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 loudest noise sources in the U

Siting
The Completed Proceedings on Peaker Plants
Finally, while the Board makes no recommendation on siting,
ACT
BACT
CO
1. Chicago Hearings
August 23, 2000
August 24, 2000
1. Suburban Hearings
Naperville
Joliet
September 14, 2000
Grayslake
September 21, 2000
1. Springfield Hearings
October 5, 2000
October 6, 2000

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 21, 2000

IN THE MATTER OF:

NATURAL GAS-FIRED, PEAK-LOAD

ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING

FACILITIES (PEAKER PLANTS)

)

R01-10

INFORMATIONAL ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning, R.C. Flemal, G.T. Girard,

E.Z. Kezelis, S.T. Lawton, Jr., M. McFawn, and N.J. Melas):

On July 6, 2000, Governor George H. Ryan asked the Illinois Pollution Control Board to

conduct inquiry hearings concerning the potential environmental impact of natural gas-fired, peak-

load electrical power generating facilities, known as peaker plants. Governor Ryan requested that

the Board, at the conclusion of the inquiry hearings, address in writing whether any further

requirements should be imposed on peaker plants to safeguard the environment.

The Board has completed its inquiry hearings and today issues this Informational Order.

Based on the record of these proceedings, the Board makes several recommendations to tighten

environmental regulations with respect to peaker plants.

This Informational Order has a companion report that the Board will issue in January 2001.

It will provide a detailed summary of the information in the record of these proceedings. Both the

will be available on the Board’s Web site

(www.ipcb.state.il.us) and from the Board’s Chicago office (312-814-3620) and Springfield office

(217-524-8500).

Below, the Board first provides a summary of its recommendations. Next, the Board sets

forth background information on Governor Ryan’s request, the Board’s completed inquiry hearing

process, and the electric power generating facilities discussed in this Informational Order. The

Board then answers the five questions posed by the Governor.

SUMMARY OF BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Air Emissions

The Board notes that peaker plants burn natural gas, which is a relatively clean fuel

environmentally. 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

For ease of reference, a list of abbreviations used in the Informational Order is in Appendix A.

most, if not all, of their permitted annual amount of emissions during a concentrated period of

time. This period is generally the summer months when the ozone risk is greatest.

The Board recommends that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and

the Board engage in rulemaking pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS

5/1

et seq

. (1998), to consider requiring these plants to use the Best Available Control

Technology (BACT) to control 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. In Illinois, BACT only applies to

“major” sources, which are generally those that emit 250 TPY or more.

In addition, the Board recommends codifying two practices that IEPA Director Tom

Skinner, in his administrative discretion, 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 permit applicants 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.

Noise Emissions

The Board first finds that a peaker plant can be a very loud noise source. Without

adequate noise controls, peaker plants can greatly exceed the Board’s numeric noise standards.

The Board also finds that Illinois’ current noise regulations are adequate to address most

concerns. Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that a gap exists in current Illinois noise regulation.

While Illinois has strict noise standards, IEPA does not currently have a program in place to

ensure at the time of air permitting that facilities will meet the noise standards. The Board

recommends remedying that problem.

Siting

As to 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.

BACKGROUND

Governor Ryan’s Request

Citing the recent proliferation of peaker plants in Illinois, Governor Ryan asked that the

Board hold inquiry hearings on the following issues:

Do peaker plants need to be regulated more strictly than Illinois’ current air quality

statutes and regulations provide?

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?

Should new or expanding peaker plants be subject to siting requirements beyond

applicable local zoning requirements?

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?

How do other states regulate or restrict peaker plants?

The Completed Proceedings on Peaker Plants

The Board opened this docket, R01-10, by order on July 13, 2000. Board Hearing Officer

Amy Jackson conducted seven days of public hearings at five different locations throughout the

State: 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 were present for each day of hearing. 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. A list of all hearing participants is attached as

Appendix B. The Board appreciates the thoughtful participation of each of those persons.

Each hearing was transcribed by a court reporter, which resulted in nearly 1,300 pages of

transcripts. Hearing Officer Jackson admitted 69 hearing exhibits into the record, a list of which is

attached as Appendix C. The Board also received 195 written public comments, a list of which is

attached as Appendix D. The Board accepts all of those public comments into the record of these

proceedings and thanks each of those commentors for their insightful remarks.

Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle

Peaker plants are facilities that generate electricity during periods of peak electricity

demand. The period of peak demand mainly occurs during summer months due to use of

electricity for air conditioning. In Illinois, a large number of power plants using natural gas-fired

turbines are being proposed to meet peak electricity demand.

A basic gas turbine is a rotary internal combustion engine with three major parts: an air

compressor; one or more burners; and a power turbine. The air compressor compresses the

incoming air from the atmosphere. A portion of this air is diverted to the burner where fuel is

burned raising the temperature of compressed air. This very hot air from the burner is mixed

with the rest of the compressed air and passed through the power turbine. The force of the

expanding hot compressed air drives the turbine shaft, which is connected to a generator that

produces electricity.

A gas turbine that discharges hot exhaust gases directly into the atmosphere is called a

simple cycle turbine. A gas turbine with a waste heat boiler that uses the hot exhaust gases to

generate steam is called a combined cycle turbine. The steam produced by a combined cycle

plant may be used for generating electricity or for other industrial applications.

Gas turbines are ideally suited for generating electricity to meet peak demand for several

reasons: they can be brought on-line relatively quickly, particularly simple cycle turbines (five

to ten minutes); they are simple to operate; and they emit pollutants into the air at much lower

levels than plants using other types of fuel such as coal and oil.

Simple cycle turbines are suitable for producing electricity to meet hourly and seasonal

peak demand. Most of the recent air permit applications filed with IEPA have been for natural

gas-fired, simple cycle combustion turbines. The generation capacity of simple cycle plants

ranges from 25 to 800 megawatts (MW) per plant. Combined cycle turbines are more efficient

than simple cycle turbines and are more suited for generating electricity to meet seasonal peak

demand or intermediate demand, or for operating year round to supply base-load electricity. The

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

A simple cycle turbine may be converted to a combined cycle turbine by retrofitting the

simple cycle turbine with a waste heat boiler, steam turbine, and cooling system. It appears that

a number of simple cycle plants ultimately may convert to combined cycle plants.

As of November 2, 2000, IEPA had received 67 applications for constructing natural gas-

fired power plants, of which 56 are for plants with simple cycle turbines to meet peak demand,

eight are for plants with combined cycle turbines to meet base-load demand, two are for plants

where the permit applicants had not decided whether to use simple cycle or combined cycle

turbines, and one is for a plant with an aero-derivative combined cycle turbine to meet peak

demand. IEPA has limited the time that simple cycle plants can operate as follows: from 2,000

to 4,000 hours (approximately 83 to 166 days) per year per turbine. IEPA has limited the time

that a combined cycle plant can operate to 6,000 hours (250 days).

The Board recognizes that most natural gas-fired peaker plants use simple cycle turbines.

However, in this Informational Order, the Board will, for a number of reasons, consider plants

that use combined cycle turbines as well as those that use simple cycle turbines. Combined cycle

plants are used to meet seasonal peak electricity demand. As discussed below, combined cycle

combined cycle plants may significantly impact regional water resources. Simple cycle plants

may be converted to combined cycle plants. Finally, combined cycle plants, like simple cycle

plants, are being located in developed or developing areas of Northeastern Illinois, often near

residential areas.

BOARD ANSWERS TO GOVERNOR RYAN’S QUESTIONS

Question 1: Do peaker plants need to be regulated more strictly than Illinois’ current air quality

statutes and regulations provide?

Current Air Quality Regulation of Peaker Plants

Many sources of air emissions, such as coal-fired plants, emit greater total amounts of

pollutants into the air than do peaker plants. Peaker plants burn natural gas, which is relatively

clean. Nevertheless, it would be prudent for Illinois to consider regulating peaker plants more

strictly in several discrete areas with respect to air quality.

Peaker plants emit various amounts of air pollutants as they burn natural gas to generate

electricity. The pollutants are combustion byproducts that include NOx, carbon monoxide (CO),

volatile organic material (VOM), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ). Peaker

plants emit NOx and CO, small amounts of VOM, and negligible amounts of PM and SO2. NOx

emissions are of particular interest because they are precursors for ozone formation. Air

emissions of NOx from identical gas turbines used in a simple cycle and a combined cycle plant

combined cycle plant. With a duct burner, the NOx emissions level for the combined cycle

turbine would be higher than that of the simple cycle turbine.

