Tr.1 at 779-780; Tr.2 at 61.

Many citizens expressed concern that peaker plants sited in Illinois would export power

to other states. Tr.1 at 390, 502-503, 542, 780, 1,024. Power companies and other experts

disagreed about whether exporting power was feasible or profitable and whether the

transmission and distribution systems in Illinois can handle the proposed growth in generating

capacity. Groups testified that parts of the transmission grid are outdated and hinder exporting

power to other states, such as Wisconsin. Tr.1 at 598, 706-707; Tr.2 at 50; Lake County Exh.

4 at 7-8. Local residents may resist updating the system because of their concerns about

potential health effects from the lines. Tr.1 at 975.

B. History of Deregulation

For most of the 20th century, natural monopolies held the United States electric

industry. As Executive Director Fisher of the ICC explained:

Government agencies designated stockholder-owned companies to provide

electric service to the public within specific service territories.

---

74

* * *

Each and every day, excess power generated by a company in one area may, in

fact, be sold and delivered over transmission lines to a company in another area

for resell to customers in that utility’s service territory.

For the most of the last century, these transactions were primarily made by

regulated entities in the interst of security and reliability of the grid. Tr.1 at 17-

18.

State and federal governments jointly regulated the electric industry. FERC regulates

the wholesale and interstate transmission of power. Tr.1 at 18. States appointed public utility

commissions, such as the ICC, to regulate power distribution from electric utilities to the end-

user customer. Tr.1 at 18.

Under the old Illinois regulatory system, the ICC controlled siting and certifying new

generating facilities, and set rates for utilities based upon their costs of serving customers in

their area. ComEd Exh. 1 at 8; Tr.1 at 867-868. IEPA decided “whether to issue the

necessary permits covering issues such as air pollution.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 8; see also Tr.1 at

867. According to Mr. Eaton, counsel for several organizations, including a homeowners

association, deregulation in Illinois “has left [IEPA’s] responsibilities in this area largely

unchanged, but has removed the ICC from the equation, for all intents and purposes.” Tr.1 at

867-868.

1. Federal Rate Cases

Executive Director Fisher explained how the federal rate cases developed and how they

impacted the deregulation of the electric industry. He stated that the federal government

historically granted monopoly service territory to electric utilities as long as they served all

retail customers without discrimination or delay at a price set by the regulatory commission.

FERC set prices during periodic cases, now known as rate cases. Tr.1 at 18. Statutes

required rates to be just and reasonable for both utilities and customers. According to

Executive Director Fisher, the “basic theory was to allow the utility to recover its reasonable

expenses as well as to provide a fair return on the investment.” Tr.1 at 19.

As Executive Director Fisher explained, “[f]or the first two-thirds of the 20th century,

rate cases generally resulted in a gradual lowering of prices as utilities enjoyed the efficiencies

of technological improvements and economies of scale.” Tr.1 at 20. Each utility built

generating plants, expecting growth in demand for power that it was obligated to provide.

Some utilities imported excess power from other utilities rather than build generating plants

when it was more economical. Tr.1 at 20.

---

75

The cost of electric power significantly increased for most customers in the 1970s and

1980s. Electric prices rose for consumers because of unexpectedly higher costs of building

and operating nuclear plants. Other utilities faced increased costs from general price inflation

and compliance with air pollution standards. Tr.1 at 21. The increase in prices led to a state

and federal movement towards deregulation in the 1990s.

Federal policy significantly changed with the introduction of “wholesale wheeling.”

Executive Director Fisher commented that the Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorized FERC to

“require public utilities owning transmission lines to make those lines available to wholesale

market participants who wished to move electricity from one part of the grid to another.” Tr.1

at 21-22.

In 1995, FERC responded to the Energy Policy Act by issuing Order No. 888, which

required electric utilities to give generators access to the transmission grid on a non-

discriminatory basis. ComEd Exh. 1 at 5, citing Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of

Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888 (Order No. 888),

FERC statutes and regulations, preambles for regulations, January 1991 - June 1996, 31,036

(1996); see also Tr.at 22. Utilities had to provide transmission authority to out-of-state

generators, and according to the ICC, have done so at a fair price. Tr.1 at 22. For example,

an Illinois utility must now allow an Ohio generator to carry power over its transmission lines.

ICC Exh. 1 at 3; Tr.1 at 22.

In 1992, “most transactions between utilities were ‘cost based’ and the highest price

paid for energy and capacity was that authorized by FERC as ‘not to exceed’ the FERC

authorized rates.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 9. Utilities that greatly needed power would pay a

maximum emergency tariff of generally $100/MW hour (MWh), or 10% plus out of pocket

costs. Lake County Exh. 4 at 9. Utilities entered into contracts “knowing that their maximum

exposure or risk of having [to] fulfill their sale commitment was measurable, calculated, and

deemed to be acceptable because the maximum exposure was no more than the Emergency

power rate.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 9-10.

Between 1992 and 1999, the number of power marketers increased from a few to over

300. Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. Marketers bought electricity by price rather than costs, and

purchased power as a commodity. Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. “The biggest problem with

market rates was the regulators and retail customers were not prepared for the change.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 10.

Executive Director Fisher testified that wholesale wheeling encourages long haul

transmission of electric power more than in the past. Tr.1 at 44. However, utilities can place

FERC-approved tariffs on access to their transmission lines. When a company wants to

transport power over transmission lines that another utility owns, the company must pay the

filed tariff to the utility to use the lines. The company must pay the rates of each utility for the

---

76

lines used to transmit its electricity to its destination. The rates compile or “pancake.” Tr.1 at

43. Executive Director Fisher noted that, although FERC granted wholesale access to utility

transmission lines, wheeling tariffs cause longer transmission hauls to be more costly. Tr.1 at

27.

Executive Director Fisher stated that FERC Order No. 888 “opened the interstate

system to wider access and made non-utility generation economically attractive over short

distance[s].” Tr.1 at 28. For example, ComEd has “pursued a policy of nondiscriminatory

cooperation with [IPPs] wishing to locate in Northern Illinois and interconnect with ComEd’s

system.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 6.

FERC based the electric utility model on its previous success with the natural gas

industry. Tr.1 at 30. FERC regulates the national transfer of gas through interstate pipelines.

The commission deregulated the natural gas industry in the 1980s. Tr.1 at 30. According to

the ICC, prices have dropped and the natural gas market is very competitive. Illinois

customers buy 40 to 50% of their natural gas from non-utility providers. Tr.1 at 31.

2. States Start to Deregulate Electric Utilities

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, companies that needed to compete internationally, in

part by cutting energy costs, lobbied their state capitols for the right to buy power on the

wholesale market. Some states, beginning with California and Pennsylvania, have responded

by moving to deregulate the electric industry. Tr.1 at 22-23.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that, in the summer of 2000, “several of the 24 states

that began opening their electricity markets to competition in 1996 [were] struck by extreme

price volatility and, in some cases, power shortages.” PC 11 at 2. The Wall Street Journal

reported on August 14, 2000 that the problems were caused by a combination of factors,

including “higher-than-expected demand, fewer new generating plants than necessary to keep

up with it and an interstate transmission network that wasn’t built for the deregulated world.”

PC 11 at 2. The article stated that “[n]owhere has the situation been more critical than in the

San Diego region, the first area of the country where retail electricity prices have been dictated

solely by market forces.” PC 11 at 2.

a. California Deregulation.

 

Several factors played into why many consumers’ bills

doubled in San Diego. Generally, extreme heat and stunted growth in supply caused rates to

rise for California customers over the summer of 1999. Tr.1 at 294; Tr.2 at 38-39. A number

of utilities claim that California stunted its electric supply when it deregulated electric utilities,

but chose to maintain “tight regulatory control over . . . wholesale prices and approval for new

generation.” Tr.1 at 293-294; Tr.1 at 834. The Illinois Energy Association (IEA) stated that

it is “undoubtedly true that the lack of adequate power supply is at the heart of the problem in

that state.” Tr.2 at 40. “Several state policies discouraged new construction at a time when

demand continued to surge.” Tr.2 at 40. IEA testified that “[b]etween 1996 and 1999,

---

77

California added only 2 percent to its generating capacity.” Tr.2 at 40. According to Ameren,

“California attempted to control natural market forces, which resulted in an imbalance between

electric supply and demand.” PC 107 at 13. Reliant agreed, stating that “the state’s

environmental and regulatory mandates have hampered the siting and approval of new plants in

recent years.” PC 1 at 4.

NRDC testified that “the conventional wisdom is that electricity consumption in

California is surging out of control; ‘the Internet’ and a booming economy often are frequently

invoked as explanations.” PC 109 at 4; Tr.2 at 39. According to Reliant, the previous reserve

margin of 35% from the early 1990s disappeared while the California economy soared and

summer temperatures were unseasonably high. PC 1 at 4. As a result, the existing generators,

which are relatively old, run harder and under more stressful conditions, decreasing reliability

and increasing chances of outages. PC 1 at 4.

The increase in 1999 customer rates occurred when costs of wholesale power were

directly passed onto retail customers. Tr.1 at 35. This was due in part to existing generators

that quickly paid off their mandatory stranding costs. Mr. Greg Elam, CEO of the energy

management consulting firm of American Energy Solutions, Inc. (American Energy),

explained that stranded costs are “basically a subsidy given to compete in a transition into a

competitive market.” Tr.1 at 815. Ms. Arlene Juracek of ComEd testified that, when

California power companies “exhausted their stranded cost recovery, their customers were

essentially put on the spot market for electricity.” Tr.1 at 304. According to ComEd, “no one

buys all of their supply on the spot market.” Tr.1 at 304. For example, San Diego Gas and

Electric paid off its stranded costs early, and was able to pass along market costs to residents

in its service area. Tr.1 at 304. Companies that paid off their stranded costs also had less

incentive to sell power at low rates to California residents rather than export the power at a

higher rate to customers in another state. Tr.1 at 838.

IEA testified that when California could not meet the peak demand for electricity, it had

to import power from other states. California was importing a lot of power and has not “added

any power to speak of since then.” Tr.2 at 56. When it faced power shortages, California

“couldn’t get out-of-state power suppliers to sell power into California at the artificially low

prices that the government was setting.” Tr.2 at 56.

NRDC contested the premise that inadequate supply remains at the heart of the problem

in California. “In fact, the California system peak from 1990-1999 grew less than 2% per year

(to about 50,000 MW, with 41,000 MW representing total demand on the three large investor-

owned systems).” PC 109 at 4. NRDC also stated that the “[t]otal statewide consumption of

electricity increased less than 1% per year from 1990-1998 (less than one third the rate of the

1980s).” PC 109 at 4. Recent data shows that hotter weather greatly affected a significant

short-term increase in consumption for the first six months of 2000. PC 109 at 4.

NRDC largely attributed higher prices in California over this past summer to weather

---

78

and higher wholesale electricity prices:

Electricity use spiked in June 2000, up almost 13% compared to much cooler

June of a year earlier. This clearly contributed to sharply higher wholesale

electricity prices for June 2000, which averaged about twelve cents per [kWh] (a

sixfold increase over the June 1999 figure). It didn’t help, obviously, that

natural gas prices also were soaring above five dollars per [mmBtu] (if

sustained, this would drive the fuel costs alone for older gas-fired power plants

past five cents per kWh produced). The first three weeks of July saw more

moderate weather in California, and both electricity and peak consumption were

down compared to the same period a year earlier; average wholesale electricity

prices dropped about 40%. However, at more than seven cents per kWh, these

prices were still very high by recent historical standards, and more unpleasant

suprises are entirely possible in the months ahead. PC 109 at 4.

NRDC also specifically pointed to the significant curtailment of hydroelectric power

throughout the Pacific Northwest. Tr.2 at 64. “Essentially, rainfall across the Sierra

Nevadas, the Cascade, was much lower and was actually near historic low, so much of that

generation capacity was reduced, and in many cases there were no constraints in the system

that prevented exports into California.” Tr.2 at 65.

NRDC stated:

The short term reliability crisis in California should be quickly and cost-

effectively resolved by additional investment and deployment of energy

efficiency and renewable energy on sufficiently large scale, alongside entry into

service of single and combined cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines

already in the siting and construction process (more than 3500 MW already

having completed the siting process).

The deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments has

already made significant contributions to California’s economy and electricity

grid. California’s efficiency programs and standards have reduced peak

electricity demand by 10,000 MW and total annual consumption has been

reduced by approximately 15%. Since 1990, energy efficiency investments

have reduced statewide electric bills by more than $2.8 billion. As a result,

‘California continues to lead the nation in maximizing the amount of Gross State

Product produced per unit of energy’ . . . . California still has numerous

untapped and inexpensive opportunities to get more work out of less electricity.

Renewable energy is also a critical part of California’s energy portfolio, with

about one-ninth of the state’s supply now generated from wind, solar,

geothermal or biomass resources. Thanks to a 1998 auction for new renewable

---

79

capacity, more than 500 MW of urgently needed supply are now being added to

the California system, with almost 100 MW already installed, more than 400

MW expected by the end of 2001, and at least 900 additional MW available for

near-term purchase. The new capacity has gratifyingly short lead-times, with

the 50 winning bidders all scheduled to be operating by summer of 2002. PC

109 at 4-5.

NRDC testified that the California market is still in transition. Tr.2 at 66. Some

market mechanisms will not completely convert for several years, resulting in price spikes and

dislocations in the market-based system. Tr.2 at 66. However, NRDC does not believe that

the system is fundamentally wrong. Tr.2 at 66. It predicts the system will improve, and is an

example of what may or may not be the most useful tools in deregulation. Tr.2 at 66-67.

b. Deregulation in New England.

  

According to Mr. Silva of NRDC, the energy

“Oklahoma land rush” phenomenon being seen now in Illinois “has also already played itself

out in New England, where energy markets were deregulated earlier than Illinois.” PC 109 at

3. NRDC gave a detailed account of what happened when New England underwent

deregulation:

By early 1999 some 63 electric generating projects were proposed in New

England, totaling 31,000 MW of generating capacity, of which between 7,000

and 8,000 MW are expected to actually be built . . . . By way of comparison,

the current annual peak demand in New England is approximately 22,544 MW

with the New England Independent System Operator . . . calculating that an

additional 4,000 MW of generating capacity is all that is required to meet short

term expected increases in electrical demand.

The 31,000 MW of generating capacity originally proposed in New England

was winnowed down to approximately 9,437 MW by power plant siting

authorities and environmental regulatory agencies in Massachusetts, Maine,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Most relevant is that of the 36

combustion turbines being permitted at 19 electric generating facilities across

New England, all are combined cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines

. . . . These combustion turbines are expected to operate as intermediate load

following or base load units, rather than peaking units.

In the neighboring state of New York, 20 new electric generating facilities are

undergoing siting review representing a total of 15,064 MW of generating

capacity[.] [A]vailable information indicates they will be equipped with

combined cycle combustion turbines. PC 109 at 3-4.

NRDC believes that “[p]art of the reason [that New England chose combined cycle

plants] was the attraction for mainly the host communities . . . in having units that had a clear

---

80

value, and in terms of benefits to the community and the state, there was a definite need and

recognition of the need for additional capacity.” Tr.2 at 58-59. The combined cycle plants

also met stringent air and water requirements. Tr.2 at 58.

3. Illinois Takes Steps Toward Deregulation

Illinois approached deregulation differently than California. Tr.1 at 35. As Mr. Udo

A. Heinze, on behalf of Ameren, stated: “Illinois has chosen a market-based approach to

achieve the appropriate supply/demand balance.” PC 107 at 13. However, according to Mr.

Elam of American Energy, both Illinois and California are deregulated at a level of two out of

ten, because both currently lack competition. Tr.1 at 836-837.

The Illinois General Assembly passed the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate

Relief Law of 1997 (Illinois Electricity Choice Law) to meet this end. ComEd Exh. 1 at 7; see

220 ILCS 5/16-101 through 16-130 (1998). Executive Director Fisher of the ICC stated that

the law partially was “intended to spur innovation and drive down prices through competition

among Illinois’ traditional utilities and to attract new competitive power suppliers to the state.”

Tr.1 at 23; see also 385-86. According to MWIPS, increased competition in the wholesale

market will reduce the probability of price spikes in the Midwest market. Tr.1 at 326-327.

IEA commented that Illinois, which is the only state in our area undertaking deregulation, is

“leading the way in creating a competitive electricity market that will result in more affordable

electricity prices for our citizens.” PC 167 at 5.

ComEd stated that by “May 2002, all customers can select their own vendor of electric

power.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 7. As of October 1, 1999, approximately 52% of ComEd’s non-

residential customers had the opportunity to choose their own electric provider. Tr.1 at 299.

“Forty percent of the eligible [kWh] are already operating under non-traditional supply.” Tr.1

at 299. However, electric utilities must still provide power to customers in their service

territories, even if they select a different vendor. The ICC continues to regulate the utility’s

rates and delivery services. ComEd Exh. 1 at 7.

Under the Illinois Electricity Choice Law, the ICC no longer can order utilities to build

new electric plants. ComEd Exh. 1 at 7. Instead, the construction of new generators is now

market driven, relying on the increased demand for power to spur new growth and decreased

demand to stop unnecessary construction. ComEd Exh. 1 at 7-8. Private investors, rather

than utilities and customers, bear the financial risk of building new plants. ComEd Exh. 1 at

8; Tr.1 at 326. Further, the ICC no longer examines the need for new projects. ComEd Exh.

1 at 8. Executive Director Fisher testified on the ICC’s former statutory role in determining

the State’s energy needs:

The [ICC] prior to the ’97 restructuring law had a formal responsibility to have

filed by each individual utility what was called a least cost of planning, and

basically it was a 20-year forecast of power demand.

---

81

The ’97 law took away that requirement from – from the utilities and, therefore,

there is not a formal role for the [ICC] at this point in terms of the overall –

looking at the overall generation. Tr.1 at 32.

As Executive Director Fisher explained, the Illinois Electricity Choice Law also froze

electric base rates for customers at 1996 prices until 2004. The rate freeze allows for a

smoother transition for deregulating Illinois electric utilities. Since 1996, national and

Midwest wholesale electric prices have risen and are anticipated to continue climbing if the

supply for power does not match national demand figures. Tr.1 at 28-29.

The ICC suspects that between the years of 2004 and 2005, Illinois utilities will request

rate adjustments to reflect the change in the price of wholesale power. Executive Director

Fisher said that the electric rates, primarily for the delivery of power, are “simply a function

of supply and demand.” Tr.1 at 34. The ICC stated that, with the current rise in wholesale

prices, if Illinois utilities today could request increased rates, they would have strong

arguments to raise the prices of retail power in Illinois. Tr.1 at 29, 34. ComEd noted that the

rate release would differ from what happened in California because utilities would have to

petition the ICC to abandon customers and place them on the spot market. Tr.1 at 305.

C. Environmental Effects of Deregulation

Ms. Stark, Director of CARE, as well as other citizens, voiced concerns that “virtually

no rules or regulations exist because these [peaker] plants are so new.” Tr.1 at 647.

However, private companies and public utilities are still subject to environmental standards and

local zoning ordinances. ComEd Exh. 1 at 8. Facilities must obtain air emissions permits and

possibly water discharge permits from IEPA to construct and operate peaker plants. Tr.1 at

53. IEPA permits can restrict a facility’s hours of operation. Tr.1 at 312; PC 9 at 6. IEPA

can also impose monitoring and testing provisions in the permits to ensure that peaker plants

do not exceed emission limits. Tr.1 at 312. If an applicant cannot prove compliance or will

not remedy the problem, IEPA denies the permit. Tr.1 at 53.

Indeck testified that it analyzed some other Illinois industrial facilities under standard

industrial classification (SIC) codes, which IEPA uses in part to set emission standards. Tr.1

at 247. The company compared NOx emissions to steelworks, refineries, industrial machinery

manufacturers, brick and tile manufacturers, and other operations in Illinois, and testified that

peaker plant emissions are in the middle of approximately 200 other sources. Tr.1 at 248-249.

Because peaker plants fell in the middle of the spectrum, Indeck stated the electric plants

should not be more heavily regulated than other forms of industry. Tr.1 at 252. “[A]ny

change in regulatory philosophy should apply to all industry, not just to peaker plants.” Tr.1

at 254.

D. Impact of Deregulation on Local Zoning

---

82

Deregulation shifted the statewide burden of siting largely onto local municipalities.

Before 1997, the ICC controlled siting of new generators, requiring all utilities to receive a

certificate of public convenience and necessity. Tr.1 at 436. “Utilities seeking a certificate of

public convenience and necessity for a new plant were required to demonstrate an economic

need for additional generating capacity.” ICC Exh. 1 at 5. The ICC granted certificates when

a “new plant was necessary to provide adequate, efficient, and reliable service at the least

cost.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 8. According to Ms. Turnball, a citizens group consultant, the ICC

directed utilities to provide an environmental impact assessment and held public hearings to

determine if there were better ways to produce power. Tr.1 at 436.

The ICC certified nine investor-owned companies as electric utilities, including

ComEd, Ameren, Illinois Power Company, and Certified Central Illinois Light Company.

Tr.1 at 19-20; ICC Exh. 1 at 2. ComEd stated that “[l]ocal input was limited because a state

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity generally preempts local ordinances such as

zoning . . . . [R]egional public utility power plants and transmission lines are considered

matters of statewide, not local interest.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 8.

When Illinois restructured the electric industry in 1997, the ICC could no longer order

companies to construct new plants to meet the State’s demand for electric power. ICC Exh. 1

at 5. However, Executive Diector Fisher of the ICC stated that “the provisions of Illinois law

addressing siting of electric generating facilities have not changed.” ICC Exh. 1 at 5. Non-

utility generators have and continue to be exempt from the ICC siting process. The major shift

was in the trend towards building non-utility plants to meet peak demand for power. In

response to deregulation, numerous IPPs applied to construct non-utility generating plants in

Illinois. Because State and federal changes made non-utility generation economically

attractive, especially over short distances, a higher number of non-utilities have begun to

propose new generation facilities in Illinois. ICC Exh. 1 at 5.

Because the market now favors building non-utility plants, the burden of locating the

generators falls on local counties and municipalities. The municipalities mainly rely on zoning

and other land use regulations to site new plants. ComEd Exh. 1 at 8; PC 107 at 6; Tr.1 at

868. According to Indeck, siting, certain wastewater approval, water supply approval, and

ultimately a building permit are now solely addressed at the local level. Tr.1 at 246.

Many citizen groups and government officials challenged whether local zoning could

provide sufficient balance in evaluating whether to site peaker plants. NRDC commented that

“residents of many potential host communities are convinced from their experiences that

existing local zoning requirements are not adequate to address all the public interest concerns

associated with [peaker plants].” PC 109 at 7. NRDC expressed concern that Illinois will

develop into a:

---

83

Balkanized area where some communities are more willing or tolerant to accept

these projects, others will fight them at any cost regardless of the actual value or

how meritorious future projects may be, and we’re talking both about natural

gas combustion turbine units and renewable projects. Tr.2 at 63.

LCCA also commented that “[l]ocal zoning does not adequately address siting

considerations.” Tr.1 at 460. State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw stated that “[a]s

government seeks to restore a free marketplace, some anticipated problems are almost

unavoidable. Peaker power plants and the siting of them are just such a problem.” Tr.1 at

386.

Citizens expressed concern that “[p]eakers were not anticipated by the existing zoning

courts.” Tr.1 at 940. “Local governments have not had adequate time to respond to the

zoning implications or peaker plant constructions.” Tr.1 at 389. Mayor Vivian Lund of

Warrenville testified that “[t]ime should be afforded local governments to revise their local

zoning ordinances to assure fair and adequate review of these facilities which, because of their

multiple impacts upon local and regional . . . should be considered special uses.” Tr.1 at 389-

390. Mr. Sargis, an attorney with experience in land use and zoning law, commented that

local ordinances, sometimes like environmental regulations, often lag behind development

trends. Tr.1 at 1,021. Municipalities continually add categories to reflect the new

developments. Tr.1 at 1,021. Mr. Sargis stated:

[I]n many cases, a local zoning ordinance today might allow public utility as a

permitted use in many districts. And a peaker plant in the absence of an updated

code provision could be interpreted to be a “public utility” under the local

definition. In that instance, a peaker plant could ostensibly pass local zoning

approval without meeting any of the procedural safety guards such [as] public

notice and public hearings that otherwise would apply for special or conditional

uses. It wouldn’t matter if there was a guidance that was available if the local

code essentially allowed that use as a permitted use. Tr.1 at 1,021-1,022.

