ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 3,~1978
    COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 77—201
    ENVIRON~NTALPROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    My reason for dissenting in the grant of this variance
    is rooted
    in the feeling that the situation Edison finds
    itself
    in is
    largely self-imposed.
    The applicable sulfur dioxide emission air regulation
    was first enacted on April
    14,
    1972.
    Compliance was to be
    accomplished by May 31,
    1975.
    The Board,
    in granting PCB 74—16
    on January
    3,
    1975, gave
    Powerton more time
    to develop coal gasification.
    But six
    weeks later coal gasification was found to be too costly and
    dropped by Edison
    (see PCB 75—100 filed February 18,
    1975)
    The time when coal gasification was to be on line
    for
    Powerton Unit
    5 was May, 1980 or five full years after the
    original compliance date.
    On December
    24,
    1975, Edison executed a “compliance plan’
    for Powerton with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
    This “plan” provided for a single scrubber to be installed and
    operative on half
    (one boiler)
    of either Powerton Unit
    5 or
    6
    by January
    1,
    1980.
    And scrubbers for all other boilers
    (three)
    would come on line by July
    1,
    1983.
    I can find no authority for the execution of the “compli-
    ance plan” with Edison by the Agency.
    The most distant date
    granted by the Board in PCB 74-16 was May,
    1980.
    The dates
    running into July,
    1983 simply were beyond any authority of
    the Agency to negotiate.
    Variances are granted by the Board,
    not by the Agency.
    Therefore, Edison cannot claim reliance upon the “com-
    pliance plan” entered into with the AgenCy.
    And thus the
    31—167
    —2—
    delays encountered at Powerton are self—imposed because
    Edison certainly knew the legal division of powers between
    Board and Agency.
    Powerton has now gone three different routes toward
    meeting the Board’s regulation.
    First was coal gasifica-
    tion by May,
    1980.
    This vanished when costs inexplicably
    rose 336 percent in one year.
    (See PCB 75—100 petition,
    pp.
    9—10.)
    Second came a four-scrubber program by July,
    1983.
    Last, we have a single scrubber and low sulfur coal
    by July,
    1979.
    The decision here by Edison to burn low sulfur coal
    as against spending large amounts of capital on scrubbers
    or gasification equipment may be a corporate decision
    occasioned by the ease of “passing through” fuel adjustment
    costs to customers compared to the difficulty of raising
    capital by bond or stock issues.
    If this is true,
    then
    Illinois coal may never be burned at Powerton in great
    quantities unless Section 125 of the Clean Air can be in-
    voked by the Governor and the President.
    Had Edison used its time well since the beginning of
    1974 it would not have been before us
    in this proceeding.
    The 66 months from January 1974 until July 1979 were ample
    to bring on line scrubbers at Powerton to continue using
    Illinois coal.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Jacob D. Dumelle
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Board, do hereby certify
    that the above Dissenting Opinion was
    filed this
    (7~~
    day of________
    1978.
    Christan L. ~
    Clerk
    Pollution Control Board
    31—168

    Back to top