Many peaker plants are designated as “minor” sources of air emissions under current

regulations because they are permitted to have “potential air emissions” of less than 250 TPY of

NOx. Because these peaker plants are not considered “major” sources of air emissions, they

avoid the strict requirements for air quality impact modeling and technology-driven pollution

controls, such as BACT and the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER).

A BACT analysis involves determining the maximum degree to which the emissions of a

source can be reduced in light of energy, environmental, and economic impacts. LAER requires

the source to meet the most stringent emission limit contained in a State Implementation Plan or

achieved in practice, without considering energy, environmental, or economic impacts. Neither

BACT nor LAER can be less stringent than an applicable New Source Performance Standard

(NSPS), which is an emission standard prescribed for criteria pollutants from certain stationary

source categories under Section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act.

Generally, peaker plants using simple cycle gas turbines tend to be minor sources, while

combined cycle plants tend to be major sources. Because they generate steam to produce

electricity, combined cycle plants fall into a special category under Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) regulations, making their threshold for major source status 100 TPY rather

than the 250 TPY threshold applicable to simple cycle plants.

Minor source peaker plants may emit their total annual permitted amount of pollution, often

just under 250 tons, into the air in a concentrated time period. As noted, that time period tends to be

the three or four months of summer because air conditioning use creates a peak demand for

electricity. The summer is the worst time of year for ozone formation. Most peaker plants also are

locating in the more densely populated Northeastern part of the State, often near residential areas.

In addition, peaker plants may be sited in clusters, in part because each plant wants to be close to

existing gas and electric transmission lines.

Board Conclusions on Air Quality Regulation of Peaker Plants

To ensure that minor source peaker plant air emissions do not cause or contribute to a

violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Illinois’ existing regulations

should be enhanced. Specifically, when those plants apply for air construction permits, they

should be subject to air quality impact analyses using dispersion modeling with respect to

NAAQS. NAAQS are set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety

and that protects public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects. Existing regulations

require this evaluation only for major sources.

Conservative modeling parameters for plant operation and meteorological conditions

should be used to determine the worst-case impact. Modeling should encompass any cumulative

impacts due to clustering of peaker plants by accounting for the emissions from other proposed

or existing peaker plants in the area. A peaker plant’s impact on air quality should be considered

acceptable if the modeling results show that the point of maximum impact at which the NAAQS

are met lies at or within the property line of the plant.

The Board recommends that IEPA propose a Board rulemaking to require that new and

expanding peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s PSD regulations conduct

air quality impact analyses. This recommendation would primarily affect simple cycle plants

because they tend to be minor sources. Combined cycle plants tend to be major sources, and

major sources are already subject to air modeling.

Public hearings also should be held before IEPA issues its final determination on the

permit application. The Board recommends that IEPA adopt a rule requiring that the air

construction permit application process for all combined cycle and simple cycle peaker plants

include a public hearing before IEPA makes its final decision.

As noted, IEPA Director Tom Skinner, in his administrative discretion, already has been

requiring these facilities to meet the air modeling and public hearing obligations. Citizens

applauded these practices and the Board recommends that the practices be codified, as discussed

above.

In addition, further consideration should be given to requiring minor source peaker plants

to use BACT to reduce their emissions of NOx into the air. Several other states, including

Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, require BACT for sources that would not trigger BACT under

federal PSD rules. New gas turbines with readily available, reliable emission control technology

can routinely achieve very low air emission rates.

These emission rates are much lower than the only applicable technology-based emission

limitation, the potentially outdated NSPS. NSPS does not reflect BACT or LAER for new

turbines. Because they are subject only to NSPS and not the more stringent control

requirements, many peaker plants propose NOx emission limits to IEPA that do not reflect the

current emission control technology.

NOx emissions from peaker plants can be reduced either by combustion modification

techniques or add-on control devices. Combustion modification techniques are capable of

reducing NOx emissions to levels ranging from 3 parts per million (ppm) to 25 ppm. Add-on

control devices are capable of reducing NOx emissions from peaker plants to a range of 3 ppm to

4 ppm. Newer gas turbines are being designed to routinely achieve NOx emission rates in the

range of 10 ppm to 25 ppm. The requested NOx emission rates for simple cycle plants range

from 9 ppm to 175 ppm, while the requested NOx emission rates for combined cycle plants range

from 3.5 ppm to 4.5 ppm.