Ms. Turnball also stated that “siting is impacting most municipalities who have zoning

ordinances that wouldn’t have included a category for that particular business because even

though there might be a statement in the zoning ordinance that says public utility station, they

aren’t a public utility.” Tr.1 at 436-437. She maintained that the ordinances are not geared

towards siting peaker plants. Tr.1 at 436-437.

Mr. Eaton testified that “different zoning agencies have varying degrees of expertise

and ability to step into the fray and handle these inquiries.” Tr.1 at 868. Mr. Sargis stated

that “many communities, both government and the public, are ill-equipped to evaluate the

potential impact of facilities that are not yet familiar in Illinois.” Tr.1 at 1,021. Ms. Zingle,

who is a member of the Lake County Board of Appeals, strongly agreed that zoning is a local

issue, but “adamantly disagreed with Director Skinner’s optimism . . . about the ability of

---

84

local villages to cope with the host of issues surrounding [peaker] plants.” Tr.1 at 511. She

stated that, “[w]ith the best of intentions, [local governments] don’t have a clue what questions

to ask and they don’t know how to judge the answers they get of the questions they do ask.”

Tr.1 at 511.

Mr. Ersel C. Schuster, Supervisor of Seneca Township and member of the McHenry

County Board, felt that “[l]ocal officials are the ‘front line;’ those expected to address concerns

over the operation of such facilities.” PC 186 at 1. He commented that, “as is often the case,

we neither have the authority, technical expertise, nor the financial ability to ensure that the

operator is in compliance with the regulations.” PC 186 at 1.

Ms. Chris Geiselhart, Chairperson of Concerned Citizens of Lake County (CCLC),

complimented the Village of Libertyville for creating a system to hear testimony. There, she

noted, “people have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars educating themselves

and the plan commission . . . through public testimony and hiring expert witnesses to testify in

opposition, finally, to Indeck experts.” Tr.1 at 916. She asked “how can many communities

of more limited wealth and means expect to raise the kind of public outcry and money for

expert witnesses that Libertyville did? How many zoning boards have the expertise needed to

make the best decision for their communities?” Tr.1 at 916-917. Ms. Johnson, a resident of

Marengo and Vice Chair of the Rural and City Preservation Association, testified about the

siting of the PP & L Global plant:

Those hearings and meetings keep coming week after week after week. We just

keep going to hearings. The county can’t afford experts to help them. Our

group can’t afford experts to push them and urge them to make some zoning

ordinance and strong standards which would protect us. Our lives have been

totally disrupted, and meanwhile, we realize the County Board is being lobbied

by people in the county who would prefer to have a peaker plant put out in the

country, meaning South Marengo. Tr.1 at 551.

Several citizens testified about the cost of challenging the siting of peaker plants. Ms.

Zingle of LCCA pointed out that their fight was only with what they considered to be badly

sited plants. Tr.1 at 521. Ms. Zingle voiced frustration about money spent by both citizens

and municipalities to challenge peaker plants:

Opponents for the plant in Woodstock raised over $100,000 in their fight.

Libertyville opponents reportedly spent over $500,000 for those 20 public

hearings with the consultants and the attorneys. Individuals in Aurora have

discussed with me possibly taking out second mortgages on their home to pay

for the lawsuit. Bartlett, which will come later, has two attorneys and a range

of consultants. Zion opponents just hired a municipal attorney in addition to the

attorney and the environmental consultant we already have on board . . . . The

villages that spend money get the results. Villages like Lockport who simply try

---

85

to rely on the system do not. It creates a terrible disadvantage for the affluent

cities and for the less aggressive. Tr.1 at 520-521.

Citizens asserted that problems with siting are exacerbated by the fact that IPPs are

suing municipalities for choosing not to site a generator. After McHenry conducted several

months of hearings and voted against siting an Indeck peak generating facility in its area,

Indeck filed a lawsuit challenging McHenry’s decision. Tr.1 at 550 (Johnson), 972 (Wilson).

NRDC commented on the “growing sense of unease in Illinois that current state and

municipal review of new or expanding electric generating facilities is too limited and

inadequate.” PC 109 at 7. NRDC stated that the sentiment “may be in part attributable to the

lack of coordination between municipalities and Illinois regulatory agencies involved in

permitting new electric generating facilities, particularly [IEPA] charged with evaluating the

air and water quality impacts of these facilities.” PC 109 at 7.

Executive Director Fisher of the ICC explained that some states have taken approaches

to siting similar to that of Illinois. Others have established state siting committees either as

part of or separate from state public utility commissions. PC 8 at 2-3. Like Illinois,

California, New York, and Ohio have enacted electric restructuring laws. Unlike Illinois,

these states use state siting committees to determine where peaker plants should be sited.

Texas also has enacted an electric restructuring law. It has a system similar to the current

system in Illinois: local zoning boards control siting, and the state environmental agency

controls permitting. PC 8 at 2-3.

Wisconsin, which has not enacted an electric restructuring law, requires traditional

certificates of convenience and necessity for peaker plants. Kentucky, which also has not

enacted an electric restructuring law, does not require any approvals, other than state

environmental permitting and local zoning, as long as the peaker plant sells the electricity it

generates wholesale on the market. PC 8 at 2-3.

 

E. Current and Future Retail and Wholesale Energy Markets

Mr. Elam of American Energy provided a broad overview of the role of peaker plants

in the energy market. Lake County Exh. 4. Electric power is currently sold in both the

wholesale and retail markets. Different rules govern each market. The “wholesale market acts

much like a free market, while the retail market is still very regulated.” Lake County Exh. 4

at 3. Mr. Elam asserted that, in the future, both the wholesale and retail markets will converge

into a single energy market. Tr.1 at 804.

1. Retail Market for Electric Power

Mr. Elam stated that the deregulation of the Illinois electric industry is actually closer

to re-regulation of the market. Lake County Exh. 4 at 3. “[I]nvestor owned utilities have

---

86

been given a subsidy called stranded cost to help them transition into a competitive market.”

Lake County Exh. 4 at 3. Stranded costs are also called the competitive transition charge.

Lake County Exh. 4 at 3.

When the retail market is completely deregulated, customers will either remain “firm

customers” or will opt to contract for varying degrees of interruptible loads. Lake County

Exh. 4 at 3-4. Firm customers “continue to demand firm reliable service, and they will pay

for it.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 3. Other companies will be “willing to modify their operations

to gain a break in price.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 3-4. Mr. Elam stated that the “combination

of these firm and interruptible loads all will become a part of a suppliers portfolio thus another

means for reserve margins to be enhanced.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 4.

2. Wholesale Market for Electric Power

Mr. Elam asserted that the wholesale market for electric power is very effective. Tr.1

at 837. “Wholesale market prices are driven by supply and demand, which is influenced by

weather, fuel prices, and future expectations.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 4. Wholesale electric

power is traded like a commodity. Independent brokers conduct transactions between utilities

and marketers on a brokers market. Independent brokers trade 50-MW blocks of power,

which are delivered or priced into a hub, such as the CINergy transmission system. Someone

can buy and sell the same power several times in the same day. Supply and demand dictate

how prices move. For example, a peaker plant in Chicago will either sell its energy to the

CINergy market or into the Chicago market, depending on which offers the highest price.

Lake County Exh. 4 at 4.

According to Mr. Elam, “[m]arketers sell various products into the market.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 5. “The standard product is a sale of 50 [MW] for each hour for one 16

hour day, during the on-peak hours of 0700 - 2300 hours. The price reflects the anticipated

average price per [MW] hour over the 16-hour period.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 5.

Mr. Elam explained that marketers create a spread or profit from either selling short or

long on transactions and filling their trade. Lake County Exh. 4 at 5. “Buying and selling

blocks of power is often known as swaps.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 5. Marketers sell short by

selling power, and filling their position by buying the same contract back at a lesser price. In

contrast, they buy long if they wait to sell a contract for power or generation that they have or

own. Marketers buy long when they expect prices to rise and buy short when they anticipate

prices will drop to cover their position. Lake County Exh. 4 at 5.

Mr. Elam stated that marketers can also buy options, which give purchasers the right,

without the obligation, to “call on power at a specific . . . price, terms and conditions.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 5. The buyer of an option gives a premium to the seller of the option. Lake

County Exh. 4 at 5. This is analogous to paying premiums to a homeowner’s insurance

company to cover potential damages from a fire. Lake County Exh. 4 at 5-6.

---

87

Mr. Elam noted that having an option can be better than selling long on energy. Lake

County Exh. 4 at 6. Companies that own energy contracts and sell long must either sell their

position before the trade period closes or settle out with liquidated damages. Companies

owning an option on power “will only call on that power if the market price is high enough to

generate a profit.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 6. “Owning a peaker plant is very much like

owning an option, the owner does not have to run it.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 6. The owner

can sell a “call option” and use its generators to “back the option sale.” Lake County Exh. 4

at 6.

Mr. Elam briefly summarized the price structure for peaker plants:

The peaking facility has basically two cost components, a fixed and variable

price. The fixed price that an owner of a peaking facility has to pay is made up

mostly of the debt service that is used to pay for the project cost of the facility.

The variable portions of the price of power are based on the variable cost of fuel

and some operations and maintenance costs. The fuel portion is based on the

heating value or efficiency of the gas turbine. Depending on the heating value

and the delivered price of fuel, the variable cost of energy may range from $35-

60/[MWh]. It should be noted that in addition to buying options on energy

(calls or puts), marketers and utilities use the natural gas futures market to

hedge their price risk. Lake County Exh. 4 at 6.

Mr. Elam stated that because the same energy contracts are sold many times, selling

rights to a peaker plant does not even imply where its power will be sold. Lake County Exh. 4

at 6-7. Power from peaker plants can be exported “several states away” because the plants are

used when market prices are highest. Lake County Exh. 4 at 7. Transmission tariffs are

“extremely small when compared to the price paid for power during peak periods.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 7. For example, a peaker plant in Lake County selling power at $1,000 per

MWh can move power to CINergy for a maximum cost of $6 to $12 per MWh. Lake County

Exh. 4 at 7.

Mr. Elam explained that “[m]oving power over several transmission systems is not a

problem if the transmission system is reliable.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 7. Price is generally

not the problem during peak hours. Lake County Exh. 4 at 7. “Likewise, high fuel prices do

not hinder the sale in volatile markets.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 7. Owners of generation have

no means to guarantee that their power will benefit local communities. Lake County Exh. 4 at

8. Mr. Elam asserted that, “[i]n reality, the generation being built will be used to provide a

hedge for the marketer or utility selling into a hub or specific market such as Wisconsin.”

Lake County Exh. 4 at 8.

3. Price Spikes

---

88

According to Mr. Elam, to understand why the 1998 price spikes occurred in the

electric power market, “it is helpful to have a historic perspective as well as a futuristic

viewpoint.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 9. As stated above, the electric power market changed

dramatically between 1992 and 1999. The “change created the foundation for the electric

industry to move towards competition and accept market rates.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 10.

Mr. Elam explained that marketers purchased electric power as a “firm” product, which

“means that any components necessary to generate and deliver the commodity to the delivery

point is included in the price.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. “The fillcost of energy is priced in

a total dollar per [MWh] fee, with the capacity component embedded into the unit price.”

Lake County Exh. 4 at 10.

Mr. Elam stated that, by 1998, the electric market split into the segments of (1) trading

and (2) “trading to fill.” Trading is where marketers and utilities broker power as a

commodity. Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. “The trades are made in standard 50 MW blocks

under standard terms and conditions.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. Trading generally uses a

hub like CINergy as a pricing point. Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. It does not matter to

marketers where the power is generated as long as they generate a profit from the delivery

price to the hub. Lake County Exh. 4 at 10. Mr. Elam explained that “[t]rading to fill means

that the marketer or utility is buying or selling for a specific need.” Lake County Exh. 4 at

10. Utilities only purchase the MW needed to meet requirements for specific hours. Lake

County Exh. 4 at 10-11.

Mr. Elam stated that the 1998 price spike occurred when a marketer, Federal Energy,

sold electric power it did not have and could not pay for on the market. The marketer “shorted

the market” by selling 750 to 1,000 MW “to various parties and did not have the physical

power or own contracts to cover its position.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 11. Mr. Elam noted

that the hollow sale “gave the Midwest market a false sense of security.” Lake County Exh. 4

at 11. The market only realized the shortcoming when Federal Energy could not buy back the

power at the end of the trading session. Lake County Exh. 4 at 12. The false bid to sell

power increased the demand for electricity. Prices soared to over $10,000 per MWh because

of the need for the missing supply, according to Mr. Elam. Lake County Exh. 4 at 11.

Mr. Elam explained that immediately after the 1998 Federal Energy shortfall, “monthly

prices for the summer soared to more than $200 per [MWh] for the on-peak periods. Since

that time prices have dropped dramatically, but not back to the pre June 1998 levels.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 11-12.

Mr. Elam stated that the 1998 price spikes “were a function of supply and demand.”

Lake County Exh. 4 at 12. “FERC’s review of the matter concluded that the wholesale market

worked to correct itself.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 12. According to Mr. Elam, although

owners of peaker plants can hedge their portfolio, it does not “assure the local ratepayers or

customers that there will be no more price spikes.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 12.

---

89

F. Supply and Demand for Electric Power

NRDC stated that the deregulation of the electric industry and the considerable increase

in demand for power have contributed to the proliferation of peaker plants in Northeastern

Illinois. Tr.1 at 385-86. According to NRDC, “the Energy Information Administration now

forecasts that by 2020 there will be the need for approximately 300 gigawatts, otherwise

known as 300,000 MW, of new capacity across the United States.” Tr.2 at 58-59. These

figures basically track future growth in the gross national product and are based upon the

assumption that the economy will continue to be healthy. Tr.2 at 94. PG&E National Energy

Group (PG&E) stated that “[i]t is critical that a balance be struck between the pressing need

for new sources of electricity and the desire to maintain and improve environmental quality.”

PC 170 at 2.

According to ComEd, when evaluating current and future demand for electric power,

both the constant need for power and the greatest need for power must be taken into account.

ComEd asserted that utilities must be able to generate enough power to meet the greatest

demand because electricity cannot be stored and must be generated at the instant it is required.

PC 164 at 2; see also PC 1 at 2. The base load of power is the “lowest continuous load over

the course of a year,” and the peak load is the “highest load observed during a period of time.”

ComEd Exh. 1 at 3. ComEd stated that peak demand depends highly on weather conditions.

Tr.1 at 297. For example, the amount of people that ComEd serves varies considerably when

measured daily and annually. ComEd Exh. 1 at 3.

ComEd experiences highest peak-load use in summers because people heavily use air

conditioners. According to Ms. Juracek of ComEd, “[a]bout 40% of the peak load is from

residential air conditioners.” Tr.1 at 297. “ComEd’s all-time summer peak load was 21,243

MW on July 30, 1999, between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 3. By contrast,

ComEd’s winter all-time peak load was 14,484 MW in late afternoon on December 20, 1999.

ComEd Exh. 1 at 3. Although ComEd may use peaker plants in the spring or fall when it

undergoes maintenance on its base-load plants, intermediate capacity is generally enough to

cover the need in non-summer months, according to ComEd. Tr.1 at 302.

ComEd also testified that the technical revolution of the 1990s is influencing the

demand growth in its area. Tr.1 at 298; see also Tr.1 at 619. Executive Director Fisher of the

ICC testified that the “remarkable economic expansion of the past several years, coupled with

the proliferation of electronic devices in our homes and offices, has increased the overall

demand for electricity.” Tr.1 at 23. ComEd stated that additional computers cause further air-

conditioning loads and the Internet is affecting loads in hotels. Ms. Juracek of ComEd testified

that ComEd is “seeing loading on the order of 150 watts per square foot in a building.” Tr.1

at 298. ComEd testified that “this is ten times the type of load . . . seen in the past.” Tr.1 at

298. Reliant stated that ComEd faced an annual 3% increase in demand for electricity. PC 1

at 2.

---

90

The rise in demand is being felt on a national level. According to Reliant, the United

States Department of Energy marked a 17% increase in electricity demand in the past decade.

However, the construction of new plants has increased by less than 1%. PC 1 at 2, 12. In a

report following price spikes in the summer of 1998, FERC stated that the 1990s demand for

electric power in the Midwest grew at a faster rate than that of the nation, and much faster than

the rate on the coasts. Tr.1 at 35-36. IEA testified that peak loads grew 4.2% between 1994

and 1999. Tr.2 at 37. According to PG&E, past investments are not keeping pace with

regional demand. PC 170 at 2.

According to Executive Director Fisher of the ICC, “[w]hile baseload capacity remains

adequate to meet base demand, peaking capacity has not expanded to keep up with increasing

peak demand.” Tr.1 at 23-24. For example, on July 30, 1999, ComEd set a new peak

demand of 21,243 MW. One MW generally serves 500 homes with electric power at times of

peak demand. This marked a 10% change in peak demand over one year. Usually, changes in

peak demand amount to 1/2 to 1%. Tr.1 at 24, 298. Utilities and IPPs stated that the best

way to encourage additional plant development to meet the growing peak demand is through

the free market that the Illinois Electricity Choice Law established. PC 170 at 2.

Dr. Thomas Overbye, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer

Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, stated that the load for ComEd is

increasing at the rate of approximately 350 MW per year of demand. Tr.1 at 605. According

to Dr. Overbye, this places the load growth for ComEd at 1.5%. This is “how much new

generation is needed to meet [its] increase in load.” Tr.1 at 605. The Illinois Municipal

Electric Agency (IMEA), which is “a not-for-profit unit of municipal government, made up of

39 of the State’s 42 municipally-operated electric systems,” has seen a 33% increase in peak

load over the last decade, from 300 to 400 MW. PC 110 at 1. IMEA stated that, “[a]t this

time, IMEA has contracts with 28 of the State’s 42 municipal systems to provide all, or most,

of [its] wholesale electricity.” PC 110 at 1.

The ICC noted that the Midwest experienced very warm summers in 1998 and 1999.

Tr.1 at 24. Before 1999, the last peak by ComEd was set in 1995. Tr.1 at 605. The extreme

heat caused utilities throughout the region to pay very high prices for wholesale power on peak

demand days. Tr.1 at 24. Executive Director Fisher stated that “[t]hose prices attract new

peaker plant development.” Tr.1 at 24.

According to ComEd, it uses different types of generators to satisfy the base-load and

peak-load demand for power. ComEd Exh. 1 at 3-4. Base-load generators, which basically

operate year round, usually have relatively high fixed costs and low operating costs. ComEd

Exh. 1 at 4; PC 1 at 3. The generators are generally nuclear plants or efficient coal-fired

boilers. Tr.1 at 72, 224. Installing a base-load plant that can annually produce 21,243 MW of

electricity is costly and inefficient “because that peak amount of demand is only present for

one hour of the year.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 4.

---

91

Mr. Romaine of IEPA explained that cyclic or intermediate power plants “operate on a

daily cycle, tracking the daily cycle of power demand as it rises and falls during the day.”

Tr.1 at 72; PC 1 at 2. According to IEPA, this category includes “some of the older plants

and some of the plants specifically designed to interpret the steam and boiler plants.” Tr.1 at

72. IEPA stated that, together, base-load and intermediate power plants “cover most of the

daily and seasonal fluctuations in demand.” PC 1 at 2.

ComEd noted that, in contrast to base-load or cyclic facilities, peaker plants are

“designed to produce power only during times of heavy demand, ranging from seasonal to

hourly.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 4. Peaker plants can quickly start up and shut down to best

respond to the heightened demand for power. According to Mr. Romaine, they are “the most

expensive to operate because they use high cost natural gas [and] light oil [as fuel].” Tr.1 at

73. However, peaker plants can economically supply peak-load power despite higher hourly

operating costs because they have lower capital costs than base-load plants. ComEd Exh. 1 at

4. ComEd uses a combination of both its own and independent generators to meet summer

peak-load demands. ComEd Exh. 1 at 4. Ameren stated that it predominately provides

electricity to meet base demand and that it is currently in the process of constructing six new

peaker plants with a total maximum capacity of 560 MW to supplement its plants in Central

and Southern Illinois. Tr.1 at 340, 353.

ComEd testified that it currently owns and operates five nuclear power plants that can

produce 9,500 MW of power. ComEd Exh. 1 at 4. The ICC reported that no new coal or

nuclear plants are currently under construction in Illinois. Tr.1 at 40. According to the ICC,

two ComEd nuclear power plants in Zion and one ComEd nuclear power plant in Dresden are

closed. Two other ComEd nuclear power plants in Dreseden are scheduled to go off-line in

2009 and 2011. PC 8 at 1. ComEd and Amergen plan to shut down another nine nuclear

power plants by 2027. PC 8 at 1.

The ICC stated that, due to the closure of nuclear power plants, Illinois utilities

imported substantial amounts of power in 1999. However, “that is not the case today.” Tr.1

at 36. According to Executive Director Fisher, both the Midwest and Illinois have had a lot of

excess power in the reserves over the summer of 2000 because of the mild season. Tr.1 at 36-

37. It should be noted that, even with the mild summer in 2000 and the general reserves,

ComEd testified that it came within 1,000 MW of the all-time peak load of 21,000 MW about

one week before the August 24, 2000 hearing. Tr.1 at 299-300.

ComEd and Reliant also noted that they view peaker plants as an insurance policy when

something goes wrong with a base-load generator. Tr.1 at 302-03; PC 1 at 10. According to

Ms. Juracek of ComEd, if harsh winter conditions prevent the transport or use of coal, peaker

plants could quickly satisfy the temporary demand for electric power until the base-load plants

can operate again. Tr.1 at 302-03. ComEd views this as a matter of public safety. Tr.1 at

303.

---

92

Mr. Eaton, an attorney for the Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Prairie Holdings

Corporation, and the Prairie Crossing Homeowners Association, warned:

It is probable that this rush to build and begin operating new sources is a short

window, that the demand will be short lived . . . . [S]ome probable

combination of new base-load plants, coupled with such things as microturbines

and other sorts of distributed generation, [will] come increasingly into the

marketplace in the next very few years, significantly and adversely impacting

the demand for peaker plants. Tr.1 at 875.

Mr. Eaton testified that many of the peaker plants under construction could ultimately be

abandoned as white elephants, “particularly those which cannot or are not, for whatever

reason, expanded into base-load plants.” Tr.1 at 875-876.

Dr. Overbye stated that “[w]hen you’re planning a power system, you have to plan for

the unexpected.” Tr.1 at 605. To do that, generators keep a reserve known as the capacity

margin. The capacity margin provides generators with insurance in case of a hot summer or

other negative weather conditions. According to Dr. Overbye, the capacity margin is “the net

capacity resources minus your internal demand divided by your capacity resources.” Tr.1 at

605. “Capacity resources” is the amount of generation in a region. Tr.1 at 605. It “can also

include imports of power that are guaranteed from other regions.” Tr.1 at 605-606. Dr.

Overbye explained that the net internal demand is the amount of power people use and the

estimated amount that they will use, reduced by the fact that the utility that contracts with a

load, at its discretion, can turn off its power. Tr.1 at 606.

Figures for supply and demand in Illinois are currently available through a regional

organization called MAIN. MAIN is primarily funded and operated by utilities, managing the

flow of power in midwestern states on a daily and long-term basis. It is comprised of 45

members, including utilities, IPPs, and municipal systems. Tr.1 at 321-322. As MAIN

explained, it “is one of ten regional reliability councils which comprise the North American

Electric Reliability Council . . . .” MAIN Exh. 1 at 1.

According to MAIN, because individual states are a part of an interconnected system,

the regional councils jointly “coordinate the planning and operation of the North American

bulk electric system (generation and high voltage transmission).” MAIN Exh. 1 at 1. MAIN

monitors Illinois, Eastern Wisconsin, Eastern Missouri, Eastern Iowa, part of Minnesota, and

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. MAIN Exh. 1 at 1. MAIN stated that Illinois cannot be

evaluated individually because it is “part of an interconnected system of transmission and

generation which stretches from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean.” Tr.1 at 315-16.

MAIN evaluates resource adequacy for the region and compiles annual forecasts from

member utilities. Tr.1 at 603; MAIN Exh. 1 at 1. MAIN stated that it “performs detailed

annual studies to determine the amount of reserve required to meet a one-day-in-ten-years loss

---

93

of load probability criterion which is a widely used standard in the industry.” MAIN Exh. 1 at

1. In a ten-year period, the load on one day will probably exceed the available resources.

Tr.1 at 318. The minimum standard reserve requirement with this method is 17 to 20%.

MAIN Exh. 1 at 1. MAIN summarizes its members’ projected loads and capacity, calculates

the reserves, and compares them against the standard. MAIN Exh. 1 at 1.

MAIN projected an 18% reserve margin for the summer of 2000, which fell within the

17 to 20% minimum standard. It projects that reserve margins for the years 2001, 2002, and

2003 will be 13%, 11%, and 10%, respectively, if no new peaker plants are built. These

figures are all substantially below the 17% threshold. MAIN Exh. 1 at 1. IEA noted that the

figures were based on historically average weather. Tr.2 at 37. It warned that “[e]xtremely

hot weather could add an additional 2 to 3 thousand [MW] of demand next summer.” Tr.2 at

39.

Reliant stated that, according to MAIN, the region requires an additional 7,900 MW of

generation between 1999 and 2007 to meet peak demand. PC 1 at 11. Indeck stated that

generators must add between “a thousand to 1,500 [MW] a year for the next five to seven

years to maintain an adequate reserve margin.” Tr.1 at 272. Dr. Overbye testified that the

Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri region requires about 1,000 MW a year to meet the new

load. Tr.1 at 604.

Reliant stated that the high reserve margin for 2000 was attributed to new peaker

plants: “Figures from [MAIN], that include Illinois and nearby states, indicate that the reserve

margin was 9.6% in 1998 and 7.6% in 1999.” PC 1 at 2. Reliant claimed that the “dramatic

drop in the reserve margin has been countered by the addition of new peaker plants operating

this summer (such as the Reliant facility in Shelby County).” PC 1 at 2.

NRDC also predicted that the demand for electricity in Illinois will continue to

increase. PC 109 at 2. The organization, which relied upon regional data, stated:

The electric reliability council serving Illinois and portions of Wisconsin,

MAIN, reports that projected maximum internal demand for electric generation

in 2000 [will be] at 49,615 MW, approximately 3% higher than 199 projected

maximum internal demand. The actual peak demand in summer 1999 was 49,

027 MW, approximately 1.8% above projections.

For the summer 2000 peak demand period, MAIN projected available

generating capacity at 56,523 MW, including generating capacity available from

[IPPs] and limited imports. This figure includes 3,076 MW of new electric

generating capacity available for dispatch, representing 11 new generating

facilities, upgrades at existing generating facilities, and temporary facilities. PC

109 at 2-3.

---

94

Several members of the electric industry claimed that the only way to have sufficient

supply and ensure affordable electricity prices in the near future is to build new peaker plants.

PC 167 at 6; PC 1 at 2; PC 109 at 2. IEA, a trade organization representing Alliant Energy,

Ameren CIPS, Ameren UE, Central Illinois Light Compnay, ComEd and other Illinois power

companies, stated:

If we act to impede the development of this new capacity, we will be placing

ourselves and our fellow citizens at the mercy of forces that are beyond our

control and influence. In our industry such forces usually mean the weather or

equipment difficulties and we have a long history of dealing with such

unknowns. However, to voluntarily disrupt our current balance between nature

supply and imported power could be a recipe for the type of economic chaos

seen in Southern California only a few weeks ago. PC 167 at 6-7.

Reliant stated that “[t]he construction of peaker units will help Illinois avoid supply

shortage, unwanted brownouts and unreasonably high costs for consumers that now plague

California.” PC 1 at 4. Reliant recalled “the summer of 1998 [in Illinois] when temperatures

soared and the demand for electricity threatened the state with forced rolling blackouts.” PC 1

at 4.

IMEA also warned that Illinois should “do nothing to create power shortages in Illinois

through new and restrictive regulation of natural gas-fired, gas turbine peaking plants.” PC

110 at 2. PG&E maintained that regulations to determine the need for peaker plants can create

a chilling effect and are “antithetical to the competitive principals embraced by the Illinois

legislature in 1997.” PC 170 at 2; see also PC 110 at 3; Tr.1 at 310. IMEA stated that Illinois

needs sufficient power generation to avoid higher costs and possibly severely diminished

reliability. PC 110 at 3. “Natural gas-fired peaking plants are a vital component in the State’s

power portfolio and their construction and operation should not be discouraged by unnecessary

and burdensome new regulations.” PC 110 at 3; PC 111 at 3.

According to NRDC, “[m]any developers of new electric generating facilities believe

there are lucrative short-term profits to be made by siting as many peak-load serving single

cycle combustion turbines as they can within the next 18-24 months, anticipating peak demand

episodes similar to that experienced by Illinois in 1999.” PC 109 at 2. However, NRDC

pointed to conclusions of the United States Department of Energy that “those service

interruptions were due to failures in the distribution system infrastructure, inadequately

maintained by the incumbent electric utility, [ComEd].” PC 109 at 2. NRDC warned that

siting more peaker plants within ComEd’s service area “will not necessarily avoid a repetition

of the 1999 electric service interruptions in metropolitan Chicago.” PC 109 at 2. NRDC

advised that “improvements and upgrades of the distribution system infrastructure were and

remain the principal problem and need.” PC 109 at 2. Although NRDC supports siting

natural gas-fired combustion turbines, it believes Illinois should also concentrate on developing

renewable electric generating facilities and invest in energy efficiency. PC 109 at 1.

---

95

G. The Need for Peaker Plants in Illinois

ComEd stated that “it is not clear whether all [of the proposed] additional generating

capacity is needed to meet local needs . . . .” Tr.1 at 74. ComEd asserted that the free market

is necessary to promote sufficient generation. ComEd contended that “[t]here is no indication

that the current regulatory scheme is thrusting too much generation on Illinois.” ComEd Exh.

1 at 11. ComEd encourages new IPPs, which are typically gas-fired, peak-load units, to locate

in Northern Illinois. ComEd stated that this will diversify and disperse the electric supply of

the region, and feels supply and demand will control the number of generation plants built in

Illinois. ComEd Exh. 1 at 7-8,10. ComEd warned that “a reduction in new generation could

fundamentally alter the wholesale market for electricity,” and warned that the “wholesale price

of electricity could increase dramatically.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 11. It gave an example to

illustrate its point:

In Illinois and elsewhere, there have been wholesale price “spikes” in recent

years when electrical energy has cost utilities in excess of $5 per [kWh]. (Last

year, ComEd sold electric power to end users for, on average, $0.074 per

[kWh].) These skyrocketing prices have occurred when very high demand was

coupled with constrained generation and transmission supply. ComEd Exh. 1 at

11.

According to ComEd, California faced electric shortages from unbalanced supply and

demand. ComEd stated that California differed from Illinois in that it “retains a pervasive

regulatory role in evaluating and approving new generation.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 12. ComEd

asserted that the lack of growth of new generators in California is from the state’s regulation of

wholesale power, rather than letting the market drive the price for electricity. ComEd. Exh. 1

at 12. According to MWIPS, California presently has $10 billion of new generation facilities

in line for construction. Tr.1 at 333. MWIPS testified that, “[a]ccording to recent statistics

presented to the California governor, . . . 672 [MW] of new generation was added to the

system [between 1996 and 1999]. Demand during that period jumped more than 5500 [MW].”

Tr.1 at 333. ComEd said that “[t]his summer, California customers have experienced high

prices and curtailments as demand approached capacity.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 12; see also PC

110 at 2. According to ComEd, peaker plants protect Illinois customers by smoothing out

price spikes. ComEd Exh. 1 at 12.

ComEd stated that new generation will also “increase the reliability of service overall,

especially during times of high demand for electricity, by having more generation available.”

ComEd Exh. at 9. ComEd has also sold its own fossil-fuel power plants to Midwest

Generation EME, LLC (Midwest Generation) and agreed to purchase power from the company

to supply to its customers. ComEd Exh. at 9. ComEd added that new generation within its

transmission “control area” eliminates potential problems when electricity is carried from a

longer distance along the transmission system. ComEd Exh. at 9.

---

96

Citizens claimed that the number of proposed peaker plants far exceeds growing

demand in Illinois. Citizens and members of local organizations acknowledged the need for

peak-demand electric power, but challenged the need for the number of generators proposing

to build peaker plants in Illinois. Tr.1 at 390, 494, 502-03, 542, 558, 701. According to

IEPA, companies have submitted permit applications to operate peaker plants on 46 sites. Tr.1

at 48. Mayor Lund of Warrenville stated that “[a]lthough there is probably a need to create

new supply sources to meet the demand for additional electric power during high usage

periods, adequate consideration is not being given to the total amount needed for Illinois

users.” Tr.1 at 390.

Members of CAPPRA testified that the projected decline in reserve margins by MAIN

do not include peaker plants that are accepted and approved for Illinois. Tr.1 at 494.

According to CAPPRA, the additional 16,000 MW supplied by the peaker plants will almost

double the 32,000 MW plant generation capacity in Illinois. Tr.1 at 495. LCCA testified that

the “total power generating capability from [peaker] plants is 22,000 [MW], more than the

entire ComEd system.” Tr.1 at 510. The number greatly exceeds the demand for peak

capacity in the area. Tr.1 at 557. According to one Illinois resident, if ComEd decides to shut

down all of its coal-fired plants and solely use nuclear facilities, the proposed peaker plants

would still produce excess power. Tr.1 at 558-59. Citizens worry that this surplus will be

exported to other states at the expense of the surrounding local residents. Tr.1 at 390, 502-

503, 542, 559.

Dr. Overbye testified that MAIN reported the generation of about 14,000 MW from

new electric facilities. Tr.1 at 617. Dr. Overbye stated that, to reach the goal of 20%

capacity margin, the system would need 6,000 new MW of generation. Tr.1 at 607. Dr.

Overbye concluded that “we’re getting quite a bit more proposed than is needed to meet the

minimum requirements, the 17 to 20 percent capacity margins.” Tr.1 at 607. He testified that

the reserve margins are adequate and the need for new generation in the MAIN area is

relatively modest. Tr.1 at 607-608.

CAPPRA also testified that excess generation also defeats programs that promote

conserving energy. Tr.1 at 496. CAPPRA cited to reports by an intergovernmental

international organization that stated the power generation industry is responsible for

approximately 30% of national CO2 emissions. A CAPPRA member warned that increased

accumulation of CO2 could create a greenhouse effect with several negative effects on the

environment. Tr.1 at 496. According to the speaker, the intergovernmental panel included

about 2,000 scientists from various nations. Tr.1 at 496.

Members of CARE also requested that consideration be given to alternative fuel

resources. One of its directors testified that “[a]lternatives to natural gas should not only be

investigated, but any wind or solar facilities within a 100- to 200-mile radius should be toured

by these municipalities . . . .” Tr.1 at 649. IMEA stated that “it would be ideal if even

---

97

greener sources of power, such as wind, solar, or hydro, could satisfy the state’s growing

needs.” PC 110 at 2. However, it found that “such sources of power are not available on

demand and often, in peak times, are not available at all.” PC 110 at 2-3.

NRDC, which promotes renewable energy resources, recommended that Illinois

construct peaker plants as well as develop new renewable electric generating technologies. PC

109 at 1. It pointed out that one-ninth of Calfornia’s electric supply is generated from wind,

solar, geothermal or biomass resources. The new renewable capacity “has gratifyingly short

lead-times, with the 50 winning bidders all scheduled to be operating by summer of 2002.”

PC 109 at 5.

ALAMC and IEC also testified that “[e]nergy efficiency and renewable energy sources

could provide a significant portion of electrical demand in Illinois[,]” stating that:

Encouraging the wise use of electrical power through the use of more efficient

lighting, climate control and mechanical systems would negate the need for a

portion of new power generation and the associated—and remove the need or

remove the presence of associated air pollution, noise and water demands due to

fuel combustion at electrical generators. For unavoidable growth in electrical

demand, greater use should be made of nonpolluting or less polluting renewable

sources of electricity . . . . Tr.2 at 111.

Ms. Skrukrud, a resident of Olin, Mills, McHenry County, likewise stated that “gas-fired

plants are much cleaner than coal-fired plants, but we should not forget that there are cleaner

forms of energy available such as wind, solar and the cleanest forms of all, improved

efficiency in conservation.” Tr.1 at 1,025.

H. Importing and Exporting Power Generated by Peaker Plants

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck stated that, “[w]ith the restructuring of the [electric] industry,

the door has been opened for other retail suppliers to come into the area.” Tr.1 at 274. The

move towards deregulation has made it increasingly difficult to measure the amount of power

imported and exported in Illinois. According to the ICC, the introduction of power marketers

and IPPs entering the wholesale market adds a new layer to calculations. PC 8 at 2. ICC

explained why it is difficult to determine a set amount for imports and exports:

For example, ComEd’s total sales in 1999 were about 110 million [MW] hours.

ComEd purchased about 11 million, or 10% of that amount, from other utilities

and power marketers. About 1 million of that was from Illinois utilities.

ComEd sold about 19 [MW] hours, or 17%, to other utilities and power

marketers. About 1 million [MW] hours were sold to Illinois utilities. ComEd

sold the rest to power marketers or out-of-state utilities. PC 8 at 2.

---

98

The ICC stated that, once ComEd sells electricity to power marketers, it is difficult to

track whether the electricity remains in Illinois. Marketers may resell power to another Illinois

utility or directly to retail customers. PC 8 at 2. Out-of-state utilities may also re-sell power

in Illinois or to another state. Executive Director Fisher stated that the ICC cannot track exact

numbers for these transactions. Moreover, the power industry itself does not want information

on how much it imports or exports to be publicly available because it gives a competitive

advantage to others in the field, according to Executive Director Fisher. Tr.1 at 40-41.

Citizens expressed concern that peaker plants will export excess power to other states.

Tr.1 at 390, 502-03, 542, 780, 1,024. Mr. Steve Arrigo, a member of CAPPRA, stated that

“[t]he power from some of these plants far exceeds any needs in these areas and in order to sell

this power, they will sell it far from here.” Tr.1 at 502-503. Ms. Cole, a member of the Lake

County Board, stated that “there can be no assurances that power produced in one area will be

used to supply energy in that area.” Tr.1 at 787. Mr. Jim LaBelle, Chairman of the Lake

County Board, testified that “none of the builders and operators of power plants have

guaranteed that the power produced will be used locally.” Tr.1 at 780.

Mr. LaBelle stated that “the county as a whole is risking limited resources and air

quality while potentially receiving no benefit.” Tr.1 at 780. Ms. Cole warned that “[t]his

would mean that those residents immediately impacted by the physical presence of the peaker

facility would probably not garner any benefit, but instead bear the [brunt] of the adverse

environmental impact.” Tr.1 at 787. Similarly, Ms. Carter of the Lake County Board

testified that Lake County citizens “are being asked to give up one precious natural resource

with no guarantee that the sacrifice will realize a benefit for the county’s citizens.” Tr.1 at

799-800.

Mayor Lund of Warrenville testified that, “adequate consideration is not being given to

the total amount [of power] needed for Illinois users.” Tr.1 at 390. As a result, “Illinois

residents will bear the negative impacts of these installments whose benefits will be sent

outside Illinois borders.” Tr.1 at 390.

Mr. James R. Monk, President of IEA, testified that, according to its counterparts in

Wisconsin and Indiana, opponents of peaker plants argue about exporting power to other

states. Tr.2 at 41. Opponents “say they’re building power plants in Wisconsin to ship power

to Illinois or they’re building them in Indiana to ship power to Illinois.” Tr.2 at 41. IEA

claimed that “the basic facts of electricity and the physics of electricity are—make that

difficult, especially considering the transmission constraints we have in the region.” Tr.2 at

41.

Indeck also testified that it was its “expectation that the off take from any plant that [it]

propose[s] in Illinois would be sold to someone who is doing retail business in Illinois.” Tr.1

at 274. For example, ComEd requires a Rockford plant that Indeck owns to generate power in

ComEd’s control territory. Tr.1 at 274. Indeck stated that if it wanted to export power, it

---

99

would build in another area. Tr.1 at 275. Indeck claimed that long-distance transmission does

not make sense because the national transmission grid was not designed for bulk transfers from

one site to another. Tr.1 at 275. Reliant also commented that, “[w]hile periods of peak usage

typically involve an entire region, the laws of physics dictate that [its plant in Aurora] would

serve the needs of the surrounding community first and foremost.” PC 1 at 11. Indeck also

testified that transmission tariffs discourage exporting electricity. Tr.1 at 275-276.

According to Dr. Overbye, the problem with transporting electric power over

transmission lines is that electrons do not know anything about borderlines for utilities. Tr.1

at 613. Electric power takes the path of least resistance. Tr.1 at 613. Dr. Overbye gave an

example of the route electric power can take:

Surprisingly, if Illinois sells power . . . to Tennessee, a good chunk of it

[travels to] . . . northern Georgia. Another chunk of it is . . . in the Entergy

region. A third of that power actually comes into TVA from the south . . . .

Power loops around throughout the entire grid. Tr.1 at 613-614.

Indeck claimed that there is “probably a rare occasion where the economics might make

it make sense, but by and large . . . [electric power] would go into this service territory.”

Tr.1 at 276. Mr. Monk of IEA testified that “geographic and transmission constraints in our

region are such that it’s very difficult to transmit large amounts of electricity on an export

basis.” Tr.2 at 41. According to Mr. Trzupek of Huff & Huff, “power export is a very minor

source of generation demand.” Tr.1 at 357.

Dr. Overbye testified, however, that “it is very common to move power long

distances.” Tr.1 at 615. For example, “[o]n the West Coast, there’s a lot of power from the

Pacific Northwest that flows down to southern California.” Tr.1 at 615.

Reliant stated that Illinois utilities must depend on imports from other states to meet its

peak demand: “given similar economic growth throughout the Midwest, there has been less

power available for import—leaving the state with a potential shortfall in generation capacity or

supply.” PC 1 at 2. Reliant stated that additional peaker plants in Illinois will restore balance

between supply and demand. PC 1 at 2.

I. Illinois Lacks a Statewide Energy Plan

Many participants expressed concern that Illinois does not have a statewide energy

plan. Mr. LaBelle of the Lake County Board suggested that:

[T]he State of Illinois needs a plan and comprehensive licensing guidelines to

assure that all regions of the state have reliable power. The plan should include

identification of the power generation and transmission needed to support

continued economic growth in Illinois. It should provide an analysis of the need

---

100

for power in various regions of the state and an identification of the measures

needed to assure adequate power is provided . . . . The plan should also include

consideration of alternatives, such as improved transmission capacity that could

reduce the need for additional generation capacity in certain areas. Tr.1 at 779-

780; see also

 

PC 190 at 4.

NRDC proposed a similar solution, calling for “a more comprehensive assessment of

the actual need for the units being taken into account.” Tr.2 at 62. NRDC suggested that

Illinois develop a total energy strategy with stakeholder input to serve as guidance for State

agencies to assist local communities in whether projects are a best fit for their areas. Tr.2 at

61.

The ICC presently does not have either a formal forecast of the projected magnitude of

the peak demand for electric power, or an aggregate report on the amount of energy imported

by and exported from Illinois utilities. Tr.1 at 37-38, 40. Citizens have expressed concern

that ICC no longer keeps records as in the past. Tr.1 at 445.

Before the Illinois Electricity Choice Law, utilities had to file a least cost of planning

report with the ICC, which gave a 20-year forecast of power demand. Tr.1 at 32. The reports

allowed the ICC to generate forecasts of base-load demand, which were generally accurate

from the early to mid-1990s. Tr.1 at 42. Executive Director Fisher of the ICC stated that

“the last least cost energy plan filed by ComEd with the Commission was in 1996.” Tr.1 at 24.

The 1997 law eliminated the requirement to report to the ICC. As a result, the ICC currently

does not have a formal role in reviewing overall electric generation in Illinois. Tr.1 at 32.

The ICC does receive some information by continuing to work with electric generators.

Tr.1 at 37. The ICC held several hearings with utilities monitoring power generation when the

summers of 1998 and 1999 placed extraordinary pressures on the system. Tr.1 at 32. The ICC

also monitors the development of existing nuclear plants and reviews their existing lifespan.

All Illinois nuclear power plants have a licensed life set by the Illinois Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC). The ICC is examining whether to lengthen the lives of existing nuclear

facilities, because the Illinois plants are operating at an efficient rate. Tr.1 at 33.

Executive Director Fisher explained that organizations like MAIN are currently being

phased out on the federal level in favor of new independent transmission organizations. Tr.1

at 38-39. According to Ms. Turnball, a consultant to various citizen groups, even if MAIN

were to continue monitoring the region, it does not have access and keep records of forecasting

specifically for Illinois. Tr.1 at 445. IPPs want their own access to the transmission network.

Tr.1 at 39. Similarly, ComEd suggested that the State privatize the local generation portfolio

in Northern Illinois. ComEd Exh. 1 at 9. ComEd believes that a number of different electric

suppliers with market incentives to construct new generating capacity should create a portfolio,

which “together with resources from other utilities, would meet the area’s increasing needs

over time.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 9.

---

101

The ICC gave several reasons as to why companies are eager to site peaker plants:

“Their relatively low capital cost permits them to provide high capacity to sell into the market

for short periods of time when the market prices reflect peak demand.” Tr.1 at 26. The ICC

testified that combustion turbines are the least cost alternative for providing power on peak

demand. Tr.1 at 24-25. “Modern gas-fired combustion turbines cost about $400 per [kW] of

generating capacity whereas new coal-fired plants are estimated to cost about $1,600 per [kW]

of generating capacity, and a nuclear generating plant costs between $2,000 and $5,000 per

[kW] of generating capacity.” Tr.1 at 25.

According to the ICC, a number of factors enhance the cost-effectiveness of modern

gas-fired combustion turbines. Federal restrictions on building gas-fired generation have been

removed, and gas prices predominately have been lower in the last ten years. Executive

Director Fisher stated that, “[a]lthough the cost of natural gas has risen [recently], . . . the

push for gas-fired generation does not appear to have dampened.” Tr.1 at 25. Peaker plants

have ready access to fuel sources in Illinois. Many major natural gas pipelines terminate in or

are available to Illinois. Several of the lines go into the Chicago area. Tr.1 at 26. IEA noted

that the available natural gas supply is coupled with a viable connection to the high voltage

electricity transmission system. PC 167 at 5. According to IEA, the combination “is one

reason that so many companies are interested in investing in our state.” PC 167 at 5.

Executive Director Fisher noted that gas-fired plants are also more quickly and easily

constructed and operated than other generators. Tr.1 at 25. Peaker plants offer flexible

operating schedules, and can easily be turned on and off in response to peak demands. Some

of the plants can even be operated by remote access. Tr.1 at 26.

According to the ICC, gas-fired generation units are also now more efficient.

Executive Director Fisher stated that gas-fired generators further appear to have fewer

environmental consequences than coal-fired plants. They also have less of a stigma and cost

less than nuclear plants. Tr.1 at 26.

---

102

J. Effects of Peaker Plants on Electric Transmission and Distribution Systems

Constructing numerous peaker plants throughout the State raises issues about

transmitting power from the new sources across the transmission grid. ComEd described the

basic concepts behind transmitting electricity. Because a utility cannot readily store electricity,

it must be instantaneously transmitted through a network of wires from generator to end-user.

ComEd Exh. 1 at 3; see also PC 110 at 2. “When a customer turns on an electric light or

appliance, sufficient power for that device must be generated somewhere on the grid at that

moment.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 3. The network of wires, or transmission lines, forms a national

grid. ICC Exh. 1 at 2.

According to Dr. Overbye, a specialist in power systems, the national grid can be

broken down into the transmission system and the distribution system. Tr.1 at 591. The

transmission system, comprised of high voltage power lines, is connected in a grid. Tr.1 at

591. Numerous feeds that operate at the minimum of 100,000 volts connect to each point in

the system. Tr.1 at 592.

Dr. Overbye explained that the distribution or lower voltage part of the grid is

comprised of local or neighborhood wires, which are buried under ground in many places.

Tr.1 at 592. “The distribution system is the source of practically all of the outages that we

experience.” Tr.1 at 592. Local wires are 95% of the problem. Tr.1 at 592. Dr. Overbye

stated that, when an outage occurs, the national grid itself is still intact and “[t]here’s still

plenty of generation.” Tr.1 at 593. “[P]eaker plants have no impact on the distribution

system reliability.” Tr.1 at 595. According to Dr. Overbye, the increase in peaker plants will

not change the number of outages in Illinois. Tr.1 at 595.