As of August 16, 2000, IEPA had made only three BACT determinations for NOx

emissions from simple cycle peaker plants because most of the plants are developed as minor

sources. In all three instances, IEPA determined that the combustion modification technique

known as the “Dry low-NOx” burner system is BACT, with NOx limits ranging from 9 ppm to 15

ppm.

The Board recommends that IEPA propose a Board rulemaking to require new, expanding,

and existing peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s PSD regulations to

implement BACT for reducing NOx emissions. The rulemaking proceeding would provide the

opportunity to more fully assess whether BACT should apply in these instances, including

whether imposing it would be economically reasonable and technically feasible.

A number of participants, including Mr. Keith Harley of the Chicago Legal Clinic and Mr.

Brian Urbaszewski of the American Lung Association, urged the Board to recommend that the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rescind the NOx waiver. The waiver

grants relief from New Source Review (NSR) requirements to certain NOx emission sources in the

Chicago nonattainment area (NAA). Those requirements include a major source designation

threshold of 25 TPY of NOx, LAER, and NOx offsets in the ratio of 1.3 to 1.

The Board notes that repealing the waiver would have ramifications well beyond the

scope of these inquiry proceedings. The waiver applies to all types of sources in the Chicago

NAA, not just peaker plants. Its repeal therefore would have substantial impacts on industries

that are not the subject of this inquiry hearing process. Based on the record of these proceedings,

the Board recommends a more tailored approach—namely, considering applying BACT to minor

source peaker plants, as described above. The Board agrees with IEPA that any decisions

concerning the NOx waiver should be made by USEPA in the context of its upcoming review of

Illinois’ attainment demonstration for the Chicago NAA.

The Board also declines to recommend that all peaker plant air permits automatically

contain specific limits on emissions resulting from the start-up and shut-down of the plants. Gas

turbines emit greater amounts of pollutants during start-up and shut-down, resulting in a higher

emission factor (pounds of pollutant per million British thermal units). However, the lower load

during those times compensates for the higher emission factor. IEPA requires construction permits

to account for all emissions, including emissions during start-up and shut-down, to demonstrate

compliance with annual limits. While permits do not routinely have specific limits on the amount of

emissions during start-up and shut-down, IEPA may include those limits if elevated emissions

during those periods would threaten air quality.

Question 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?

Air Pollution

As noted, many sources emit greater total amounts of pollutants into the air than do

peaker plants. Peaker plants, however, pose a unique threat of air pollution when compared to

many other State-regulated facilities. Unlike many other sources, simple cycle peaker plants

may operate only or primarily during one season, the summer. Those plants therefore may emit

most, if not all, of their annual permitted amounts of NOx, which are ozone precursors, into the

air during the ozone season. This may cause a greater impact on air quality than a comparable

manufacturing plant permitted for the same amount of emissions that operates over an entire

year. Under existing regulations, however, as discussed above, most simple cycle peaker plants

avoid the most stringent air quality requirements.

Noise Pollution

Peaker plants pose a greater threat of noise pollution than many other types of State-

regulated facilities. The engine used, though not necessarily identical to a jet air craft engine, is

a very loud noise source. Without adequate noise controls, peaker plants can greatly exceed the

Board’s numeric noise standards. Simple cycle and combined cycle plants pose a similar threat

of noise pollution because they use the same type of engine.

While IEPA has received no noise complaints about existing peaker plants, a large number

of peaker plants plan to begin operating soon, often in close proximity to residential areas. In

addition, many of the existing peaker plants appear to be located at or adjacent to electric utilities.

Local governments do not automatically request that peaker plant developers perform

noise analyses as part of the local zoning process. Local governments may lack the technical

expertise or resources to assess or conduct noise studies. Moreover, when peaker plant

developers do provide noise studies to local governments, the methodologies and level of detail

in proposing noise control measures, if any, can vary considerably.

Director Skinner stated that one of the critical objectives of IEPA is to ensure that no

permit is issued to a peaker plant unless the permit applicant proves that the facility will not

violate existing environmental laws or regulations. He emphasized the language of Section 39(a)

of the Act:

When the Board has by regulation required a permit for the construction,

installation, or operation of any type of facility, equipment, vehicle, vessel, or

aircraft, the applicant shall apply to the Agency for such permit and it shall be the

duty of the Agency to issue such a permit upon proof by the applicant that the

facility, equipment, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft will not cause a violation of this

Act or of regulations hereunder. The Agency shall adopt such procedures as are

necessary to carry out its duties under this Section. 415 ILCS 5/39(a) (1998)

(emphasis added).