However, peaker plants do have an impact on transmission system flows, according to

Dr. Overbye. Tr.1 at 596. The national grid is designed so that power instantaneously

redistributes on the system if a line is lost. Tr.1 at 594. Dr. Overbye stated that this kind of

shift can transmit too much power through the line. Tr.1 at 595. For example, Mr. Steve

Naumann of ComEd testified that, during the summer of 2000, there were multiple incidents of

transmission loading relief on a daily basis, where sales from “one area to another were cut or

curtailed because the transmission lines were being overloaded.” Tr.1 at 295. This is similar

to the circuit breaker shutting down when a homeowner tries to draw too much power. Tr.1 at

295. Dr. Overbye stated that we cannot “directly control the amount of power flowing on a

line.” Tr.1 at 594. As he explained, there is no valve. “Rather, we can only indirectly

control it by changing the output of the generators.” Tr.1 at 594-595.

Citizens have asked why generators want to locate peaker plants in more populated

areas along the grid. Tr.1 at 759. According to ComEd, new local power plants reduce

problems with transmission lines because “[l]ocal generation helps to support voltage on the

system, especially near the generator.” PC 164 at 3. Reliant commented that “locating plants

near the demand ‘strengthens the grid’. . . .” PC 1 at 11. Dr. Overbye stated that, “in power

---

103

systems, you’re always trading off generation location versus transmission.” Tr.1 at 595. He

explained that “if you put up too much generation too far away from the loads without

new . . . transmission, you can overload the grid.” Tr.1 at 608. ComEd testified that “[y]ou

can either build more transmission [lines] or locate generators at particular locations.” Tr.1 at

595. ComEd elaborated:

[T]he closer a generation source is to the load, the fewer potential problems

there are with transmitting the power. If transmission lines become unavailable

or overloaded, having local generation could allow nearby customers to remain

energized.

* * *

As a matter of physics and prudent operation, only so much power can be

transmitted through a given line; at some point, to keep the lines from

overloading, a transmission owner must turn down request to transmit more

power or curtail other transactions. * * * Because the lines connecting

neighboring utilities and neighboring states in the Midwest, like all

transmission lines, have finite capacity, there have already been numerous

instances on which transmission requests were denied. * * * This is especially

true during peak load conditions. It is therefore incorrect that either Illinois

can depend heavily on generation in other states, or that Illinois-based

generation will be used to supply huge amounts of load in other states. Unless

or until massive new transmission line projects redefine the transmission grid,

this condtion will remain for the foreseeable future. * * * And, regardless of

interstate transmission availability, distant generation cannot support voltage on

the local system to the same extent that local generation can. PC 164 at 3-4.

Each utility maintains its portion of the transmission grid. ComEd explained that when

a non-utility generator requests access to the transmission lines that ComEd owns, it places the

non-utility in a queue “primarily based on the date of the developer’s initial interconnection

request to ComEd.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 6. ComEd maintains the queue because “one project

may, if successfully brought on line, affect the plans of future projects.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 6.

ComEd stated that it “works with each interested developer to design an efficient and

reliable interconnection with ComEd’s grid.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 6. “Since the effective date of

the [Illinois Electricity Choice Law], ComEd has worked with numerous developers to design

interconnections with ComEd’s grid.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 8. “Once the generation plant is

interconnected and operational, ComEd’s OASIS electronic bulletin board allows market

participants to request the delivery components of transmission service on ComEd’s network,

which, if available, enables the generator’s electric power to move onto the regional grid.”

ComEd Exh. 1 at 6.

---

104

Mr. Elam asserted that “ComEd’s shareholders, not necessarily consumers, stand to

gain interconnection fees and wheeling charges if these peakers are built on the ComEd

system.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 14. Mr. Elam warned that “ComEd [and other companies]

stand to make more money with less risk by selling its existing transmission system benefits to

IPPs than constructing new transmission lines.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 14. Mr. Elam added

that “[g]eneration located at the northern end of the ComEd system benefits ComEd, the IPP,

the natural gas company and the power marketer that owns the output of the generation, but

does not provide any guarantee of benefit to the local community or state of Illinois.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 15.

Dr. Overbye testified that the national electric grid is interconnected and very well

designed. Tr.1 at 597. The purpose of the transmission system is to “take power from

outlying areas and to bring it into the heavy load areas.” Tr.1 at 600. Dr. Overbye stated that

“[p]ower generated in Illinois can easily be sold to Wisconsin, Indiana, down to Tennessee,

basically anywhere in the eastern part of the country.” Tr.1 at 598. He claimed that it is not

unusual to export or import power. Tr.1 at 598. “The transmission grid is used to supply

power to the system from the generators that may be located quite distant from the load to the

load.” Tr.1 at 601.

ComEd stated that Illinois cannot rely on out-of-state peaker plants transmitting power

because of the slow evolution of the interstate transmission grid. PC 164 at 4; see also PC 1 at

5. According to IMEA, “[t]oday’s transmission grid is not the interstate highway to which

some have compared it.” PC 110 at 2. “Rather, it is a crosshatching of two lane roads with

many areas of heavy traffic and troublesome congestion on the busiest days.” PC 110 at 2.

IEA also testified that “our system is really a Balkanized system that was built for the old

electricity style of control area here, control area here, control area here . . . . It wasn’t built

for all the transfers that are taking place now between utilities in Pennsylvania and utilities in

Wyoming.” Tr.2 at 52-53. IMEA stated that the resulting transmission bottlenecks “have

threatened parts of the State with mandatory curtailments as recently as this summer.” PC 110

at 2.

ComEd explained that MAIN currently has regional rules and guidelines that prevent

generators from overloading transmission lines. PC 164 at 4. According to ComEd, MAIN

has denied numerous transmission requests because lines connecting neighboring states and

utilities have reached their capacity. PC 164 at 4.

Dr. Overbye testified about the impact that an overload on a particular line could have

on the power markets. Tr.1 at 601. “[P]ower markets are very large.” Tr.1 at 602. The

Midwest had a price spike in June of 1998. The spike occurred in part because of an

overloaded transmission line in Northwest Wisconsin and an overloaded transformer in

Southeast Ohio. Tr.1 at 602. When the Northwest Wisconsin line overloaded, several regions

could no longer supply electricity to Illinois. Tr.1 at 602. “[O]ne little line wiped out the

entire west for a market that we could get energy from. One transformer in Ohio wiped out

---

105

the entire east.” Tr.1 at 602. “Locating generation in central Illinois . . . would definitely

have helped the problems that you saw in northern Illinois or generation in Ohio would have

helped as well.” Tr.1 at 602.

Dr. Overbye also cautioned that this region’s transmission system does have a major

bottleneck in Northern Wisconsin, which is called the Eau Claire Arpin line. Tr.1 at 598.

This line “limits a lot of the time how much power we, as Wisconsin and Illinois, can import

from Minnesota and further north into Manitoba.” Tr.1 at 598-99. IEA testified that

Wisconsin has very serious transmission constraints caused by geographic barriers and a

shortage of transmission capacity. Tr.2 at 50. Dr. Overbye warned that “when the line gets

loaded to its maximum ability, we can’t bring in any more generation from [the northern

region of MAIN].” Tr.1 at 610. “Particularly, when we’re having a hot summer down here

and they’ve got cool weather up there, we can bring in a lot of power if we had a new line

there or alternatively, we have to generate it more locally.” Tr.1 at 599.

Mr. Elam similarly stated that “ComEd has had significant trouble moving power

through its system from the south to the north into Wisconsin during peak periods.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 8. Transmission of power across ComEd’s system has been cut because it

lacked the capacity to transport the electric power. Lake County Exh. 4 at 9. Peaker plants

“installing generation on the north side of ComEd quickly enhances the lack of adequate

transmission capability, but fails to address the issue of inadequate transmission.” Lake

County Exh. 4 at 8. Mr. Elam questioned why generation was not proposed, instead, in

Wisconsin. Lake County Exh. 4 at 8.

ComEd controls a significant portion of the transmission grid in Illinois. “ComEd

owns and operates a network of high voltage transmission lines and substations, which transfer

power from generating stations or from other networks to local areas of load and to other

networks.” ComEd Exh. 1 at 4. “ComEd also owns and operates a system of local

distribution lines and substations that carry power to ComEd’s customers.” ComEd Exh. 1 at

4.

ComEd recently became less involved as a generator and is concentrating on

transmitting electric power. ComEd Exh. 1 at 9-10. ComEd is taking an active role in

optimizing its transmission system. It has been studying its system to “determine the most

convenient and, from an electrical standpoint, beneficial locations for new generation.”

ComEd Exh. at 10. “ComEd analyzed the intricate network of its [lines] . . . in a manner that

maximized power delivery from the facility while minimizing modifications that would have to

be made to the existing transmission network to accommodate that generation.” ComEd Exh. 1

at 10. Mr. Shay, Senior Planner for Will County, stated that new generating facilities are

trying to build in Chicago because many of the transmission lines and natural gas lines cross in

the area and the plants would be close to a large power market. Tr.1 at 708.

Mr. Elam explained that FERC Order No. 2000 “is focused on making sure that our

---

106

nation’s infrastructure is adequate and that our existing assets are used efficiently, without

undue market influence.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 16. The order “creates transmission only

entities that will be run by independent operators, independent from market participants so that

discriminatory practices are absent when improving and or expanding the grid.” Lake County

Exh. 4 at 13.

FERC “ordered all public utilities to join Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO)

which will operate in essence as one large carrier.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 13. The RTOs

must facilitate the expansion of the national electric transmission infrastructure. Lake County

Exh. 4 at 13. “Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently commented ‘we have the

infrastructure of a third world country’ when discussing the transmission system reliability.”

Lake County Exh. 4 at 13. Mr. Elam added that it should be noted that “the grid is looked at

as a regional area versus trying to fix a market problem.” Tr.1 at 830.

Mr. Elam cautioned that “the efforts of ComEd and other parties that will financially

benefit have not been presented in these hearings to coincide with the efforts and planning of

the RTO, which is not to have influence by a market participant.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 14.

Mr. Elam stated that, “[t]o arbitrarily build at the proposed sites without a coordinated effort

. . . may be harmful and undermine the efforts of an independent organization such as the

RTO, except those expected to profit.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 14.

In June 1998, ComEd published a list of 14 preferred sites for new facilities. The list

shows where generators can access the transmission network without major new upgrades or

expansions to the transmission system. ComEd Exh. 1 at 11; Tr.1 at 296. The list, which

does not examine land use issues, environmental impacts, or fuel availability, includes the

following locations: (1) Zion; (2) Zion-Libertyville/Zion-Waukegan Right-of-way; (3)

Lombard; (4) Silver Lake-Libertyville Right-of-way; (5) Silver Lake; (6) Libertyville; (7)

Wayne-Silver Lake Right-of-way; (8) Wayne; (9) Prospect Heights; (10) Itasca; (11)

Waukegan; (12) Electric Junction; (13) Lombard-Elmhurst Right-of-way; and (14) Pleasant

Valley. ComEd Exh. 1, Att. D. ComEd stated that the last four sites require more significant

upgrades, such as installing new transformers. ComEd Exh. 1, Att. D at 1.

Mr. LaBelle of the Lake County Board testified that ComEd should consider

“alternatives to peakers, such as additional transmission lines.” Tr.1 at 782. However,

according to the ICC, building new transmission lines has proven to be difficult in the 1990s.

Tr.1 at 26-27. The ICC stated that, “[i]n addition to ready access to fuel sources, electrical

generating plants require access to significant transmission capacity to move its product

through the market. The closer the combustion turbine peaker is to a natural gas supply and

electric transmission lines, the less expensive it is to bring it on-line.” Tr.1 at 26-27.

However, public resistance to new transmission lines makes it less attractive to construct lines

to increase power availability. Tr.1 at 27.

Mr. Dennis Wilson, a resident of the Island Lake area, testified about health problems

---

107

allegedly associated with transmission lines. According to Mr. Wilson, an English physicist

from Bristol University is studying whether electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer. Mr.

Wilson stated:

[T]hey are coming up with some pretty good proof—is that in areas where you

have high pollution, and as high pollution passes through the power lines, the

particles become charged, and those particles remain charged for up to five

miles away from those lines. That means if you have people living in that area

they will be breathing that atmosphere of the charged particles. And what they

are stating is that those particles will stick in your lungs at a rate of 100 times

greater than it normally would if they were not charged. Tr.1 at 975.

Mr. Wilson testified that the existence of an energy field around lines can be simply shown by

walking under a power line with a fluorescent bulb. Tr.1 at 975. He claimed the bulb will

light up within 50 feet of the lines. Tr.1 at 975. Mr. Wilson further stated the National

Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences conducted research that led it to believe the

lines are carcinogenic. Tr.1 at 976.

Mr. Elliot “Bud” Nesvig, a professional elictrical engineer who has been involved with

the Evanston energy commission, alleged that the distribution system that ComEd owns is

antiquated. Tr.1 at 697-698, 704-705. According to Mr. Nesvig, ComEd stated in a May

2000 meeting in Itasca that the utility “had not maintained the distribution system for 20

years.” Tr.1 at 706. Mr. Nesvig claimed that ComEd estimated “it would take more than two

years to bring it up-to-date.” Tr.1 at 706. He also testified that the continual overloading of

distribution lines deteriorates their effectiveness and causes more frequent outages. Tr.1 at

706-707.

Mr. Elam stated that transmission lines “do not emit SO2, NOx, or any other hazardous

pollutants.” Lake County Exh. 4 at 13-14. Mr. Elam added that although they can be

unsightly and take up space, the lines can be engineered to be more aesthetic and are needed to

enhance the electric power system. Lake County Exh. 4 at 14.

18

18 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

108

IX. SITING

In this portion of the Report, the Board summarizes record information on the siting of

peaker plants. Specifically, the Board first summarizes citizen concerns, then suggestions from

citizens on siting peaker plants. Next, the Board summarizes, in turn, information on siting

from State government, industry, and local government.

---

109

A. Concerns of Citizens

1. Clustering/Cumulative Effect

Many citizens expressed concern about clustering of multiple peaker plants in

residential areas. Ms. Dorge of LCCA stated that “[w]e can have two across the street—we

have two across the street from each other in Zion, the outskirts of Zion with 18 stacks. What

is to prevent us from having 10 or more in close proximity. “ Tr.1 at 460. Ms. Cathy

Capezio, a resident of Aurora elaborated: “There should not be two peaker power plants

within a two-mile radius when you have four communities that probably total over 300,000

people in a close proximity of these plants . . . .” Tr.1 at 479; see also CAPPRA Exh.1 at 2.

Ms. Zingle, Executive Director of LCCA, testified about potential air pollution from

the clustering of plants:

They’re very much concentrated in the six county area and they centrally ring

Lake County, and we're downwind of it, so are we concerned about the overall

cumulative effect of these and what are we doing to our situation with NOx

emissions and nonattainment? Tr.1 at 534-535; see also Tr.1 at 912

(Geiselhart).

  

Mr. Kucera, an attorney with Chapman & Cutler appearing on behalf of the Lake County

Public Water District, questioned what the impact would be of multiple draw-downs on an

aquifer at a particular location. Tr.1 at 768-769. Mr. Chris Goebel, a member of CAPPRA,

stated “we're going to see problems with this, problems that we don't know the true outcome

of what's going to happen.” Tr.1 at 559.

Ms. Terry Voitik, founder of CAPPRA, asserted that current regulations are

inadequate, stating that it is “absurd that the IEPA with the USEPA’s endorsement continues to

issue permits and give the green light without regard to the cumulative effects of multiple

plants in our nonattainment zones.” Tr.1 at 485. Ms. Zingle testified that legislation is

needed to address the clustering of facilities:

It is the aggregate effect of millions of cars in the United States that has

prompted comprehensive regulations of automobile emissions, not the discharge

from a single car. It is totally illogical to disregard the cumulative effects of the

peaker plants. Tr.2 at 183; see also Tr.1 at 1,010-1,011 (McCarthy).

NRDC stated that “[n]atural gas-fired combustion turbines represent the best available

large-scale fossil fuel generation in terms of minimal adverse air quality impacts . . . .”

However, “the aggregate impact of the proposed combustion turbine projects in Illinois would

amount to several hundred tons, likely to be emitted during the worst ozone episodes.” PC

109 at 5-6.

---

110

2. Decrease in Quality of Life

Mr. Maurice Gravenhorst, a member of CAPPRA, testified about his concerns over

siting peaker plants near residential areas:

I am very concerned about the power plant in my community at the corner of

Eola and Butterfield Road. It is two miles east of my property. I moved to

Aurora because I liked the area and I was real happy with the environment and

forest preserves and everything around me was so natural. I lived on a 23 acre

wetland that was donated by a developer. Had I known about Reliant and

peaker power plants and all these things, this would not have been my choice to

move out here because the last clear breath I will take will end in spring of 2001

when the plant at Eola and Butterfield will go into service or so they say, and it

really is a tragedy. Tr.1 at 491; see also Tr.1 at 449 (Dorge).

3. Proximity to Residential Areas

According to Ms. Zingle, “the power companies are interested in locating naturally

where the power lines and the gas mains intercept. If that happens to be adjacent to a

subdivision or in the middle of green fields or in an airport flight path, there doesn't seem to

be much concern from the power companies.” Tr.1 at 518. Ms. Stark, Director of CARE,

stated: “There’s residences around there. There’s a school within 1,000 feet. I mean, none

of that is taken into consideration.” Tr.1 at 652-653; see also Tr.1 at 482 (Capezio).

Ms. Carolyn Muse, a resident of Zion, testified: “My husband and I are very

concerned [about] the groundwater. Everyone in the area has wells. We have septics. The

siting of that plant I don't know how it happened, but it should not be next to residential

areas.” Tr.1 at 956.

4. Property Values

Ms. Johnson of the Rural and City Preservation Association stated: “We know this

will affect property values and future development in the area.” Tr.1 at 549; see also

CAPPRA Exh.1 at 2; Zingle Exh. 8 at 2.

5. Environmental Justice

NRDC stated that peaker plants:

[S]hould avoid disproportionately burdening any community, but particularly

low income communities and communities of color . . . . [M]any potential host

communities are convinced from their experiences that existing local zoning

---

111

requirements are not adequate to address all the public interest concerns . . . .

That may be in part attributable to the lack of coordination between

municipalities and Illinois regulatory agencies involved in permitting new

electric generating facilities, particularly [IEPA] . . . . PC 109 at 7.

Ms. Zingle testified that “[t]he villages that spend the money get the results. Villages

like Lockport who simply try to rely on the system do not. It creates a terrible disadvantage

for the [less] affluent cities and for the less aggressive.” Tr.1 at 518-521; see also Tr.1 at 676

(Zingle); Tr.1 at 916-917 (Geiselhart); Tr.1 at 939 (Owen). Ms. Beverly DeJovine, a member

of Bartlett Citizens Advocating Responsible Environments (Bartlett CARE), an environmental

group opposed to peaker plants, testified:

[W]e're very concerned about the siting of this plant and the zoning for this

particular plant. We're very concerned that—who is to stop anybody else

from—any other power generation company from coming into Bartlett and

putting one right next door to this. If we say yes to one, we will not have any

legal basis to say no to any others. Tr.1 at 543-544.

5. Home Rule

Ms. Zingle noted:

We do have a difficulty though and he touched on there, areas that are not home

ruled can only regulate those things specifically allowed to by the state. So we

were told by the state’s attorney that he can't do that particular ordinance, but

we did it anyway and we'll see what happens. We were told we can't do noise

more stringently than the state even though we'd like to. We can't introduce

enforcement things where the state decides. We can't even enforce the noise

ordinance. * * * [O]ur hands are tied.” Tr.1 at 526.

6. Local Zoning

Ms. Turnball, a consultant to a variety of citizen groups, a private foundation, and

businesses opposed to peaker plants, testified:

[S]iting is now local and siting is impacting most municipalities who have

zoning ordinances that wouldn't have included a category for that particular

business because even though there might be a statement in the zoning ordinance

that says public utility station, they aren't a public utility. So we have local

governments which in most cases that I have seen a zoning ordinance where this

new business, and I think we need to talk about it as a new business, didn't exist

in the zoning ordinances and that is of a concern. Tr.1 at 436-437; see also

Tr.1 at 1,121-1,023 (Sargis).

---

112

Ms. Owen of Zion Against Peaker Plants stated that “peakers were not anticipated by existing

zoning courts. They don't even need a special use permit from the Zion zoning board. An art

gallery does, but a peaker plant does not.” Tr.1 at 940.

7. Lack of Input from Neighboring Communities

Citizens expressed concern over the lack of input a neighboring community has on the

siting of peaker plants. Ms. Zingle offered an example:

One of the difficulties we had with Zion is that they will not permit the

neighbors to speak in public hearings at the village board meetings. They claim

this is all being agitated by outsiders, yeah, it's because the outsiders are the

ones that live 500 feet from the plant. It's the outsiders what are going to feel

the effects. Tr. 1 at 531.

8. Complexity of Issues for Local Boards

Mr. Sargis, an attorney who works with various environmental groups, stated that

“many communities, both government and the public, are ill-equipped to evaluate the potential

impact of facilities that are not yet familiar in Illinois.” Tr.1 at 1,121-1,023; see also Tr.1 at

476 (Goff), 502 (Arrigo), 511, 524 (Zingle), 553 (Johnson), 646 (Stark), 868-869 (Eaton).

Ms. Zingle testified that “[i]n Zion, we have a used car salesman, a high school

superintendent, a teacher, a retired accountant. How do they know how to judge emissions or

ask about point maximum impact. They don't. They're not stupid. They just don't know.”

Tr.1 at 529.

Mr. Eaton, an attorney for several organizations, including a homeowners association,

testified:

[T]oo often local regulatory agencies believe that the IEPA, in issuing a permit,

has exhaustively studied the situation and resolved all the issues. Even worse,

they may believe that the IEPA has preempted the field. It should be made clear

that local governments are entitled to impose more stringent pollution control

measures than does the IEPA, should they choose to do so as far as their siting

process. Tr.1 at 892.

Ms. Zingle asserted that the “village board is completely dependent on the

representations of the power companies for their information . . . .” Tr.1 at 518; see also Tr.1

at 537-540 (DeJovine), 646 (Stark). Ms. Zingle explained:

[The power companies] use the reputation of natural gas as a clean fuel and

trade on fears of brown-outs to sell their products. They sometimes maybe

---

113

stretch the truth. These are things I've heard at village plan commissions. This

one was under oath. Our plant doesn't emit ozone. Technically, it's true. No,

their plants don't emit ozone. We have our EPA permit. The IEPA says we're

clean. No, the IEPA says you could pollute up to 250 tons a year. The artist's

rendering of this plant isn't quite to scale. No, it's not. It [omits] 12, 105 foot

tall 20 foot diameter smoke stacks. The nearest resident in the city is over a half

mile from the site. That's true, but the nearest residents overall in the

unincorporated area is less than 500 feet from the site. Emissions are small

compared to other plants. This is my favorite. They'll take the Waukegan plant

and the Pleasant Prairie plant and say, see, we don't pollute as much as they do.

No, of course you don't. The villages have a responsibility to research and

ascertain the claims of the company and each is laboriously going through the

same learning curve without guidance or help. Most of the villages are unaware

of the need for an air construction permit and that data on emissions or stack

height or operating hours or fuel types is available and documented. Even those

that find the existence of the permit, really aren't really good at running around

and showing it. We need help interpreting its contents. The village's reactions

to the new plants vary from the sublime to the ridiculous. From Libertyville

who went through 20 highly structured plant commission hearings addressing

air, need, noise, water, zoning, property values and so forth, to Zion who has

two plants coming in across the street from each other who has had no public

hearings in over nine months of controversy. Tr.1 at 518.

B. Suggestions of Citizens

NRDC advised that “[w]hen applications are pending for multiple facilities, siting

boards should select those that best meet these criteria rather than approve applications on a

first-come, first-served basis.” PC 109 at 7. NRDC believes that the Board should integrate:

[T]he currently disjointed local zoning review process with consideration of

draft state administered air and water permits. * * * NRDC supports siting

laws that encourage new power plants to: (1) use renewable fuels; (2)

implement state-of-the-art air and water pollution systems; (3) locate on or near

existing power plant sites that do not require new fuel supply or transmission

infrastructure; and (4) avoid disproportionately burdening low-income

communities and communities of color . . . . [S]iting laws should ensure that

cumulative environmental and public health impacts decline over time as

capacity increases. PC 109 at 9-10.

NRDC also stated that some entity should take over the ICC’s old role and develop “a

comprehensive energy strategy for Illinois”: “The issues associated with permitting and siting

a large influx of single cycle natural gas-fired generating capacity do not necessarily

---

114

require . . . comprehensive power plant siting regulations or legislation, but rather a

comprehensive energy planning process, ecompassing functions once carried out by the

[ICC].” PC 109 at 10. Other suggestions are described below.

---

115

1. Siting Template

Given the concern with the ability of local boards to site peaker plants, some citizens

suggested the need for a siting template. Tr.1 at 529, 544 (Zingle), 868-899 (Eaton).

Mr. Eaton testified:

We wish to be clear that we are not recommending a reinstitution of a statewide

regulation. However, what we are suggesting is that there ought to be an effort

made on a statewide comprehensive basis to assist local governmental agencies

to fill this gap. What we believe is sorely needed is a sound set of principals,

guidelines and criteria to assist local governmental agencies to properly evaluate

power plant siting requests and to evaluate whether a proposed site is a good

site. Tr.1 at 890; see also Tr.1 at 900 (Eaton).

2. Preferred Locations

Mr. Eaton and other citizens suggested that peaker plants should be sited at existing

industrial locations or brownfield areas. Eaton Exh. 1 at 17; see also PC 14 at 2. Mr. Dennis

Wilson is from the Island Lake area. He stated:

Now, in talking about these plants, what we are really talking about here is

siting issues. When they can take and bring in a $250 million operation on top

of residences 1,200 feet away, there is something wrong with the regulation.

* * * I have heard in testimony earlier this evening that maybe brown areas

were better for this. Industrial property might be better than this. But having

researched this for quite a period of time now, it has been two years, I have a

completely different opinion. I think that these plants should be located—

because they [can] wheel the power great distances as we have heard—way out

in the country away from everybody. Tr.1 at 974.

3. Multi-Jurisdictional Oversight

Ms. Schmidt, a member of the River Prairie Group of the Illinois Sierra Club, testified:

“We are advocating for regional use of land and that regional planning be done in this process.

If regional use is considered, then one municipality cannot be allow a proposed plant to be

built on its perimeter thus protecting its own residents, but without regard to the neighboring

communities.” Tr.1 465-466; see also Tr.1 at 980-981 (Jacobs), 449 (Dorge), 858-859

(LaBelle).

4. Bonding

Mr. Eaton emphasized the importance of bonding:

---

116

One guideline or recommendation that we feel is vital in power plant sitings is

for communities to require reliable, suitable and adequate bonding to cover

disassembly, site remediation, and any other possible consequences of a decision

of an [IPP] to discontinue use of a power plant after it has been built. Tr.1 at

876.

5. Notice

Ms. Turnball advocated that IEPA provide certain notices:

I would like to suggest that [IEPA] require the applicant to provide a list of the

adjacent property owners within 500 feet of their proposed facility and a list of

all the municipalities within a mile and a half unless they're in a municipality

and that the IEPA would then send public notices to that list so that the people

who are going to be affected by it would have a knowledge of this. If they're

having to do any kind of zoning—local zoning, that's a list that they could have

developed for that anyway and then the public can, at least, have some

knowledge and attend the meetings in case they don't happen to hear about a

public notice. Tr.1 at 442.

6. Siting Approaches in Other States

Mr. Silva of NRDC testified at length about siting approaches in other states:

Essentially, we would suggest that Illinois consider a process whereby a more

comprehensive total energy strategy is developed with stakeholder input that

would essentially serve as a blueprint to help guide decisions of various state

agencies, whereby the communities right now, many municipalities in the state

have complained, rightfully so, that they feel somewhat bereft of state assistance

in assessing whether or not some of these projects are a best fit for their

particular communities. * * * [S]ome of these kind of centralized processes

that are available in states such as California and New York

19 allow for

participation of the public and fund that participation as part of the permit

applications for the plants. They essentially provide for intervenor funds based

on a prorated share of the proposed generation capacity of the unit which is

allocated for expert witnesses and technical assistance to the communities and

the stakeholders. * * * For example, under Article X of the New York Public

Service Law, it's a 50-50 split on projects where projects are assessed at $1,000

per [MW] up to $300,000 maximum for a project, and that—those funds can

actually be split between the municipality involved and interested stakeholders.

19 For descriptions of the New York and California processes for siting electric generating

plants, please refer to Appendix H.

---

117

Any balance of funds that are not exhausted are then returned to the applicant.

That would be—That’s one part. We're not saying that that's the only solution

or the best solution for Illinois. That's an option that we thought it was

important to mention and provide some solution and a greater sense of control.

* * *

The siting process for the State of New York is based on Article X of the New

York Public Service Law. It creates a New York state board on electric

generation siting and the environment. Most of the board members are

appointees of the governor or are actually the heads of various state agencies or

their appropriate representatives. It actually requires a multistep review

process. There's a preliminary scoping statement that's first required to be

submitted. The applicant then has to publicize the project and actually establish

a presence in the potential host community to ensure that there's adequate

opportunity for the public to gain information. I mentioned in passing that there

was a requirement that when the full application is filed that a fee equal to the

prorated amount of its maximum generating capacity up to $300,000 be made

available to provide for expert witnesses and public assistance to the host

community and any interested parties or organizations, and that it go through an

open hearing process and—but ultimately—and we're not taking a position one

way or the other—the—under Article X, the siting board does have the authority

to supersede local municipal zoning ordinance, so that's something that I wanted

to point out.

* * *

I think that for Illinois, it would be quite worthwhile to look at most of these

processes that offer integrated evaluation. I don't think that it's necessarily the

best approach. Another example that's immediately adjacent to you is

Wisconsin, which has a long and a fairly well—highly regarded among energy

officials and energy analysts as having a very good process of evaluation. Now,

that doesn't mean that the—it’s going to be a great fit for Illinois' circumstances.

I think when it comes down to it, frankly, you're going to have to pick and

choose among what the existing programs are defined, what works best. I'm

also saying that, frankly, recognizing political realities, that a lot of the

stakeholders in this process have interests that they're seeking to protect, and

they will probably lobby quite forcefully to protect those interests. So I am not

suggesting that a comprehensive perfect siting law is the only thing you should

be looking at, but I think the whole process of looking at good siting laws that

offer an inclusive process for municipalities in particular that currently are

feeling like they're getting battered by the current existing process . . . . Tr.2 at

62-63, 77-78, 103-104; see also McCarthy Exh. 2.

---

118

Ms. Zingle stated: “No state that we found yet leaves the siting of power plants

exclusively to local control with no guidance or supervision from state environmental

regulatory bodies.” Tr.2 at 173.

7. Pollution Control Facility Siting in Illinois (SB 172)

In Illinois, the Act sets forth a process for siting pollution control facilities, including

landfills. The process, commonly known as “Senate Bill 172” or “SB 172,” was discussed

many times in this record as a potential model for siting peaker plants. Ms. Zingle suggested

that an appropriate approach to siting peaker plants would be one similar to SB 172:

The landfill siting procedure commonly described as SB 172 has great potential

for easing some of the distress over determining the proper locations for peaker

electrical generating plants. Among other things, it calls for the issuance of an

overall permit to operate the facility; it provides structure for the decision-

making process and highlights areas of concern; it provides for expert technical

advice and guidance; it provides for input and some control from neighboring

communities. Most importantly, it allows, I think, for local control of the

process and upholds local zoning ordinances. Now, I read that from Director

Skinner's comments on SB 172. I've had some conversations with folks here in

the audience today that think that SB 172 trumps local zoning ordinances. I

don't—I want to keep an element of local control in all of this. Villages have a

right to be stupid or not as they choose with some—within some parameters, so

I'm supporting SB 172, assuming that it does in fact provide for local control

input. The first seven criteria

20 used in the landfill siting decision process are

fairly easy to adapt to the peakers. Points 8 and 9 pertaining to counties with

solid waste management plants obviously don't apply to peaker plants. There is

need, however, for more specificity in point 2, which is the facility is so

designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and

welfare will be protected. There is no way for the local community or the siting

board to adequately ascertain those facts without, one, the draft air permit,

including analysis of the effect of PSD increments and future economic

development in the area, the point of maximum impact, the effect on local and

regional air quality in conjunction with other pollution sources in the area, effect

on soils, livestock, habitat and so forth. Tr.2 173-176; see also Tr.1 at 462-463

(Dorge), 554 (Johnson).

Ms. Zingle advocated a siting process for peaker plants that “requires that neighboring

20 Under the Act, the local siting authority must determine whether the proposed pollution

control facility meets each of nine statutory criteria. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1998). Those

criteria are set forth in Appendix I.

---

119

villages be allowed to testify and cross examine witnesses” and that “delineates some of the

standards under which the decision has to be made and then allows the neighboring villages to

sue if the host village does something completely out of line.” Tr.1 at 531. Elaborating, Ms.

Zingle considered SB 172 “[t]he best model I think that I can find so far” for a number of

reasons:

[I]t requires—the host community still makes the decision, but it requires them

to have a hearing or a series, if necessary, that would involve the community,

neighboring communities within a mile and a half, the company that's looking to

site the plant and it allows cross-examination. It starts to spell out the standards

under which the decision will be made so you can't have a sham hearing, we'll

just have the hearing and vote to do it anyway regardless of the effects, which

would give the neighboring communities the right to sue if, in fact, a decision is

not made appropriately. It still needs local control, but, in fact, if I understand it

right, but that starts the participation of other groups. I would like to see that

hearing take place at about the same time as the IEPA air hearing because

there's information in those permits that is invaluable to the city. Tr.1 at 669.

Ms. Zingle does not want State siting standards to be voluntary:

I don't completely want to leave it up to just do a model and then if there is a

greedy or stupid or whatever village board out there that the citizens left

hanging again. I want them to have to meet some standards in how they make

the decisions. Tr.1 at 531.

Mr. Eaton had reservations about using SB 172:

I think it is a little bit of a square peg in a round hole problem. I really think

that [a procedure for siting peaker plants] needs to be its own creature.

Landfills, for example, strike me as being more uniquely local in impact than

these power plants. I guess I say that primarily because of the air pollution and

noise aspects, especially the NOx emission and noise aspects and VOCs and so

forth that you don't—those are problems that are more regional, statewide,

interstate, in effect, not so much the noise but particularly the NOx and also that

I think there are some problems with SB-172 that have been alluded to earlier

that the problem that Wadsworth has with Zion, for example, is not fully

addressed I guess under SB-172. I guess all I am saying is that some aspects,

something similar to that might well be suitable. I would just not like—I don't

think we want to force our plant siting into a strictly SB-172 mold, to the extent

I understand the SB-172 mold. Tr.1 at 901-902.

---

120

C. Information from State Government

1. Citizen Concerns as Perceived by IEPA

Director Skinner of IEPA provided extensive testimony about siting and local land use

considerations, though noting that “[l]ocal units of government are in a far better position to

evaluate the effectiveness of their existing zoning requirements.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, Skinner

at 8. He emphasized that a facility other than a new pollution control facility is subject to local

zoning requirements, regardless of whether IEPA issues a permit to the facility. Tr.1 at 63.

Director Skinner testified that citizens have two basic objections to using only local

zoning laws to site peaker plants. The first is that “most local government[s] are not

sophisticated enough to undertake the necessary analysis with regard to these peaker facilities.”

Tr.1 at 68. The second objection is that if a peaker plant is “located on the edge of town,

residents of the adjacent community do not have a meaningful opportunity to impact its

neighboring community's land use decision.” Tr.1 at 68. Mr. Romaine of IEPA testified that

“members of the public also routinely express concerns about the impacts of proposed plants

on property values, local water wells and the character of the area in which the plant is

proposed to be located.” Tr.1 at 105; see also Tr.1 at 135 (Zak).

 

Regarding the alleged lack of sophistication of local governments to address peaker

plant siting, Director Skinner stated that “[l]ocal governments address the aesthetic issues,

traffic issues, property value issues every day. To a large extent, that is what local

governments are there for . . . .” Tr.1 at 68. He testified that IEPA addresses the technical

issue of air analyses: “while local communities can undertake air analysis separate from the

air analysis that we undertake if they so desire and can impose, in fact, through their local

process, stricter requirements, if they so desire, it is not necessary that they do that.” Tr.1 at

68.

However, Director Skinner acknowledged that concerns over the inability of

neighboring communities to impact a host government’s siting decision are “a legitimate issue

and is something that the Board and perhaps the [G]eneral [A]ssembly ought to consider.”

Tr.1 at 69. While stating the “the siting aspects of this deserves some scrutiny,” Director

Skinner testified that he does not know if the “full blown SB172 requirements ought to be

applied in the peaker context.” Tr.1 at 202. He “can see an argument” as to why:

[S]ome subset of those ought to be applied, if only the subset that prescribes

certain procedures with regard to consideration of these applications because

those procedures provide resources to the local hearing panel that allow them to

deal with some of these issues, to hire the lawyers and the consultants that they

might find necessary to address the concerns that are being raised by the

constituents. Tr.1 at 202-203.

---

121

In evaluating whether IEPA sufficiently regulates peaker plants, Director Skinner noted

that “if gaps exist[] right now, they largely exist on the sitings or local control side of this

issue. Property values, noise, esthetics, those are to a large extent the complaints that . . .

we're hearing that ring truer, if you will, than some of the complaints about emissions.” Tr.1

at 201.

2. IEPA Authority Over Peaker Plants

Director Skinner addressed the scope of IEPA’s ability to regulate peaker plants:

[W]e frequently receive comments regarding the potential effect of peakers on

things like aesthetics, appearance, traffic, property values, things that the folks

in the local community would be expected to be concerned about. I will state

first that [IEPA] is not authorized by state law to consider these types of issues

in its review of permit applications. These types of land use issues are left to

local units of government. And while we attach conditions occasionally to these

air permits, we don't have the latitude to impose conditions that are unrelated to

air quality. Tr.1 at 61-62; see also IEPA Grp. Exh. 2 , No. 20 at 2.

Mr Romaine stated that IEPA’s “authority under state law is narrowly limited to consideration

of environmental issues and in the case of construction permits for emission sources, matters

related to emissions and air quality.” Tr.1 at 105. Director Skinner emphasized that IEPA’s

air permit to construct a peaker plant does not supercede local zoning.” Tr.1 at 63; see also

IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 20 at 2.

3. Cross-Jurisdictional Authority

State Representative Cowlishaw offered these thoughts:

[W]hile respecting the zoning jurisdictions of municipalities, which I believe it

is our obligation, still county governments perhaps should also be involved in

final approvals for proposed sites of peaker power plants at least in the

northeastern Illinois area, but even beyond that, this is a regional matter and I

think that it would be very helpful to involve the Northeastern Illinois Planning

Commission or what's commonly called NIPC. Tr.1 at 387.

State Senator Link testified:

Since the effect of peaker power plants, air quality, water supply, natural gas

supply, noise, taxes, are felt regionally, not just locally. I believe we must take

a regional approach in regulating the peakers. We cannot have patchwork local

decisions. The state needs to step up in a responsibility to guide this process.

Tr.1 at 752-753.

---

122

4. SB 172

Director Skinner stated that, before SB 172, “the comments of local authorities in

Illinois were not binding on the state and specifically were not binding [on IEPA] in the siting

and permitting of sanitary landfills and other pollution control facilities such as transfer

stations and incinerators.” Tr.1 at 65.

Director Skinner testified that “SB 172 dramatically changed that scenario, or

dramatically changed the permit process by requiring the county or municipalities in which the

facility was located to conduct hearings, specifically on the proposed project in order to

determine whether the facility met certain enumerated statutory criteria.” Tr.1 at 65. He

continued: “The end result of placing 172 siting, local siting’s approval in their permitting

issuing process was to place local government in the role of making all relevant decisions

regarding location, suitability for a proposed facility either to the local siting approval process

or through [traditional] zoning ordinances.” Tr.1 66-67. IEPA cannot issue a permit to

develop or construct until the criteria are met and local siting is obtained. Tr.1 at 65. He

added that IEPA has “no direct involvement in the actual SB 172 hearing process,” and that

IEPA’s role is “essentially limited to making sure that the permit applicant submits [proof that]

. . . local siting [approval] was obtained pursuant to SB 172.” Tr.1 at 63-64.

Director Skinner explained that Section 39.2 of the Act provides that local authorities

are to consider “nine criteria in reviewing applications for siting approval.” Tr.1 at 66. He

noted that Section 39.2(g) “provides siting approval procedures, criteria and appeal procedures

to be followed.” Tr.1 at 66. Director Skinner stated that “peakers are currently not subject to

SB172.” Tr.1 at 67. He explained that a natural gas-fired peaker plant does not meet the

definition of a “pollution control facility” and that natural gas used in “the peaker fashion”

does not meet the definition of “waste.” Tr.1 at 67.

Director Skinner also testified that the inapplicability of SB172 does not “relieve the

peaker applicant from going to the local community in order to assure that it is compliant with

all necessary zoning approvals as were necessary in obtaining either a special use permit or

some other sort of zoning changes from the local government.” Tr.1 at 67.

5. Noise

Mr. Zak of IEPA stated that siting issues are relevant to potential problems with peaker

plant noise. Mr. Zak testified that “setbacks are an important concept in addressing peaker

noise.” Tr.1 at 134. Mr. Zak suggested that one method of addressing peaker noise is

employing “setbacks, land buffers, consisting of land owned or controlled by the peaker

plant.” Tr.1 at 134. The amount of land necessary to remedy problems with peaker plant

noise would “depend upon what level of noise abatement was included in the initial design of

the peaker plant.” Tr.1 at 135. As with any other type of industrial noise source, “if peakers

---

123

exceed the noise regulations, they could significantly affect negatively on property values.”

Tr.1 at 135. This is because noise at these levels would likely “be noticeable by prospective

purchasers of property and any potential commercial investors.” Tr.1 at 135.

6. Water Quantity

Dr. Winstanley of DNR noted that use of groundwater is not a local issue because

“groundwater typically is found in discrete aquifers that transcends political jurisdictions.

They cut across municipalities, counties and even states.” Tr.1 at 157. Therefore, “plumbing

management by individual communities will not solve problems in the long term,” rather Dr.

Winstanley suggests we need to take an “aquifer-wide perspective.” Tr.1 at 157. Dr.

Winstanley noted that comprehensive planning and management is necessary. Tr.1 at 159.

7. Role of the ICC

Executive Director Fisher of the ICC explained the ICC’s role in siting power plants:

For decades, electric utilities would come to the Commission requesting the

authority to construct new generating plants in specific sites. Utilities seeking a

certificate of public convenience and necessity for a new plant were required to

demonstrate an economic need for the additional generating capacity. If they

did, the ICC granted such authority, including, if required, eminent domain

authority. Non-utility generators did not have to request such authority, either

before or after the 1997 Illinois deregulation law: provisions of Illinois law

addressing siting of electric generating facilities have not changed. What

changed is that electric utilities could no longer be ordered to construct new

generating plants if they did not request such an order. Also, as noted earlier,

and probably more significantly, the FERC’s 1995 order [FERC’s Order 888

requiring electric utilities to provide open access to their transmission system to

any entity interested in moving or “wheeling” electricity from one part of the

grid to another for wholesale purposes] opened the interstate transmission

system to wider access and made non-utility generation economically attractive,

especially over short distances. Thus, the builders of new generating plants to

meet demand in Illinois are not primarily utilities. ICC Exh. 1 at 5.

8. Siting Approaches in Other States

Executive Director Fisher of the ICC explained that some states have taken approaches

to siting similar to that of Illinois. However, others have established state siting committees

either as part of or separate from state public utility commissions. Unlike Illinois, California,

New York, and Ohio, for example, use state siting committees to determine where peaker

plants should be sited. Texas, on the other hand, has a system similar to the current system in

Illinois: local zoning boards control siting, and the state environmental agency controls

---

124

permitting. PC 8 at 3. Wisconsin requires traditional certificates of convenience and necessity

for peaker plants. Kentucky does not require any approvals, other than state environmental

permitting and local zoning, as long as the peaker plant sells the electricity it generates

wholesale on the market. PC 8 at 3.

D. Information from Industry

Mr. Erjavec of Indeck argued that there would not be a significant impact on residential

areas regarding water use, noise, or air pollution. With respect to air pollution, Mr. Erjavec

stated:

[T]hat's the air concentrations that are generated in your home when you're

cooking. Again, compare that to the ambient concentration that would be

experienced or would, on the worst case level, be generated by the power

plants; again, far below anything that we experienced from that. Another

comparison that we've tried to make is to the impact that you would receive

from a home or a school. Now, let me be very clear about this, we're not trying

to imply that a home or a school emits on a pounds-per-year basis anywhere

near what a peaking plant does. That's just not true. However, what we need to

be concerned about is what people experience. If you were in your backyard,

what would you breathe? If you were walking down the street, what would you

breathe? These are typical numbers. Again, the power plant number we've

seen, 0.028 micrograms per cubic meter, in the wintertime, the ambient

concentration around the house outside in your yard is about .01. Tr.1 at 237-

238.

With respect to noise, Mr. Erjavec testified:

Board members from McHenry County were taken to a tour of a peaker plant

operated by the local utility in Springfield, and, you know, there's a quote, they

didn't hear anything. We've also talked to homeowners living near peaker

plants that just do not hear them. Mrs. Carver here that I discussed—I had a

few conversations with the lady. She operates a wildlife preserve between the

plant that's down there and her home, and the deer come all the time and there's

not been any impact, you know, from a noise issue in terms of deterring them

from coming either. Tr.1 at 241-242.

Mr. Erjavek also stated that “there are other industries out there that have significantly

larger impacts than a peaker plant would have in its own backyard, and this is from 45 miles

away.” Tr.1 at 250-251.

Mr. Erjavec discussed the issue of siting and noted:

---

125

[W]hen people look out and they say, well, gee, a gas line has come very close

to an electric line. That's where a lot of peaking plants are being sited. There's

been suggestions that these plants be sited miles away from the gas and electric

and that we run lines to them. Yes, it's technically feasible. I think the amount

of disruption to be created by that is a lot more than by siting them nearby.

We've just discussed the impacts, and they're minimal. It doesn't always make

sense. Yes, it can be done. Tr.1 at 242-243.

Mr. Erjavec compared siting peaker plants to siting rail stations:

[A] rail station was being built. It was built adjacent to a parking lot and a rail

line. Now, are there impacts from that rail station? Probably. There's traffic.

There's noise. There's cars. But at the same time, you've got the infrastructure

there, and we would agree with the developer that that makes sense. Now, if I

was to turn around and suggest that he put the rail station three miles away and

run a rail spurt, he'd probably think I was nuts, and I think that the same thing

can be said in terms of siting peaker plants. Tr.1 at 243-244.

In discussing whether there should be additional siting regulations, Mr. Erjavec noted

that “well, we've already taken a look through peaking plant impacts. For many measure, the

impacts are minimal. If you review a lot of local zoning codes, most zoning codes already

allow for somewhere in the code for uses that have greater impacts, whether it be noise, air

pollution, water use, what have you. Really, right now, they are handling that end of the

things.” Tr.1 at 252-253.

Mr. Erjavec testified about how peaker plants are sited in other states:

[O]ther states have a coordinated approach. All issues are directed through a

single siting agency. It should be noted that in most of those states the siting

Board then will overrule any local zoning too. It tends to make it a one-handed

process instead of a process that plays off between two different entities, and it

works more efficiently for them. Tr.1 at 254-255.

Ms. Greenberg of MWIPS stated:

The developer typically works with the community to address the concerns that

are raised with respect to noise, and I think the statement we heard yesterday

that there have been no noise complaints to the EPA about peakers is really very

telling because what it says to me is that, in fact, these developers have

succeeded in addressing the concerns or we certainly would have complaints

because people tend to be vocal about their concerns with respect to these

plants. I wanted to just share with you one anecdote that I did hear from a

member when a group of local officials was visiting one of the peaker plants.

---

126

The officials came to the plant and started their tour, and at one point,

somebody asked when is this plant going to start up so we can hear it, and the

answer was, it's been operating since you arrived here. Tr.1 at 329-330.

Ms. Greenberg attributed electric industry problems in California to siting and stated:

Illinois should be very cautious about imposing stricter than necessary siting

requirements in order to avoid the very situation that we're seeing in California.