The Board has adopted a thorough set of noise regulations for Illinois under the Act. See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 900, 901. The problem is that IEPA has no mechanism to ensure that peaker

plants (or practically any other noise sources) receiving permits from IEPA will not violate

Illinois’ existing noise standards. Accordingly, there is a gap in Illinois’ current regulatory

approach to noise. While Illinois has stringent numeric noise standards and thorough procedures

for measuring noise, it has no regulatory scheme for reviewing noise emitters during air

permitting to ensure their compliance. IEPA does not currently have the funding or staffing to

perform that function for all peaker plants.

The Board recommends that IEPA, in connection with its existing air permitting

programs, review demonstrations from combined cycle and simple cycle plants for compliance

with the Board’s current numeric noise standards. Existing facilities should take sound

measurements in accordance with applicable procedures, as part of their permit renewals.

Proposed facilities should perform noise modeling as part of their construction permit

applications.

IEPA agreed that with additional funding and staff, it could readily review noise

information submitted with air permit applications. In fact, for several years, IEPA has been

reviewing demonstrations of compliance with numeric noise standards as part of the land permit

application process for gas turbines used to generate electricity from landfills. IEPA should seek

and be granted adequate funds to provide the important function that the Board recommends.

Some citizens argued that the Board’s existing numeric noise standards do not adequately

ensure that existing noise levels in quiet residential areas are maintained. The Board’s current

noise regulations impose statewide numeric limits on the sound levels that can be emitted from

one property to another. The regulations take into account different land uses, with residential

land having the most protective standards. The regulations require sound measurements to be

corrected for background noise, which is generally the noise from sources other than the source

at issue. This is done to determine the noise attributable to the noise emitter being studied.

Some citizens are concerned that if one or more peaker plants move into a quiet area, they will

raise the background noise level in that area, without any one peaker plant violating the numeric

noise standards.

It appears that these citizens seek, in essence, to freeze noise levels currently existing in

certain neighborhoods. The Board recognizes this concern but believes it could apply to any

type of industrial or commercial growth. It does not appear to be unique to peaker plants, the

subject of these proceedings. This type of concern about preserving a lifestyle by preventing the

encroachment of industrial or commercial development into quiet residential areas may be better

addressed through local zoning and planning.

The Board agrees with IEPA that peaker plant noise emissions do not warrant changing

the Board’s current numeric noise standards. Of course, residents and local governments can

bring nuisance noise enforcement actions before the Board that do not allege a violation of the

numeric noise standards.

Water Pollution

The record of these proceedings does not suggest that discharges from peaker plants pose

a unique threat, or a greater threat than other State-regulated facilities, regarding water pollution.

Nor does the record reveal any gap in existing water pollution regulations with respect to

wastewater discharges to surface waters or publicly owned treatment works, or stormwater

discharges. The Board therefore makes no recommendation for additional regulations to address

potential water pollution from peaker plants. The Board emphasizes, however, that peaker plants

do raise concerns about water use, which the Board discusses below.

Question 3: Should new or expanding peaker plants be subject to siting requirements beyond

applicable local zoning requirements?

Currently in Illinois, local governments applying local zoning ordinances make decisions

on siting simple cycle and combined cycle plants. Environmental permits are addressed

separately by IEPA. Three primary concerns with the current siting process were identified

during the hearings:

•

Energy Planning. Some participants expressed concern that these plants are being

sited without the State first determining that there is a need for the electricity that they

will generate. They called on the State to develop an energy plan to help guide the

siting of electric generating plants.

•

Environmental Impacts That May Extend Across Political Boundaries. Some

participants asserted that local government cannot effectively address environmental

impacts from simple cycle and combined cycle plants that may extend across political

boundaries, including cumulative impacts from clusters of plants.

•

Public Participation/Cross-Jurisdictional Authority. Some participants pointed out

that officials and residents of neighboring communities cannot effectively participate

in the siting process of the local host government. For example, one municipality can

approve the siting of a combined cycle or simple cycle plant just within its border,

away from its residences but near the residential area of a neighboring municipality.

The neighboring municipality has no meaningful voice in the process. Some

participants requested that these neighboring communities be able to effectively

participate in the siting process and that neighboring officials have a meaningful say

in the ultimate siting decision, including, for example, ensuring compliance with

county standards.

The Board addresses each of these concerns below.

Energy Planning

Peaker plants are proliferating in Northeastern Illinois because of many factors, including

deregulation, rising energy costs, increased demand for power, close proximity to users as well

as existing gas and electric transmission lines, low construction costs, the closure of base-load

electric plants, and opposition to building new transmission lines. Mr. Patricio Silva, Midwest

Activities Coordinator of the Natural Resources Defense Council, described Illinois’ current

energy market as an “Oklahoma land rush” and called for Illinois to have a “comprehensive

energy planning process, encompassing functions once carried out by the Illinois Commerce

Commission.”

Many persons expressed concern that peaker plants are being sited without the

government first determining that they are needed. For example, Mr. Jim LaBelle, Chairman of

the Lake County Board, called for the State to take a leadership role in developing an energy

plan to help guide the siting of electric generating plants. He asserted that Illinois should have a

plan that: identifies the power generation and transmission needed to support continued

economic growth in Illinois; assures that power generated in a particular location will provide

direct benefits to the surrounding county and region; and considers alternatives such as improved

transmission capacity to reduce the need for additional generation in certain areas.

Industry representatives, on the other hand, asserted that the market should determine

when additional generating capacity is needed. They warned that imposing stricter siting

requirements in Illinois might result in power shortages, higher costs for power, reliability

problems, and delays in siting.

The question of whether the State should allow new electric generating plants to be sited

only if they are consistent with a statewide energy plan is in many ways a question about

whether the proliferation of peaker plants is an unwanted byproduct of restructuring the electric

industry.

Before restructuring, electric utilities requested approval from the Illinois Commerce

Commission (ICC) to build new generating plants at specific sites. A utility seeking to build a

new plant was required to demonstrate need for the new generating capacity. If the utility

succeeded, the ICC would grant the authority, including, if required, powers of eminent domain.

A few years ago, Illinois embarked upon deregulation. It chose a market-based approach

for restructuring, and the General Assembly passed the Electric Service Customer Choice and

Rate Relief Law of 1997 (Illinois Electricity Choice Law) to accomplish it. See 220 ILCS 5/16-

101 through 16-130 (1998). Because of the Illinois Electricity Choice Law, the ICC no longer

has a formal role in assessing Illinois’ electricity needs or mandating additional capacity.

Instead, market forces are expected to spur innovation, attract competition, drive the appropriate

supply/demand balance, and attract new power suppliers to the State.

In addition to the introduction of market-based restructuring at the State level, the electric

utility industry also experienced increasing levels of competition on the federal level. For

example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 888 of 1995 required electric

utilities to provide open access to their transmission system to any entity interested in moving or

“wheeling” electricity from one part of the national grid to another for wholesale purposes. This

opened the interstate transmission system to wider access and made interstate electricity sales

even more economically attractive.

In light of the evolving nature of deregulation nationwide, a brief review of other states’

siting approaches is warranted. (A lengthier discussion of siting options is set forth later in this

Informational Order.) As Mr. Charles Fisher, Executive Director of the ICC explained, some

states have taken approaches to siting similar to that of Illinois, while others have established

state siting committees either as part of or separate from state public utility commissions.

States With Restructuring Laws. 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.

States Without Restructuring Laws. 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.

In Illinois, merchant generators do not have to request the ICC’s siting approval or

demonstrate to the ICC that they are needed to meet energy demand. Nor is the ICC involved in

any formal energy planning for the State. When assessing any impacts of restructuring, the

Governor may wish to consider whether the State should have an energy plan that could, among

other things, guide the introduction of new generating capacity into Illinois.

Environmental Impacts That May Extend Across Political Boundaries

Environmental impacts from peaker plants, such as from air emissions, noise emissions,

and water use, may extend across political boundaries. Multiple peaker plants may be sited close

to each other for close proximity to natural gas and electric lines and because certain local

jurisdictions may offer less stringent zoning requirements than other jurisdictions.

Concentrations of peaker plants may lead to cumulative environmental impacts.

Earlier in this Informational Order, the Board recommended approaches to address these

concerns with respect to air and noise. The air modeling recommended will address cross-

boundary impacts and air emissions from other sources. The noise compliance demonstration

in every jurisdiction. As proposed, potential impacts from air or noise emissions, including

emissions from multiple sources, would be assessed by IEPA at the time of air permitting.