We don't want to create a situation that would risk a power shortage and the

accompanying increase in the cost of wholesale power as well as possible

reliability problems. California has had great delay in plant siting and is now

seeking ways to streamline and expedite the process. We've heard from the

experts in the EPA that the current siting process addresses the various needs

and requirements for these plants, and our recommendation is that anything

stricter would be detrimental and would have no further value. Tr.1 at 330-331.

Ms. Greenberg noted that other states use different siting processes and stated:

[T]here are the state permitting process and a local process, and a smaller

number of states have adopted a process for siting and permitting the peaker

facility or other generating facilities that's administered in one stop in one place

or a combined hearing at the state level. Oftentimes, those proceedings are a

carryover from the permitting of utility-owned generation, and in Illinois that's

not the case. California is an example of a state that's currently experiencing the

consequences of a very bureaucratic and time-consuming process for siting

plants. In California, a plant of 50 [MW] or more must be approved by the

California Energy Commission. Many proposals there have taken more than a

year to get through this process, and California has not been able to add the

generation that it needs at a rate which reflects its growth. Tr.1 332-333.

Ms. Greenberg asserted that peaker plants typically only want to site where they are

welcomed and once they are there they do not adversely affect the community:

In conclusion, you need to keep in mind that an emergent plant developer does

not typically wish to build and operate a plant where the plant is not going to be

accepted by the community. They look for a place that's appropriate,

appropriate both in terms of the electric transmission and the gas supply and the

community and work with the community to achieve community support and to

be a good member of the community. Communities which welcome the peaker

plants and other generating plants recognize the benefits and positive impacts of

this development on their communities. These might include new jobs, increased

tax base, and possible attraction of additional economic development. There's

also very little strain on the local resources when these plants are sited. They

---

127

don't use schools, for example. They give a lot to the community and take little.

A community that accepts the peaker plant understands that a peaker has these

relatively few impacts and that it provides the necessary service to the

community and benefits the public welfare by contributing to the electric supply

of the community. Tr.1 at 333-334.

Mr. Smith of ISAWWA stated that his organization “believes that peaker plant siting

requirements should encourage the siting of these plants near a sanitary water treatment plant,

if practical, so as to utilize the discharge from the sanitary water treatment plant known as gray

water or cooling water.” Tr.1 23-24.

ComEd described the enhanced siting role that local government has in the restructured

electric industry:

Before restructuring, * * * [l]ocal input was limited, because a state Certificate

of Public Convenience and Necessity generally preempts local ordinances such

as zoning, and regional public utility power plants and transmission lines are

considered matters of statewide, not local interest.

In the restructured industry, in which generation is built by private companies

based on market factors . . ., the [ICC] does not examine the need for the

project. * * * However, the local counties and municipalities now have a

significant role to play, using zoning and other land use regulation to direct new

plants to suitable locations. ComEd Exh. 1 at 8-9.

ComEd claimed that the current system of siting new peaker plants is “clearly working”:

[U]nlike a state-regulated public utility, a private developer must fit its new

plant into the zoning and siting scheme of the neighborhood it chooses.

Municipalities are well aware of how to use their zoning power and have

substantial discretion to grant or deny zoning changes or variances. For this

reason, some plants have obtained approval, while numerous other plants have

been turned down. (The latest example: since the first hearings before the

Board in this docket, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Libertyville

rejected a zoning request for a new peaking plant.) So, the current situation

does not demand an overhaul of the siting mechanism. Certainly, a time-

consuming, expensive, bureaucratic process would discourage independent

power from locating in Illinois. PC 164 at 7.

PG&E stated that a siting process like SB 172 “could have benefits” but “could also

pose significant costs and delays that could threaten reliability.” PC 170 at 3. PG&E stated

that in most states with:

---

128

[C]omprehensive power facility siting processes, the decisions of the state run

boards overrule local jurisdictional authority. This is the case in Wisconsin,

New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, and Florida, among others.

This type of process has cause[d] delays in facilities siting in a number of these

states, with delays in California being the most significant. PC 170 at 3.

PG&E stated that siting boards offer power plant developers a “venue in which local concerns

can be balanced against other issues. In some cases, siting boards decide to certify a project

over the objections of local citizens, deeming a proposed site the best alternative.” PG&E

added that, “[f]rom the perspective of home political authorities and citizens, . . . such boards

have the ability to run roughshod over local preferences.” PC 170 at 3.

PG&E made a recommendation:

A process could be adopted to allow individuals or organizations with standing

in a local proceeding to appeal to a state run board for assistance. This could

occur if local authorities lack adequate resources to review project proposals, or

if citizens or developers feel that a local process has produced an inappropriate

result. The board could promulgate siting criteria in advance that would be

applied to cases brought before the board. We believe the [Board] would be the

appropriate agency in which to locate such authority. PC 170 at 3.

E. Information from Local Government

Mr. Shay, Senior Planner for Will County, stated that “I can tell you how land use goes

and that is smaller jurisdictions have the authority—or not the authority, but have a clear and

legal involvement in the decision-making of larger jurisdictions, but it does not go the other

way.” Tr.1 at 727. He continued:

To create an example for that, a municipality can do as it pleases. When the

county hears the petition near that municipality, then the municipality has a

direct and active role in decision-making. In fact, municipality or a township

can legally challenge certain decisions made by the county—the county and

planning zoning commission and Will County Board and force a super majority

vote of the County Board to affect a decision. So smaller localities could have a

large impact on county-wide decision-making, but it's only one way.

Obviously, we would prefer to be—have it both ways, but that's up to the

legislatures, I guess. Tr.1 at 727.

Mr. Shay testified:

We also face the additional problem that we're only in the unincorporated area.

So if we regulate these facilities restrictively, they will do what many of them

---

129

have already done and go to municipalities that feel that they have something to

gain by the placement of these facilities regardless of what they are and that is

why we feel action on part of the state or the federal government is required so

that we can't simply hop jurisdictions or play an annexation war or play two

municipalities off of each other for a lower level of regulation, which is exactly

what is happening in placement of these facilities. Tr.1. at 712.

Mr. Hoss of the DuPage County Department of Development and Environmental

Concerns testified:

DuPage County is non-homerule county and as such is given zoning authority

by the state of Illinois to regulate and restrict the location and use of structures,

buildings and land pursuant to state statute. The authority from the state allows

the county to develop rules and regulations consistent with the powers granted

by the state of Illinois that supplement rather than supersede that authority. The

zoning authority of DuPage County is limited to the unincorporated areas of

DuPage County only. * * * It's important to note that DuPage County has no

jurisdiction over the local municipal land use controls and development

processes nor can the county intercede in local municipal development

processes. There have been issues currently with respect to siting of peaker

plants where some neighboring citizens felt that the county had some jurisdiction

over municipal processes and we don't. We only have jurisdiction over the

unincorporated areas of DuPage county. Tr.1 at 393-394.

Ms. Carter, a member of the Lake County Board, testified that aquifers do not end at

municipal or political boundaries. She stated that the water consumed in one village not only

limits the supply of its immediate neighbors, but impacts the supply of more distant villages,

commercial wells, and deep community wells that draw from the same aquifer. Tr.1 at 796.

A number of local and State officials, including State Representative Cowlishaw,

expressed concern that residents and officials in neighboring municipalities and surrounding

counties have no voice in a given municipality’s zoning approval process for a peaker plant,

despite the potential cross-boundary environmental impacts of peaker plants. They also

testified that potential cross-jurisdictional environmental impacts from individual or multiple

peaker plants, such as from air emissions, noise emissions, and water use, cannot be addressed

effectively by local government.

Mayor Lund of Warrenville testified that “all zoning authority is local and that’s, of

course, one of the reasons Warrenville does not have standing in the consideration of a peaker

plant in another community.” Tr.1 at 421. Mayor Lund explained why her constituents are

concerned:

Warrenville citizens live just on the other side of the railroad track and just the

---

130

other side of the railroad track is Aurora where a peaker power plant has been

sited, and because the prevailing winds blow this way, we are obviously in the

path of whatever might from come that direction. Tr.1 at 389.

Mr. LaBelle, Chairman of the Lake County Board, stated that the regulations and the

permitting process need to be comprehensive and cohesive. He stated that a single agency

must be responsible for planning, licensing, and permitting peaker plants. Tr.1 at 781-782.

Mr. LaBelle testified:

[A]t a previous hearing, EPA director Tom Skinner indicated that IEPA rules

and permitting did not supersede local zoning and land use control. However,

the Lake County State's Attorney advises us that our options are severely

limited in this area. There are 52 incorporated municipalities in Lake County.

Each municipality has the authority to create its own zoning regulations and can

approve zoning for a power plant without any consideration of the county, other

municipalities or regional impacts. While there is a system of local control,

there is no provision for impacts that cross boundaries. If any of Lake County's

525 municipalities chooses to allow a peaker plant to be built within their

borders or agrees to annex unincorporated land, neither the county nor any other

municipality has a voice in the matter. Yet the environmental impacts of peaker

plants clearly extend beyond geographic boundaries. Air pollution can extend

for miles. The high volume of groundwater usage can lessen the supply for any

other entity tapping the same aquifer. Illinois counties and neighboring

municipalities have no ability to participate in addressing these externalities.

Tr.1 at 783-784.

Ms. Cole of the Lake County Board stated:

[T]he environmental effects of peaker plants do not recognize political

boundaries. The locations for these proposed facilities are oftentimes situated at

the border of another local government. In many cases those most affected do

not live within the political jurisdiction where the peaker is proposed, and in

some cases are not allowed a voice in the proceeding, even though they will be

most affected. Tr.1 at 789-790 ; see also Tr.1 at 516, 518 (Zingle), 475-476

(Goff).

Ms. Cole gave an example:

As you know, the village of Libertyville has held extensive public hearings on

the construction of a proposed peaker plant by Indeck Corporation. The site for

the proposed facility is approximately 2 miles from this room. That location is at

the extreme northwestern edge of Libertyville. If the facility is ultimately

approved and constructed, the properties most affected by this facility would be

---

131

properties located in the village of Grayslake or in portions of unincorporated

Lake County. * * * During recent proceedings, nonresidents were not

provided an opportunity to testify, even though they would be directly impacted

by construction of the proposed facility. Tr.1 at 791.

Mayor Lund also noted that “[l]ocal governments have not had adequate time to

respond to the zoning implications of peaker plant constructions.” Tr.1 at 389. Mr. Hoss,

Zoning Manager for the DuPage County Department of Development and Environmental

Concerns, testified about the status of peaker plants in the local zoning ordinances:

One of the main recommendations that we are looking into is better definition in

our own zoning ordinances with respect to peaker plants and similar type

industry. Currently, we have a definition of a public utility and public utility is

currently exempt from local DuPage County zoning ordinances. They enjoy

special exemption because they are a public utility. It is our understanding from

all the research and the information gleaned from these various areas that the

peaker plant industry is not considered a public utility and doesn’t require the

same exemptions to the county zoning ordinances, therefore, we’re looking at

straightening out public utilities from private utilities. * * * [A] peaker plant

would be considered a private utility per our ordinances. As such, that facility

would be required, in terms of siting, to be located in either l-1 or l-2 industrial

zoning district in the county and only after approval of a special use by the

DuPage County Board. Tr.1 at 397.

Mayor Lund testified that “[r]egional impacts and the accumulated multiple

construction effects related to airborne pollution, water supply and disposal, esthetics, noise,

property values and even airport safety have not been adequately reviewed and measured.”

Tr.1 at 389.

Regarding SB 172, Mr. Hoss stated:

One of the concerns I think that we have of going through the pollution control

siting process is that the siting process is very specific to the things that the

county looks at, and some of those specific things don't necessarily deal with

some of the fundamental zoning things that I was talking about in our zoning

ordinance, so in a sense, if we were to go through that pollution control siting

process, there might be the possibility that we ultimately might lose some local

control at the zoning level. For instance, it's my understanding that once a

facility is sited, it is actually taken out of local zoning control and, therefore,

issues like noise could not be controlled by local zoning authority, and,

therefore, I don't think it would be wise to go through the siting process with

these facilities because, as I said, I think we lose local control. Tr.1 at 409.

---

132

Mr. Shay discussed the use of land buffers around peaker plants:

It was intended so that if a peaker facility wanted to ameliorate themselves from

the surrounding area because Will County is largely rural, they could actually

purchase the land that's surrounding them and that would move any potential

residence or conflicts under their umbrella of control. So we gave them the

option to purchase that land and basically eliminate the problems presented by

the radius. So we were looking for ways to make it so they could actually build

a facility, but do it in sort of a responsible way. Tr.1 at 718.

Dr. Winstanley’s concerns about water use were echoed by numerous local and State

government officials and agency representatives, including State Senator Link, Mr. Kucera, an

attorney with Chapman & Cutler appearing on behalf of the Lake County Public Water

District, Mr. Shay, Senior Planner for Will County, and Ms. Carter of the Lake County

Board. Tr.1 at 709 (Shay), 752 (Link), 765 (Kucera), 793 (Carter). For example, Ms. Carter

testified about cross-jurisdictional impacts on water use:

In the case of the Island Lake [peaker plant] proposal, adjacent villages would

have realized significant financial impacts. Nowhere in the permit application

process submitted by the applicant were those impacts acknowledged or

addressed. One neighboring village, the village of Wauconda, would have

incurred expenses close to $1 million to reset the pumping well head in two

municipal wells. The taxpayers of this neighboring village, not the power

company, would have borne this expense, $1 million. This village had no

opportunity to voice its concern during the application review. Surely, this

demonstrates why a regional application approach must be in place, must be put

into practice. Tr.1 at 796-797.

Mr. Shay testified about what the respective roles of the State and local government

should be in approving peaker plants:

I would reserve for [local government] the site design, the general location,

what zoning districts it’s allowed in, that sort of thing. I would treat it like a

normal land use in the sense of local authority. When you place how far it’s

going to be from a property line, how far does it have to be from other uses,

how should the site look and appear? * * * [A]re construction vehicles from

that city road appropriate or safe? Keeping in the standard land use format, but

I think the [State should] adopt[] things that we cannot exercise full control

over. Right now, most immediately apparent one of those is water use.

* * *

---

133

Pollution and environment issues do not obey jurisdictional boundaries. So I

guess I’m asking the state to take additional authority in cross-jurisdictional

issues, which is what they have shown a pattern of doing because it’s efficient

for the community as a whole to do so. Tr.1 at 725-726.

Mr. Shay testified that peaker plant developers search for the local jurisdiction with the

least stringent regulations:

[I]f [Will County] regulate[s] these facilities restrictively [in the unincorporated

area], they will do what many of them have already done and go to

municipalities that feel that they have something to gain by the placement of

these facilities regardless of what they are and that is why we feel action on part

of the state or the federal government is required so that we can’t simply hop

jurisdictions or play an annexation war or play two municipalities off of each

other for a lower level of regulation, which is exactly what is happening in

placement of these facilities. Tr.1 at 712.

Mr. Shay further testified that Will County is concerned that peaker plants are not

being “distributed equitably throughout the [electric power] grid.” Tr.1 at 708. He explained:

We’re concerned that Will County has a lower [income] level than any of the

surrounding counties and it has a number of communities which have been

economically troubled and we’re concerned about the equitable locations.

We’re concerned that we would become a concentration by these facilities over

time. Tr.1 at 731.

Mr. Shay stated that an inequitable concentration of peaker plants is a concern because

of the additional use of Will County’s infrastructure without an adequate tax revenue in

return, and because of air and water issues. Tr.1 at 731-732.

21

X. MORATORIUM

In this part of the Report, the Board summarizes information from the record on

imposing a moratorium on peaker plants. The Board summarizes information from citizens

first, then information from State government, and lastly information from local government.

A. Information from Citizens

Ms. Toni Larsen is a resident of Zion. She asked for “a statewide moratorium on

21 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

134

licensing peaker plants until more research can be done regarding the impact of air pollution,

noise pollution, zoning and groundwater supply and then I am asking that you act as a

proactive preventive agent in protecting our environment.” Tr.1 at 911.

Ms. Voitik of CAPPRA urged the Board to impose a moratorium: “I emphatically

request a moratorium on all peaker plant activity with all new plants and plants with pending

permits not to be grandfathered in.” Tr.1 at 487; see also Tr.1 at 493 (Gravenhorst), 522, 525

(Zingle), 572 (Goff), 646 (Stark), 921 (Geiselhart), 935 (Snider), 945 (Owen); Tr.2 at 185

(Zingle).

Ms. Zingle argued that there is precedent for a moratorium:

McHenry has a moratorium against the peakers. Waukegan just did a

moratorium against the peakers. Lake County when we were doing our unified

development ordinance this spring stopped all building permits and nobody sued

us. Everybody understood we need to rework the system. The process is starting

to catch up to the power companies too. Not only did Libertyville opponents

spend money and time, so did Indeck, only to be turned down. And since

Indeck's proposal was denied, they're now claiming that they were held to an

unbearable standard. There's a headline, I left it over in the other book, the

power company is stunned by Waukegan's decision to do a moratorium. The

power companies are going to be looking for relief soon too as the fights

escalate. Tr.1 at 523; see also Tr.1 at 532 (Zingle).

In response to a question about the Board’s authority to impose a moratorium, Ms. Zingle

stated: “We haven't found anything that says [the Board] can't.” Tr.1 at 531.

Ms. DeJovine of Bartlett CARE stated: “We ask—I especially ask for a moratorium on

these until everybody could come up on that learning curve and learn the right questions to ask

and not drain the resources of our community.” Tr.1 at 544.

Mr. Nesvig, a resident of Evanston, stated that he “would like to see a moratorium on

issuing permits and construction of peaker power plants until [IEPA] and the [Board] can

initiate regulations that determine what electric power generating capacity is actually needed in

Illinois for its citizens and commerce as a whole and take suitable action . . . .” Tr.1 at 703.

Mr. Silva of NRDC suggested that a more-inclusive siting process would be more

appropriate than a moratorium:

[I]t's kind of football we have going on between, you know, the regulative and

state agencies over whether or not they can stop this, whether or not they have

the authority to make—issue a moratorium or not. I think it would be more

useful actually seeing where you can actually collaborate and add some

---

135

certainty, because the other thing is that many of these projects that you're

looking at are worthwhile and will add a significant reliability to the system.

Tr. 2 at 104.

B. Information from State Government

Director Skinner testified that IEPA cannot impose a moratorium:

[T]here have been calls from various folks for [IEPA] and/or the Governor to

impose a moratorium on issuance of peaker permits. We've looked at that issue

extensively and concluded that we don't have the authority to do that. By

operation of law, these permits issue after 180 days. So, we've had it suggested

to us, well, just don't act on it. That doesn't do any good. I mean, if we don't

act on it, the permit is granted. That actually is counterproductive compared to

what we want to do. So we're forced to proceed. Similarly, the Governor has

concluded that he doesn't have the legal authority to impose a moratorium by

executive order. It literally requires legislative action. Tr.1 at 196.

An IEPA exhibit similarly stated that IEPA “does not have the legal authority to impose a

moratorium on the issuance of permits to peaker plants. * * * [IEPA] is required to process the

permit application for a new plant within 180 days.” IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 20 at 2.

State Senator Link testified:

As many of you know, earlier this summer, I led a bipartisan group of suburban

legislators in calling for a moratorium on permitting of peaker power plants. We

made this call after receiving numerous questions from environmental groups,

local residents and numerous elected officials. There remain too many

unanswered questions regarding these peaker use power generators, and I

believe that the public deserves to receive better information before we issue any

additional permits. Tr.1 at 752; see also Tr.1 at 756 (Garrett), 757 (Ball on

behalf of Gash).

State Representative Cowlishaw urged the Board to impose a moratorium: “I would

urge you, the members of the . . . Board, to consider the possibility of imposing a moratorium

on construction of peaker power plants until legislative action can be taken during the spring

session of the year 2001.” Tr.1 at 387.

C. Information from Local Government

Mayor Vivien Lund proposed a moratorium: “In order to protect the state of Illinois, a

moratorium should be established to prevent further construction or approval for construction

until these items are appropriately addressed. Newly constructed facilities should not be

---

136

grandfathered.” Tr.1 at 390.

Mr. LaBelle of the Lake County Board stated: “We feel that a moratorium on permits

is necessary in order to allow the state to responsibly plan for the oversight of these facilities

and form comprehensive cohesive guidelines to the licensing of these operations.” Tr.1 at

785; see also Tr.1 at 786 (Cole).

Ms. Carter, a member of the Lake County Board, testified: “Place a moratorium on all

pending and new applications for power or peaker plants until such time as all agencies have

collaboratively worked together reducing and/or eliminating the negative impact to our quality

of life.” Tr.1 at 801.

22

XI. HEALTH AND SAFETY

In this part of the Report, the Board summarizes record information on health and

safety concerns over peaker plants. First, the Board summarizes information on health and

safety concerns generally. The Board then summarizes information concerns that peaker plants

have raised regarding aviation, vibrations, and decommissioning.

A. Health and Safety Concerns Generally

1. Concerns of Citizens

Citizens expressed concern about numerous aspects of the safety of peaker plants.

These concerns ranged from the safety of the physical structure, to potential for chemical

explosion, to general health concerns.

Mr. Goff, a resident of Warrenville, expressed concern regarding the structural safety

of peaker plants: “if you go into a situation where you're going to build a high-rise and you're

up against the same analogy that you might be looking on city government to—there might be a

new fire code reg or something like this and let's build this building as quick as we can before

they find out about it or before they, quote, ‘put the rules to ink,’ is that a safe building? Does

this make common sense? I mean I wouldn't want to walk into it.” Tr.1 at 472.

Ms. Zingle expressed concern regarding the potential for an accident at a peaker plant:

“I've been doing this with some intensity for close to a year now and I just found out that the

turbines and the glazer are encased in hydrogen. I don't know what that means. Do they have

hydrogen tanks on the property? Do we need to be worried about explosion? The companies

22 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

137

will deny that they have wastewater.” Tr.1 at 529; see also Tr.1 at 647 (Stark), 543

(DeJovine), 561-562 (Goebel).

Ms. Cathy Capezio expressed a more general concern about safety: “IEPA came back

to us and said that they cannot guarantee that these are safe. They don't know if they're safe.

That is written in their response to the public. I urge you, you need to prove that it is safe.”

Tr.1 at 480; see also Tr.1 at 482 (Capezio). Ms. Voitik added: “build the plants in safer areas

away from ozone and environmentally sensitive areas. This includes residential areas where the

health of citizens is at risk.” Tr.1 at 503; see also Tr.1 at 493 (Gravenhorst), 647 (Stark), 984

(Jacobs), 524. (Zingle); CAPPRA Exh.1 at 2.

Ms. Geiselhart of CCLC stated:

New research on environmental particulates provide—and I am quoting here, on

the environmental and health impact of particulates that were sufficiently

compelling that the federal EPA has proposed regulations in 2.5 that reduce the

allowed levels of particulate emissions and apply these limits to substantially

smaller particulants and that are covered by [PM 10] and right here I am quoting

from a paper that was written by Richard Domanik, Ph.D. He has his Ph.D. in

chemistry. He has extensively researched recent studies regarding environmental

particulates, and I will turn over to you his letter, which was presented at an

IEPA hearing in April of 2000. And it documents well research on both health

and environmental effects. I am not sure that it has been shared with you prior

to this time. And in his document he talks about the effects of creating acid rain.

He talks about health effects. He talks about meteorological and climatological

effects among other things. Many residents of nearby communities and users of

ports facility must suffer the effects of increased pollution in the form of more

asthma attacks, decreased lung function and other serious impairments since

peaker plants tend to operate, again, as I said, during these periods of peak

summer demand. Tr.1 at 913-915.

Mr. Wilson testified about “charged particles”:

There is a physicist over in England at Bristol University who has been working

on a theory about electromotive force, electromagnetic radiation and the harm it

is causing the people and causing cancer. And no one has been able to put a

handle on this and what maybe is the cause of this particular problem. Well,

what they are coming up with—and they are coming up with some pretty good

proof—is that in areas where you have high pollution, and as high pollution

passes through the power lines, the particles become charged, and those charged

particles remain charged for up to five miles away from those lines. That means

if you have people living in that area they will be breathing that atmosphere of

the charged particles. And what they are stating is that those particles will stick

---

138

in your lungs at a rate 100 times greater than it normally would if they were not

charged. Now, a simple [experiment] that a person can do to get an idea of what

is happening around the power lines is this. If you take a four-foot long

fluorescent bulb and you just hold it in your hands and you walk underneath a

power line at nighttime, it will light up. Now, you can be 50 feet from that

line, but that fluorescent bulb lights up. Does that tell you that there is an

energy field around those lines? So now take that energy field and those

distribution lines and add in a power plant throwing out hundreds of tons of

pollutants going right past those lines, and what happens to the people that are

living right around that area? It is not a good situation. And to give—to give

proof of this is that the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the

federal government, a medical body did research in this area also. And in 1998

they issued a statement, and they said that they believe that these lines are

carcinogenic. And they said prudent avoidance of these lines is what should be

done. Tr.1 at 975-976.

Mr. Urbaszewski of ALAMC and IEC testified about PM:

Fine [PM] is composed of a number of tiny particles, both solid and liquid

aerosol, that have diameter of less than two and a half microns. Inhalation of

fine particles are associated with the following health impacts: Upper and lower

respiratory infections, asthma attacks, development of chronic bronchitis and,

most importantly, premature deaths. Due to these public health threats, USEPA

established a fine particulate standard in 1997 based on the available medical

evidence at that time. New studies done in subsequent years have validated the

health impacts established in prior studies. Tr.1 at 112-113.

He added:

Inhalation of fine particles are associated with the following health impacts:

Upper and lower respiratory infections, asthma attacks, development of chronic

bronchitis and, most importantly, premature deaths. Due to these public health

threats, USEPA established a fine particulate standard in 1997 based on the

available medical evidence at that time. New studies done in subsequent years

have validated the health impacts established in prior studies. Tr.1 at 127.

2. Information from State Government

Director Skinner stated that “[i]t is [IEPA’s] job to insure that there is a safe environment

and that the state’s citizens are being protected . . . .” Tr.1 at 176. Director Skinner testified

that IEPA is “in the process of regularly reevaluating the standards that exist out there right now

in order to make sure that we're adequately protecting human health and the environment and

maintaining consistency with the national air quality standards.” Tr.1 at 54. He concluded:

---

139

“Now, after a thorough analysis of computer runs and continuing that analysis and modeling, we

do not believe the plants that have been proposed to date and permitted represent significant

health or environmental threat.” Tr.1 at 58. An IEPA “fact sheet” similarly noted that “the

evaluations of new peaker power plants for which [IEPA] has received permit applications to date

have indicated that the plants will not have a measurable impact on air quality. * * * [I]f a

source does not have a measurable impact on air quality, there should not be a health impact.”

IEPA Grp. Exh. 1, No. 20 at 1.

Director Skinner stated, however, that:

[A]s we gain additional experience with peakers, we will regularly re-evaluate

whether the air requirements provide protection of health and environment, and

be—are consistent with national air quality standards. If and when we find the

existing requirements are lacking, we either administratively address the

problem, if we have the legal authority to do so, or we will propose appropriate

regulatory changes to the Board or legislative changes to the Illinois General

Assembly. Tr.1 at 58.

State Senator Chris Lauzen asserted that “[w]e certainly are not against the power

generation. We just want to be sure that as we generate this power that it is safe.” Tr.1 at

383. He testified: “I think that our appeal is simple. If this is safe, prove it, but if it's not

safe, then stop it.” Tr.1 at 382. He continued:

If it's not dangerous, if these plants are not dangerous, then I think that the folks

who are responsible for making these decisions need to reconcile a couple of

actions that all of us have read in the Naperville Sun, our local newspaper here,

where it says that EPA officials do not believe plants represent a significant

health or environmental threat; however, three paragraphs later it says that the

director said in July that the EPA proposed to rule to reduce statewide [NOx]

from electrical generating facilities including peakers and the . . . Board is

working on a rule which is expected to be completed at the end of the year. If

there is no problem, then there would be no action it would seem to many of us

who are watching as these decisions are being made on our behalf. Tr.1 at 382-

283.

3. Information from Industry

According to Ms. Greenberg of MWIPS, “there's a strict set of regulations applicable

to these plants, and the peakers do not pose a threat to air quality, to human health, or to the

environment.” Tr.1 at 327.

4. Information from Local Government

---

140

Mayor George Pradel of Naperville stated that “[w]e believe, as all of you do, that new

generation should be environmentally sound and safely located.” Tr.1 at 380.

B. Aviation Concerns

1. Concerns of Citizens

A number citizens raised concerns regarding flight safety in the vicinity of peaker

plants. They were concerned about potential air turbulence for aircraft caused by peaker plant

stacks emitting pollutants at very high velocities. Tr.1 at 447, 473, 964, 968. Mr. Goff, a

commercial pilot residing in Warrenville, expressed concern about a peaker plant proposed to

be built less than five miles from the DuPage County airport. He asserted that flying through

high velocity emissions is not safe. Tr.1 at 474. Mr. Goff noted that the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) requires any hazardous obstacles over 100 feet tall, such as buildings

and towers, to be identified on flight maps. He urged the Board to ensure that peaker plants

are also identified on flight charts to warn pilots flying in the vicinity of these plants. Tr.1 at

474.

Mr. Goff stated: “when you fly through a jet blast, there is substantial aerodynamic

changes on the aircraft which you're going through this stuff and when you're flying through

this kind of a velocity . . . . I don't think this is being looked at whatsoever.” Tr.1 at 472-

475 (Goff); see also Tr.1 at 486 (Voitik), 447-448 (Turnball), 518 (Zingle), 541 (DeJovine),

963 (Matijevich), 968-969 (Wilson).

Mr. Wilson stated that peaker plant stacks that emit gases at temperatures ranging from

1,000

o F to 1,100

o F, at a rate of couple of million cubic feet per minute, and velocity of 75

mile per hour, can be a very serious hazard for aircraft if the plant is located near a airport.

Tr.1 at 968.

Mr. Silva of NRDC stated: “I've never heard of any aircraft actually suffering any

harm from the flue gas exposure. * * * [T]hey actually do experience hitting and other

downwash effects, but that's fairly unusual meteorology and not something that we've ever

seen as a common or more difficult problem.” Tr.2 at 79-80

2. Information from Industry

Mr. Jirik of CPI noted that “pilots using Midway Airport have been flying over our

250-foot tall boiler stacks for over 50 years and we have not heard of any difficulties and we

have not heard of any complaints.” Tr.1 at 635.

3. Information from Local Government

Mayor Lund of Warrenville stated that airport safety has not been adequately reviewed

---

141

or measured. Tr.1 at 390. Mr. Hoss, Zoning Manager for the DuPage County Department of

Development and Environmental Concerns, testified that “[t]he county is not pursuing any

additional studies with respect to the county airport at this time.” Tr.1 at 412.

The DuPage County Board submitted an exhibit that addressed aviation concerns.

According to the Versar report: “Concerns have been raised by the DuPage County Airport

Authority, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and others regarding the possible affect

of peaker plant exhaust plumes on aircraft safety in the vicinity of airports.” These concerns

included “turbulence caused by large volumes of hot exhaust gasses that intercept landing or

take off patterns,” and “fogging, icing or visibility problems due to high water vapor content

in peaker plant plumes.” DuPage County Board Exh. 1 at 23.

4. Information from State Government

Mr. Roger Finnell is an engineer with the Division of Aeronautics, Bureau of Airport

Engineering, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). He stated:

There are several issues associated with electrical generating facilities that have

the potential for creating an aeronautical safety hazard. The main aviation

concerns associated with peaker plant developments are as follows: Physical

height of the structure—including construction equipment—penetrating critical

airspace; emission of visible discharge obscuring pilot and/or controller vision

within the airport environment; electromagnetic interference with aeronautical,

navigational and communication radio signals; and finally, the exhaust plume's

vertical velocity and its effect on aircraft structural integrity and aircraft

controllability. The first three issues have been addressed by the department in

our Airport Hazard Zoning Rules. Presently there are 56 airports which have

airport hazard zoning enacted and enforced by the department. These rules

effectively limit the height of structures around individual airports as well as

address smoke emissions and electromagnetic interference. They can be

adopted by the department for publicly-owned airports, but only at the request

of the airport sponsor. Alternatives, publicly-owned airports may adopt their

own hazard zoning rules that apply to hazards partially or totally within the

public owner's territorial limits. IDOT has not been granted authority under

Illinois statutes to enact airport hazard zoning for privately-owned open-to-the-

public facilities. The only protection these airports have from structures

encroaching on their airspace is local land use control. To date, we have not

had a peaker plant proposal violate any airport hazard zoning surface nor create

an adverse electromagnetic or visible plume concern. However, this does not

preclude conflicts with future proposals. A concern to our office is the impact

the vertical velocity of the plume has on flight safety. The majority of these

plants are a gas turbine-fired—I’m sorry—gas turbine facilities which have

relatively high exhaust velocities and temperatures. While the exit velocity of

---

142

the plume dissipates rapidly upon leaving the stack, the buoyancy of the plume

due to its heat still causes a significant vertical velocity several hundred feet

above the point of discharge. The situation where this is an aeronautical issue is

if the plant is within the traffic pattern to the airport. While pattern size is

dependent on the speed and number of aircraft within the traffic pattern, the

lateral dimensions of the pattern are usually within a mile of the airport. If a

generating facility is within this area, it can result in arriving or departing

aircraft passing only a few hundred feet over the smokestack of the facility. We

have entered into discussions with [the FAA] and manufacturers of general

aviation aircraft to find out what the effect of flight into an exhaust plume would

have on aviation. To receive certification from the FAA, an airframe must be

capable of withstanding a vertical gust of 30 feet per second. However, an

aircraft in a landing or takeoff configuration at typical approach and departure

speeds will likely lose lift and experience a momentary stall if subjected to a

vertical gust of 15 feet per second or more. This is certainly an aviation safety

concern. We would like to emphasize that this concern is only for generating

facilities within the immediate airport environment. Once away from the

airport, aircraft are bound by FAA regulations to be at least 500 feet above the

highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet over sparsely

populated areas and 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal

distance of 2,000 feet over congested areas. Aircraft operating outside the

traffic pattern are also at higher operating speeds and therefore are not as prone

to stalling should they encounter larger vertical gusts of more than 15 feet per

second. IDOT is currently reviewing our rules and regulations to determine if

further action is necessary to prevent discharges from interfering with air

navigation and compromising aviation safety. During this time, we request that

the . . . Board forward to IDOT any notification it receives of a generating

facility being proposed within two miles of a public-use airport for further

evaluation. This will afford us an opportunity to work with the proponent to

mitigate any impact to aviation. Tr.2 at 15-18.

C. Vibration Concerns

1. Concerns of Citizens

Ms. Schmidt expressed concern that permits are being issued to peaker plants without

assurance that “ground vibrations” from the plants are not jeopardizing the safety of the

environment and its inhabitants. Tr.1 at 465. Ms. Schmidt continued:

With numerous plants in close proximity to each other and to residential

neighborhoods, this, too, poses a realistic concern. The previous concerns speak

to air quality, but these same concerns can be raised for groundwater use, water

treatment and release, vibrations near sensitive high tech areas such as Fermi

---

143

Lab, which we are blessed to have in DuPage County and noise pollution. Tr.1

at 466.

2. Information from State Government

Mr. Zak discussed vibrations:

[L]et's just say that we had some infrasonic sound that is associated with a

peaker, and just throwing this out as a possibility, not that we've ever had this

problem yet, but in infrasonics, what they will do is it will appear as vibration

to most people and people will think that their house is vibrating, the ground is a

vibrating and in effect, what it is is an air wave that is being generated by the

[plant]. Tr.1 at 199.

3. Information from Local Government

The DuPage County Board’s Versar report stated: “ In order to protect the operational

integrity of the turbines, an operator must maintain operations with very low levels of

vibration.” The report continued: “A vibration in a gas turbine would need to be corrected

long before it reached the level where it was perceptible off-site.” DuPage County Board Exh.

1 at 22.

D. Decommissioning Concerns

Mr. John Matijevich stated: “What are we going to do about when these plants and

when somebody said they quit making money when they want to decommission?” Tr.1 at 967.

Ms. Dorge of LCCA testified: “They are not adequate if we do not really know who is going

to own and operate a facility and who will assure that it's properly decommissioned.” Tr.2 at

140.

Mr. Kucera, on behalf of the Lake County Public Water District, testified:

There is no apparent mechanism or regulatory oversight for the

decommissioning of these plants, either prematurely or at the end of their

service lives. This fact implies that the environmental burdens may arise from

abandoned plants for which financial resources may not exist. For example, if a

plant is terminated, who will be responsible for resulting excess capacity in the

local public water supply? Who will be responsible for capping the plant's

wells? Who will be responsible if leakage from the plant has contaminated the

source of supply for the local water utility or for individual residential wells?

Where is the accountability when these plants are closed down? It would seem

appropriate to enact a decommissioning procedure to protect water sources and

the public when these plants are removed from service. At the very least, there

---

144

should be a procedure for a state administered trust account, which peaker

plants would be required to fund, to assure remediation and restoration funds

will be available if plant owners abandon plants without protecting water

resources. Another possibility is a requirement that a surety bond or letter of

credit be posted to secure the obligation to protect water sources. Tr.1 at 767-

768.

23

23 For additional summaries of public comments, organized with a topical index, please refer to

Appendix K. Please refer to Appendix J for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants.

---

APPENDIX A

Summary of Informational Order

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 21, 2000 Contact: Connie Newman

217-782-7630

FAX: 217-524-8508

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ADOPTS INFORMATIONAL ORDER

ON PEAKER PLANTS DOCKET No. R01-10

In response to a request from Governor George H. Ryan, the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (Board) today adopted an Informational Order on natural gas-fired, peak-load electrical

power generating facilities (peaker plants). Peaker plants generate electricity during periods of

peak electricity demand. The recent proliferation of peaker plants has been a source of much

public controversy in the Chicago metropolitan area.

The Informational Order follows seven days of public inquiry hearings across the State

(August 23 and 24 in Chicago; September 7 in Naperville; September 14 in Joliet; September

21 in Grayslake; and October 5 and 6 in Springfield). Over 80 persons testified at these public

hearings, including individual citizens, representatives of citizen groups, representatives of

State and local government, and representatives of industry. The hearing transcripts comprise

nearly 1,300 pages of testimony. The Board also received 195 written public comments. The

transcripts and public comments are available on the Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

The Board was created by the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) to

“determine, define and implement the environmental control standards applicable in the State

of Illinois.” In addition to the Board’s duty to promulgate environmental regulations and to

decide contested environmental cases, the Board is authorized to conduct such other

noncontested or informational hearings as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the

Act. Specifically, the Board can conduct inquiry hearings to gather information on any subject

the Board is authorized to regulate.

Citing public concern over the recent proliferation of peaker plants in Illinois,

Governor Ryan, in a July 6, 2000 letter, asked Board Chairman Claire A. Manning to

undertake Board inquiry proceedings. The Governor’s letter specifically asked that the Board

hold public hearings to address the following issues and to make recommendations on whether

further regulation or legislation is necessary to safeguard Illinois’ environment:

---

2

1.

 

Do peaker plants need to be regulated more strictly than Illinois’ current air quality

statutes and regulations provide?

2.

 

Do peaker plants pose a unique threat, or a greater threat than other types of State-

regulated facilities, with respect to air pollution, noise pollution, or groundwater or

surface water pollution?

3.

 

Should new or expanding peaker plants be subject to siting requirements beyond

applicable local zoning requirements?

4.

 

If the Board determines that peaker plants should be more strictly regulated or

restricted, should additional regulations or restrictions apply to currently permitted

facilities or only to new facilities and expansions?

5. How do other states regulate or restrict peaker plants?

In its Informational Order, the Board provides specific answers to each of the

Governor’s questions and makes recommendations. Copies of the Informational Order will be

available to the public on Friday, December 22. The Board is also preparing a companion

report that it expects to release sometime in January. This report will summarize all of the

information received by the Board in these proceedings. The Informational Order and

companion report, when released, will be posted on the Board’s Web site at

www.ipcb.state.il.us. Copies may be obtained by calling the Board’s Chicago office at (312)

814-3620 or its Springfield office at (217) 524-8500.

  

In its Informational Order, the Board recommends that the State tighten current

environmental regulations concerning peaker plants to ensure the protection of the

environment.

In the area of air emissions, the Informational Order notes that peaker plants burn

natural gas, which is a relatively clean fuel from an environmental perspective. While peaker

plants emit various pollutants into the air, nitrogen oxides (NOx) are of particular concern

because they are ozone precursors. In Illinois, a facility that emits less than 250 tons per year

(TPY) is considered a “minor” source under current State and federal environmental

regulations. Many of the proposed peaker plants are being permitted to allow for emissions

just under this threshold and are intended to emit much less than that. Due to their “peaking”

nature, however, the Board finds that these plants are unique. They can emit most if not all of

their permitted annual amount of air emissions during a concentrated period of time. This time

period is generally the summer months when the ozone risk is highest.

---

3

In its Informational Order, the Board recommends that the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (IEPA) and the Board engage in rulemaking under the Act to consider

requiring these plants to use the “Best Available Control Technology” (BACT) in controlling

their air emissions. BACT is a federally-derived regulatory methodology intended to

determine the maximum degree to which air emissions can be reduced in light of energy,

environmental, and economic impacts. Generally in Illinois, BACT only applies to “major”

sources, which are those that emit 250 TPY or more.

Also regarding air regulations, the Board recommends codifying two practices that

IEPA Director Tom Skinner administratively implemented to respond to public concern over

the proliferation of peaker plants: dispersion modeling and public hearings for all proposed

peaker plant construction permits.

Dispersion modeling is intended to ensure that peaker plant air emissions do not cause

or contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). While

not required for minor sources, IEPA has recently been requesting this modeling information

from peaker plant developers during the permit process. The modeling should use

conservative parameters to determine the worst-case impact, including any cumulative impact

due to the clustering of peaker plants.

On the question of noise, the Board finds that Illinois’ current noise regulations are

adequate to address most concerns and that citizen’s enforcement actions before the Board are

available to enforce noise standards. Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that a “gap” exists in

current Illinois noise regulation. While the State noise standards are strict, IEPA does not

currently have a program in place to ensure at the time of air permitting that facilities will meet

those noise standards. The Board recommends remedying that problem.

Finally, on the question of whether peaker plants should be subject to siting

requirements beyond local zoning, the Board stops short of making any specific

recommendation on siting. Instead, the Board provides the Governor with an informed

discussion of the concerns raised and potential solutions.

In announcing the Board’s Informational Order, Board Chairman Claire A. Manning

stated: “The Board very much appreciates the valuable and insightful public participation in

these proceedings from all interested persons, businesses, and associations. The huge record

that was created has allowed the Board to address the threshold issues presented to us by the

Governor and by the participants. We have been able to make several valuable

recommendations to enhance the regulations that apply to these plants—and to further

safeguard Illinois’ environment. We commend Governor Ryan for the leadership he has shown

on these issues and thank him for the opportunity to have served him and the citizens of the

State of Illinois on these important questions.”

---

4

The Board is an independent State board comprised of seven technically qualified

individuals, all of whom are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the

Senate. For more information about the Board and its members, please visit the Board’s Web

site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

---

APPENDIX B

PERSONS TESTIFYING

Chicago Hearings

August 23, 2000

1.

 

Charles Fisher, Executive Director, ICC

2.

 

Thomas Skinner, Director, IEPA

3.

 

Christopher Romaine, Manager, Utility Unit, Permit Section, Division of Air Pollution

Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

4.

 

Robert Kaleel, Manager of Air Quality Modeling Unit, Division of Air Pollution

Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

5.

 

Greg Zak, Noise Advisor, IEPA

6.

 

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit, Bureau of Water Permits Section, IEPA

7.

 

Rick Cobb, Manager, Groundwater Section, Bureau of Water, IEPA

8.

 

Todd Marvel, Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and RCRA

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison/IEPA

9.

 

Dr. Brian Anderson, Director, OSRA, DNR

10.

 

Dr. Derek Winstanley, Chief, ISWS, DNR

August 24, 2000

1.

 

Gerald Erjavec, Manager, Business Development, Indeck

2.

 

Greg Wassilkowsky, Manager, Business Development, Indeck

3.

 

Arlene Juracek, Vice President, Regulatory and Legislative Services, ComEd

4.

 

Steven Nauman, Vice President, Transmission Services, ComEd

5.

 

Deirdre Hirner, Executive Director, IERG

6. Richard Bulley, Executive Director, MAIN

---

2

7. Freddi Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel, MWIPS

8.

 

Michael Kearney, Manager, Economic Development, Ameren

9.

 

Richard Trzupek, Manager, Air Quality, Huff & Huff

Suburban Hearings

Naperville

September 7, 2000

1.

 

Mayor George Pradel, Naperville

2.

 

State Senator Chris Lauzen

3.

 

State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw

4.

 

Mayor Vivian Lund, Warrenville

5.

 

Paul Hoss, Zoning Manager, DuPage County Department of Development and

Environmental Concerns

6.

 

Richard Ryan, President and Chairman, Standard Power and Light, Oak Brook

7.

 

Dianne Turnball, consultant to several citzen groups, a private foundation, and

businesses opposing certain peaker plants

8.

 

Carol Dorge, Director, LCCA

9.

 

Connie Schmidt, representative of the River Prairie Group of the Illinois Sierra Club

10.

 

Mark Goff, resident, Warrenville

11.

 

Cathy Capezio, resident, Aurora

12.

 

Terry Voitik, resident, DuPage County, and founder of CAPPRA

13.

 

Maurice Gravenhorst, member, CAPPRA

14.

 

Lucy Debarbaro, member, CAPPRA

15.

 

Terry Voitik on behalf of Steve Arrigo, CAPPRA

---

3

16.

 

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, LCCA

17. Beverly DeJovine, representative, Bartlett CARE

18. Cathy Johnson, Vice Chair, Rural and City Preservation Association

19.

 

Chris Gobel, member, CAPPRA

20.

 

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

21.

 

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

Joliet

September 14, 2000

1.

 

Dr. Thomas Overbye, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer

Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

2.

 

Alan Jirik, Director, Environmental Affairs, CPI

3.

 

Carol Stark, Director, CARE, Lockport

4.

 

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, LCCA

5.

 

Keith Harley, Chicago Legal Clinic

6.

 

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

7.

 

Michael Shay, Senior Planner, Will County

Grayslake

September 21, 2000

1.

 

State Senator Terry Link

2.

 

State Representative Susan Garrett

3.

 

Tom Lynch, Trustee, Libertyville Township

4.

 

Betty Rae Kaiser, Trustee, Village of Wadsworth

---

4

5.

 

Daniel J. Kucera, Chapman & Cutler, appearing on behalf of the Lake County Public

Water District

6.

 

Jim LaBelle, Chairman, Lake County Board

7.

 

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

8.

 

Bonnie Thomson Carter, Commissioner, Lake County Board

9.

 

Greg Elam, CEO, American Energy

10.

 

Larry Eaton, attorney, on behalf of the Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Prairie Holdings

Corporation, and Prairie Crossing Homeowners Association

11.

 

Toni Larsen, resident, Zion

12.

 

Chris Geiselhart, Chairperson, CCLC

13.

 

Dianne Turnball, representing Liberty Prairie Conservancy, CCLC, CARE from

McHenry County, Bartlett CARE, and Southwest Michigan Perservation Association

14.

 

Lisa Snider, Resident, Wadsworth

15.

 

Verena Owen, Co-Chair, Zion Against Peaker Plants

16.

 

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

17.

 

Carolyn Muse, resident, Zion

18.

 

John Matijevich

19.

 

Dennis Wilson, resident, Island Lake

20.

 

Terry Jacobs, resident, Libertyville

21.

 

Jim Booth, resident, Newport Township, Lake County

22.

 

William McCarthy, resident, Libertyville

23.

 

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, LCCA

24.

 

Barbara Amendola, resident, Zion

---

5

25.

 

Mark Sargis, attorney, working with citizens concerned about peaker plants

26.

 

Cindy Skrukrud, resident, Olin Mills, McHenry County

27.

 

Paul Geiselhart, resident, Libertyville

28.

 

Dr. William Holleman, President, Illinois Citizen Action

29.

 

Evan Craig, Volunteer Chair, Woods & Wetlands Group of the Sierra Club

30.

 

Phillip Lane Tanton

31.

 

Sally Ball, on behalf of State Representative Lauren Beth Gash

Springfield Hearings

October 5, 2000

1.

 

Roger Finnell, Engineer, Division of Aeronautics, Bureau of Airport Engineering,

IDOT

2.

 

John Smith, representative of ISAWWA

3.

 

Brent Gregory, representative of National Association of Water Companies, Illinois

Chapter

4.

 

James R. Monk, President, IEA

5.

 

Patricio Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, NRDC

6.

 

Brian Urbaszewski, Director, Environmental Health Programs, ALAMC, and board

member of IEC

7.

 

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

8.

 

Carol Dorge, Director, LCCA

October 6, 2000

1.

 

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, LCCA

2.

 

Scott Phillips, Deputy Counsel, IEPA

---

6

3. Kathleen Bassi, Assistant for Program and Policy Coordination for Bureau of Air,

IEPA

4.

 

Chris Romaine, Manager, Utility Unit, Permit Section, Division of Air Pollution

Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

5. Greg Zak, Noise Advisor, IEPA

6.

 

Todd Marvel, Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and RCRA

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison, IEPA

7.

 

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit, Bureau of Water Permits Section, IEPA

---

APPENDIX C

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit Number Description

ICC Exh. 1 (8/23/00) Prefiled testimony of Charles Fisher

IEPA Grp. Exh. 1 (8/23/00) Prefiled testimony of IEPA

witnesses (Thomas Skinner,

Christopher Romaine, Robert

Kaleel, Greg Zak, Steve

Nightingale, Richard Cobb, and

Todd Marvel)

IEPA Grp. Exh. 2 (8/23/00) Set of 20 documents, beginning with

“Simple Cycle Gas Turbine

Application Diagram,” and

including two oversized maps

DNR Exh. 1 (8/23/00) Prefiled testimony of Dr. Brian

Anderson

DNR Exh. 2 (8/23/00) Prefiled testimony of Dr. Derek

Winstanley

Indeck Exh. 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of Gerald Erjavec

Indeck Exh. 2 (8/24/00) Copy of PowerPoint presentation

and Supporting Documentation

ComEd Exh. 1 Prefiled testimony of Arlene Juracek

(8/24/00) and Steven Naumann

IERG Exh. 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of Deirdre Hirner

MAIN Exh. 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of Richard Bulley

---

2

MWIPS Exh. 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of Freddi

Greenberg

Ameren Exh. 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of Michael

Kearney

Huff & Huff Exh. 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of Richard

Trzupek, with attachments

CAPPRA Exh. 1 (9/7/00) CAPPRA Mission Statement

and photographs

CAPPRA Exh. 2 (9/7/00) Steven Berning,

et al

. v. The City

of Aurora, et al., 00-CH-0361,

Second Amended Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment pending in

DuPage County Circuit Court

CAPPRA Exh. 3 (9/7/00) Testimony of Michael Warfel

CAPPRA Exh. 4 (9/7/00) Testimony of Steve Arrigo

DuPage County Board Exh. 1 (9/7/00) Versar Report

DuPage County Board Exh. 2 (9/7/00) Map—DuPage County

Municipalities and Unincorporated

Areas

DuPage County Board Exh. 3 (9/7/00) Testimony of Paul J. Hoss, Zoning

Manager for DuPage County

Department of Development and

Environmental Concerns

Standard Power and Light Exh. 1 (9/7/00) Addendum No. 2 to Application for

PSD Deterioration Construction

---

3

Permit for Standard Energy

Ventures, LLC Electrical

Generation Facility

Bartlett CARE Exh. 1 (9/7/00) Testimony of Beverly DeJovine

Zingle Exh. 1 (9/7/00) “Peaker” Electrical Generating

Plants Press Coverage—2000

Zingle Exh. 2 (9/7/00) Testimony of LCCA

Zingle Exh. 3 (9/14/00) Testimony of LCCA, with

attachments

Zingle Exh. 4 (9/21/00) Video Tape

Zingle Exh. 5 (10/6/00) “Typical Daily Load Curve” of

Reliant

Zingle Exh. 6 (10/6/00) “The Status of U.S. Electricity

Deregulation”

Zingle Exh. 7 (10/6/00) Arthur Andersen’s “Impact Analysis

Mallory Parcel—Libertyville,

Illinois”

Zingle Exh. 8 (10/6/00) “Effects of the Proposed Indeck

Facility on Property Values, Land

Use and Tax Revenue”

Zingle Exh. 9 (10/6/00) August 15, 2000 letter from Lake

County State’s Attorney, Michael J.

Waller, to Kenneth L. Larson

Zingle Exh. 10 (10/6/00) News Articles, beginning with

“Ordinance Would Place Provisos

on Peaker Plants”

Zingle Exh. 11 (10/6/00) “Business Overview—Electrical

---

4

Generating Companies”

Sierra Club Exh. 1 (9/7/00) Testimony of Connie Schmidt

Overbye Exh. 1 (9/14/00) “Need for New Peaker Generation

in Illinois” PowerPoint presentation

CPI Exh. 1 (9/14/00) Testimony of Alan L. Jirik

Stark Exh. 1 (9/14/00) Testimony of Carol Stark

Stark Exh. 2 (9/14/00) Newspaper article

Chicago Legal Clinic Exh. 1 (9/14/00) Petition to USEPA requesting

revocation of the NOx waiver

Chicago Legal Clinic Exh. 2 (9/14/00) Testimony of Keith Harley

Link Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Statement of State Senator Terry

Link

Lynch Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Comments of Tom Lynch,

Libertyville Township Trustee

Kaiser Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Village of Wadsworth Resolution

R130 and letter of December 21,

1999

Kucera Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Comments on behalf of the Lake

County Public Water District

---

5

Lake County Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of Jim LaBelle,

Chairman Lake County Board

Lake County Exh. 2 (9/21/00) Testimony of Sandy Cole, Lake

County Board Member

Lake County Exh. 3 (9/21/00) Testimony of Bonnie Thomson

Carter, Lake County Board Member

Lake County Exh. 4 (9/21/00) Testimony of Greg Elam,

CEO of American Energy,

including PowerPoint presentation

and FERC article

Lake County Exh. 5 (9/21/00) Lake County 2000—Legislative

Program

Eaton Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of Larry Eaton on behalf

of Liberty Prairie Conservancy,

Prairie Holdings Corporation, and

Prairie Crossing Homeowners

Association

CCLC Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of Chris Geiselhart,

Chairperson

CCLC Exh. 2 (9/21/00) Comments of Richard Domanik

during an April 25, 2000 hearing in

Libertyville, with attached articles

Nesvig Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of E.M. Nesvig

Nesvig Exh. 2 (9/21/00) “Electric Power Monthly”

(July 2000 edition)

Nesvig Exh. 3 (10/5/00) Written testimony of E.M. Nesvig

Nesvig Exh. 4 (10/5/00) Hard copy of Air Permit Public

Hearing Presentation (September

---

6

28, 2000) by Elwood Energy II and

Elwood Energy III

Nesvig Exh. 5 (10/5/00) “U.S. Electricity Imports and

Exports 1995–1999”

McCarthy Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Correspondence of William

McCarthy, PhD, regarding

proposed Libertyville plant

McCarthy Exh. 2 (9/21/00) Guidance for Power Plant Siting and

Best Available Control Technology

McCarthy Exh. 3 (9/21/00) “Catalytica” publication regarding

“XONON™ Technology”

Sargis Exh. 1 (9/21/00) Written comments of Mark R.

Sargis (dated September 7, 2000)

IDOT Exh. 1 (10/5/00) October 5, 2000 letter from James

V. Bildilli to Chairman Claire A.

Manning

Gregory Exh. 1 (10/5/00) Written testimony of Brent Gregory

Monk Exh. 1 (10/5/00) Written testimony of James Monk

Monk Exh. 2 (10/5/00) “System Peak Load and Capacity—

Historical 1990-2000 & Projected

2001-2003

ALAMC Exh. 1 (10/5/00) Joint Comments of the ALAMC and

IEC

Dorge Exh. 1 (10/5/00) Written comments of LCCA

---

7

Dorge Exh. 2 (10/5/00) “Peaker” Natural Gas Fired

Turbines—Permits Issued

Dorge Exh. 3 (10/5/00) “Peaker” Natural Gas Fired

Turbines Permits Issued—PSD

Dorge Exh. 4 (10/5/00) Group of four exhibits, beginning

with “Lake County Conservation

Alliance written comments in

Carlton air permitting proceeding”

---

APPENDIX D

PUBLIC COMMENTS

1 Reliant, submitted by Cindy Conte, Manager, State Affairs

2 Debbie Halvorson, Sentator, 40th District

3 Ron Molinaro

4 Peter J. Cioni, Director of Community Development, City of

Zion

5 Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals submitted by Bob

Mosteller, Deputy Director

6 Larry Eaton

7 Susan Zingle

8 Response to Questions—Charles Fisher of the ICC

9 IEPA Response to Questions

10 John Smith, ISAWWA

11 “The Status of U.S. Electricity Deregulation” submitted by Susan

Zingle, LCCA Executive Director

12 Gary Hougen

13 Robert Brooks

14 Amy Snyder

15 Gary A. Bellak

16 Sally J. Carr

17 Rollin and Sara Shaw

18 Paul and Cyndy Niles

19 Mike Miller

20 Bill O’Donnell

21 Wesley Landmeier

22 Lucille Landmeier

23 Julie and Curt Moon

24 Lester Landmeier

25 Joyce Landmeier

26 Jim Schindel

27 Diane Schindel

28 Joyce Sanders

29 Lawrence H. Robertson

30 Harold and Barbara Snyder

31 Curt W. Peters

32 Walter Quanstrom

33 Byron and Kristin Henn

34 Kris O’Donnell

35 John Geltz,

36 Brian J. Gelf

---

2

37 Veda E. Miller

38 Sheri and Keith Fitzgerald

39 Tim Geltz

40 Gail Geltz

41 Sue Andersen

42 Kenneth Andersen

43 Mrs. Arnold Nier

44 Gary Brigel

45 Jeanette Bower

46 James and Kelly Reuland

47 Linda J. Ott

48 Darrin J. Ott

49 Duane Rhoades

50 Steven R. Weissinger

51 William A. Thompson and Karen R. Thompson

52 Mary Backes

53 Ruth A. Brigel

54 Lisa Weissinger

55 Richard Pave

56 Marcia Lee

57 Leon Backes

58 Scott Ritter

59 Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Krajecki

60 Dorothy Gum

61 Norman L. Curry, Fox

62 Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Berg

63 Doug Tuell

64 Jon and Lori Simon

65 David Young

66 Lynne B. Pave

67 Elaine Tuell,

68 Phyllis Pierson, Sugar

69 Margaret Kathleen McCrimmon

70 A. Gum, Big Rock

71 Robert E. Pierson

72 Nancy Fayfar

73 Ronnie Simpkins

74 Kelly Salazar

75 Sheila M. Simpkins

76 Patricia L. McKenzie

77 Wray V. McKenzie, Jr.

---

3

78 Marilyn Lasecki and Edmund Lasecki, Jr.

79 Patricia McBroom and Roger McBroom

80 Cheryl Romano and Thomas Romano

81 Dorothy Holland

82 Annie Buckmiller

83 Alice Hulka

84 Mary Copp

85 Patrick and Linda Barnes

86 Carla S. Miller

87 John and Carrie Loehmann

88 Helen LeBeau

89 James E. McCrimmon

90 Lynette and Dave Weidin

91 Jane Erdman

92 Frederick C. Runge

93 Julie A. Anderson, Elburn

94 (unable to read name) Elburn

95 Ben Halls

96 Kathryn M. Hellwig,

97 Anita Sennett,

98 Gregory G. Goss and Jo A. Goss

99 William and Cheryl Oeser

100 Debra E. Raymond, Big Rock

101 Lawrence Von Ohlen

102 Ricky Gum

103 John Hellwig

104 Diane M. Howard

105 Orville Howard

106 Rose Marie Diedesch and Bill C. Diedesch

107 Udo A. Heinze on behalf of Ameren

108 Jeannine Kannegiesser, Center for Neighborhood Technology

109 Patricia Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, NRDC,

Washington, D.C.

110 IMEA, submitted by Ronald D. Earl, General Manager & CEO

111 AIEC, submitted by Earl W. Struck, President/CEO

112 Verena Owen

113 Simon Klambauer

114 Peter and Dawn Roberts

115 Cathy Jo Magee

116 C. Beau and Sue Carlson

117 Richard A. and Mary C. LaFleur

---

4

118 Jennifer E. Johnson

119 William P. Fischer

120 Karen Yoeler

121 Bill Yoeler

122 Judy M. Hoffman

123 David R. Mag

124 Daniel Salazar

125 JoAnn I. Kline

126 Laurie Kazmiercek

127 Pam S. Wedeen

128 Ramona A. Kline

129 William F. Kline, Sr.

130 Jeff Hoffman

131 Ronald L. Burgess

132 Ed Whatley

133 Elaine and Harold Morris

134 James Scott

135 Lois Long

136 Dale N. Johnson

137 Elaine Fischer

138 Larry Hawhes

139 Cynthia S. Polfer

140 Mr. and Mrs. Mau

141 Ruth Pessina

142 Fritz Landmeier

143 Patricia and Joseph Heimonen

144 Elizabeth Simmons

145 Tom Pattermann

146 Sheela A. Faulkner

147 A. Denise Farrugia

148 Barry and Leah A. Morsch

149 Mary Hankes

150 Andy and Barb Kearns

151 Jackie Beane

152 Michelle Drauz

153 Marilyn Hannemann

154 Sandy Madden

155 James R. Kidd

156 W.R. Hannemann III

157 Mark and Lisa Spangler

158 Allen and Jeanette Krodel

---

5

159 Robert and Sharon Phillips

160 James Gasdiel

161 Mary Thurow

162 Margaret Bock

163 Midwest Generation, submitted by Cynthia A. Faur

164 ComEd, submitted by Christopher W. Zibart

165 Joint testimony of ALAMC and IEC, submitted by Brian

Urbaszewaki, the Director of Environmental Health Programs for

ALAMC and a board member of IEC

166 Final Comments of Carol Dorge, Director, LCCA

167 IEA, submitted by James R. Monk, President

168 IEPA additional comments, submitted by Scott Phillips, Deputy

Counsel

169 Sierra Club Woods & Wetlands Group, submitted by Evan L.

Craig

170 PG&E, submitted by Stephen Brick, Director, External Relations

and Environmental Affairs

171 MWIPS, submitted by Freddi L.

Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel

172 Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter

173 Indeck, submitted by

Gerald M. Erjavec, Manager, Business Development

174 Marvin and Eunice Gapinske

175 Ronald and Mary Jane Davis

176 Clifford and Gloria Sisko

177 Donald and Linda Czachor

178 Clara Arm Babel

179 Julie and Karl Kettelkamp

180 Audrey and David Boston

181 Suzanne Pyle

182 Terry and Sherilyn Sorensen

183 Donna Morris

184 Debra K. Galvan

185 Mr. and Mrs. Bradley Scott

186 Ersel C. Schuster, McHenry County Board, District 6

187 IERG, submitted by Katherine D. Hodge

188 Dr. Donna M. Lawlor and Lynn Hoeth

189 CCLC & Liberty Prairie Conservancy submitted by Dianne

Turnball

190 Jim LaBelle, Chairman, Sandy Cole, and Bonnie Thomson Carter,

Members of the Lake County County Board, submitted by Jim

---

6

LaBelle

191 Marsha B. Winter

192 Ken Bentsen

193 Lois Scott and Burton Scott

194 Ralph N. Schleifer

195 Marci Rose

---

APPENDIX E

ABBREVIATION LIST

Acentech ACENTECH, INC.

Act ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

AIEC ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES

ALAMC AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN

CHICAGO

Ameren AMEREN CORPORATION

American Energy AMERICAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

BACT BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Bartlett CARE BARTLETT CITIZENS ADVOCATING RESPONSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTS

Board ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CAA CLEAN AIR ACT

CAAPP CLEAN AIR ACT PERMIT PROGRAM

CAPPRA CITIZENS AGAINST POWER PLANTS IN RESIDENTIAL

AREAS

CARE CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING THE ENVIRONMENT

CCLC CONCERNED CITIZENS OF LAKE COUNTY

CEC CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

CESQG CONDITIONALLY-EXEMPT SMALL-QUANTITY

GENERATOR

CNT CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY

CO CARBON MONOXIDE

CO2

CARBON DIOXIDE

ComEd COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

CPI CORN PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

dB DECIBEL

dB(A) A-WEIGHTED DECIBEL

DNR ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

EGU ELECTRICAL GENERATING UNIT

EIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Illinois Electricity

Choice Law

ELECTRIC SERVICE CUSTOMER CHOICE AND RATE

RELIEF LAW OF 1997

ERMS EMISSIONS REDUCTION MARKET SYSTEM

FAA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FERC FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

HAP HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT

Huff & Huff HUFF & HUFF, INC.

ICC ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION

IDOT ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

---

2

IEA ILLINOIS ENERGY ASSOCIATION

IEC ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

IEPA ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

IERG ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP

IMEA ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AGENCY

Indeck INDECK ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

IPP INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCER

ISAWWA ILLINOIS SECTION OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS

ASSOCIATION

ISWS ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY

kW KILOWATT

kWh KILOWATT HOUR

LAER LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE

LCCA LAKE COUNTY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

MACT MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

MAIN MID-AMERICA INTERCONNECTED NETWORK, INC.

MEAC MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE CENTER

Midwest Generation MIDWEST GENERATION EME, LLC

mmBtu MILLION BRITISH THERMAL UNIT

MSSCAM MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES CONSTRUCTION AND

MODIFICATION

MW MEGAWATT

MWh MEGAWATT HOUR

MWIPS MIDWEST INDEPENDENT POWER SUPPLIERS

NAA NONATTAINMENT AREA

NAAQS NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

NESHAP NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARD FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANT

NIPC NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS PLANNING COMMISSION

NO NITRIC OXIDE

NO2

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

NOX

NITROGEN OXIDES

NPDES NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION

SYSTEM

NRC ILLINOIS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

NRDC NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

NSPS NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD

NSR NEW SOURCE REVIEW

NYS Siting Board NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION

SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

OSRA OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

---

3

OTAG OZONE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT GROUP

PG&E PG&E NATIONAL ENERGY GROUP

PM PARTICULATE MATTER

PM 10 PARTICULATE MATTER NOMINALLY 10 MICRONS AND

LESS

PM 2.5 PARTICULATE MATTER NOMINALLY 2.5 MICRONS AND

LESS

POTW PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS

ppb PARTS PER BILLION

ppm PART PER MILLION

ppmv PARTS PER MILLION BY VOLUME

PSD PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION

RACT REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Reliant RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC.

RTO REGIONAL TRANSMISSION ORGANIZATION

SB 172 SENATE BILL 172 (REFERENCE FOR POLLUTION

CONTROL FACILITY SITING PROVISIONS UNDER THE

ACT)

SCR SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION

SCW&WG SIERRA CLUB WOODS & WETLAND GROUP

SIP STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SO2

SULFUR DIOXIDE

TPY TONS PER YEAR

USEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

UAM-V URBAN AIRSHED MODEL—VERSION V

Versar VERSAR, INC.

VOC VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

VOM VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

Water Use Act ILLINOIS WATER USE ACT OF 1983

WRAC WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

---

APPENDIX F

Figure 1: Typical Daily Load Curve

Midnight Noon Midnight

Light Load Heavy Load Hours Light Load

Hours Hours

PEAK LOAD

INTERMEDIATE LOAD

BASE LOAD

Based on drawing presented in Reliant’s public comment (PC 1).

---

Storage

Tank

Demineralizer

Evaporative

Cooler

Cooling

Water

Figure 2: Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine Power Plant

Based on drawing entitled Peaking vs. Combined Cycle Facility. Indeck Exh. 2.

Air

Hot

Exhaust

Low

Steam

Steam

Turbine

Heat

Recovery

Steam

Generator

Condenser

Cold

Hot

Water

Evaporating

Exhaust

Wastewater

---

Table 1: Existing & New Natural Gas-Fired, Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle Units

based on IEPA Grp. Exh. 2, No. 7 and PC 168, Att. 2

Combined Cycle Units are shaded.

Map #

ID # Company Name City County EGU

Site:

Permit Total

Capacity

Fuel

Used

Load

Type

NOx Rule

Existing

or New

Number Type Status (MW) (tons/

yr)

1 021814AAG Dom. Energy-Lincoln

Generation

Kincaid Christian Existing 00020011 C

Add. Info Ltr

3/6/00

688 NG Peak Major-

PSD

2 025803AAD Aquila Energy/

MEP Flora Power

Harter/

Flora

Clay New 00050050 C

Review

Pending

567 NG Peak 245 NSPS

3 025804AAC Entergy Power-Flora

Peaking Stn

Flora Clay New 00030053 C

Public Notice

292 NG Peak 212 NSPS

025804AAC Entergy Power-Flora

Peaking Stn

Flora Clay New 00030053 C

Public Notice

296 NG Peak 212 NSPS

4 031600AMI Midwest Generation Chicago Cook Existing 95090081 Title

V

Review

Pending

264 JP-4,

NG

Peak None

5 031600GGV People's

Energy/Calumet Power

Chicago Cook New 99100023 C

Permitted

266 NG Peak 233 NSPS

6 031600GHA Calumet Energy Team

LLC

Chicago Cook New 99110107 C

Permitted

305 NG/

Oil

Peak 240 NSPS

7

031801AAI

Duke Energy Chicago

Hts

Chicago Hts

Cook

New

00040068

C

Review

Pending

620

NG

Base

Major

8 041806AAC Ener Star- Montana Stn Newman Douglas New 00060075 C

Review

Pending

322 NG Peak NSPS

041806AAC Ener Star- Montana Stn Newman Douglas New 00060075 C

Review

Pending

40 NG Peak NSPS

9 043090ADB Standard Energy

Venture, LLC

West

Chicago

DuPage New 99120001 C

Draft Permit

800 NG/

Oil

Base/

Peak

732 PSD/BA

CT

10 043407AAF Reliant Energy/Reliant

DuPage Cty LP

Aurora DuPage New 99110018 C

Permitted

680 NG Peak 247 NSPS

043407AAF Reliant Energy/Reliant

DuPage Cty LP

Aurora DuPage New 99110018 C

Permitted

270 NG Peak 247 NSPS

11

043412AAH

Grand Prairie Energy,

LLC/ABB

Bartlett

DuPage

New

99090051

C

Permitted

500

NG/

Oil

Base

213

PSD/BA

CT

---

Map #

ID # Company Name City County EGU

Site:

Permit Total

Capacity

Fuel

Used

Load

Type

NOx Rule

Existing

or New

Number Type Status (MW) (tons/

yr)

12 051030AAD Spectrum Energy/C.I.

C.S.Power

St. Peter Fayette New 99100013 C

Permitted

45 NG Peak 85.9 NSPS

13 051808AAK Cent.Ill. S C Pow./

Spectrum

St. Elmo Fayette New 99060052 C

Permitted

45 NG Peak 85.9 NSPS

14 053803AAL Ameren CIPS Gibson City Ford New 99020071 C

Permitted

270 NG/

Oil

Peak 245 NSPS

15 055803AAB Entergy -Franklin County

Pwr

Thompsonville Franklin New 00080055 C

Review

Pending

295.6 NG Peak 250 NSPS

055803AAB Entergy -Franklin County

Pwr

Thompsonville Franklin New 00080055 C

Review

Pending

291.6 NG Peak 250 NSPS

16 055807AAD Gen Power W.

Frankfort

Franklin New 00090005 C

Review

Pending

0 Peak PSD

Minor

17 063800AAP Kinder Morgan-Aux

Sable Power Plt

Morris Grundy New 00030031 C

Draft Permit

176 NG Peak 247.5 NSPS

18

077806AAA

Ameren CIPs

Grand Tower

Jackson

Existing

99080101

C

Permitted

600

NG

Base

1911.5

NSPS

19 089425AAC DMG (Dynegy/Rocky

Road)

East

Dundee

Kane New 98120016 C

Permitted

35 NG Peak 245 NSPS

089425AAC DMG (Dynegy/Rocky

Road)

East

Dundee

Kane New 98120016 C

Permitted

242 NG Peak 245 NSPS

089425AAC DMG (Dynegy/Rocky

Road)

East

Dundee

Kane New 99050098 C

Permitted

121 NG Peak 245 NSPS

20 089802AAF Fox River Pkng

Stn/Coastal Power Co.

Big Rock Kane New 99110073 C

Final Review

345 NG Peak NSPS

21 091015AAD Indeck-Bourbonnais

Energy Center

Bourbonnais Kankakee New 00060010 C

No Action

683.2 NG Peak NSPS