The Board also notes that Governor Ryan created the Water Resources Advisory

Committee (WRAC) to assess the use of groundwater and surface water. The WRAC’s work

includes assessing the impacts that users, including peaker plants, have on these supplies of

water and recommending action. The WRAC should address the virtual absence of State

controls or plans regarding water use. 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, 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. In her letter, Chairman

Manning calls on the WRAC to focus its attention on “the development of a workable regulatory

framework for the conservation and fair allocation of water resources in this great State: one that

meets the needs of all concerned citizens and entities.” Various industry representatives referred

to this letter in their public comments to the Board in these proceedings. Chairman Manning’s

submittal is attached as Appendix E.

Accordingly, concerns over environmental impacts from air emissions, noise emissions,

and water use can be addressed through State or regional regulatory mechanisms outside of a

siting process. For example, the record shows that the Board’s recommendations with respect to

air and noise, if implemented, should be protective without any need to have them addressed in a

siting process. If such regulatory mechanisms are not implemented, however, these types of

concerns could be addressed in a siting process, as they are in the New York and California

processes discussed below.

Water use is a particular concern. As noted, Illinois has no regulatory program to

manage and preserve the quantity of its many surface water and groundwater resources. Because

of its high water use for cooling purposes, a plant using a combined cycle turbine will have a

greater impact on regional water resources than a plant with a simple cycle turbine. Simple cycle

plants use about 0.07 to 2 million gallons of water per day, while combined cycle plants use

approximately 5 to 20 million gallons of water per day. As mentioned, many simple cycle plants

may convert to combined cycle plants.

Dr. Derek Winstanley is the Chief of the Illinois State Water Survey, a division of the

Office of Scientific Research and Analysis of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. He

stated that proper use of groundwater resources is not best determined on a “town-by-town” basis

because groundwater aquifers cut across political jurisdictions. He advocated regional planning

and management of water resources, including groundwater aquifers, river basins, and water

sheds.

Dr. Winstanley’s concerns were echoed by numerous local and State government

officials and representatives, including State Senator Terry Link, Mr. Daniel J. Kucera, an

attorney with Chapman & Cutler appearing on behalf of the Lake County Public Water District,

Mr. Mike Shay, Senior Planner with Will County, and Ms. Bonnie Thomson Carter, Lake

County Board Member for the Fifth District and Chair of the Public Works and Transportation

Committee. Each of them testified that potential environmental impacts from individual or

multiple peaker plants cannot be addressed effectively by local government. Many local zoning

authorities may lack the financial resources or technical expertise to competently assess these

aspects of peaker plant proposals.

The Board agrees that current local zoning processes alone generally do not adequately

consider environmental impacts from simple cycle and combined cycle plants that may extend

across political boundaries, including any cumulative effects from the clustering of these plants.

As noted, however, these concerns can be fully addressed through regulatory mechanisms

outside of a siting process.

Public Participation/Cross-Jurisdictional Authority

As noted, currently in Illinois, the siting of peaker plants is addressed only by local

government through local zoning or land use ordinances. Generally in Illinois, municipalities

control zoning matters within their borders. Accordingly, neither the officials of a neighboring

municipality or surrounding county, nor the citizens residing in those jurisdictions, can

effectively participate in a given municipality’s zoning approval process to site a peaker plant.

Representatives of DuPage County, Will County, and Lake County explained that their

zoning authority is limited in this way. A number of local and State officials, including State

Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw and Ms. Vivian Lund, Mayor of Warrenville, expressed

concern that residents and officials in neighboring municipalities and surrounding counties have

no meaningful say in a given municipality’s zoning approval process for a peaker plant, despite

the potential for environmental impacts of peaker plants to cross political boundaries.

Participants requested that neighboring communities be able to effectively participate in a

municipality’s siting process and that neighboring officials have a say in the ultimate siting

decision, including, for example, ensuring compliance with county standards.

Potential Solutions

As noted above, states across the country use different types of processes for approving

electric power generating plants. Some states, like Illinois, have a decentralized or segmented

process of approving peaker plants. Under that approach, the siting decisions are made by local

governments applying their zoning ordinances, while environmental permits are obtained from

the different state bureaus. Other states have a centralized or coordinated process. Those states

empower one state board or commission to grant or deny all siting proposals. In California and

New York, environmental permitting is a component of the power plant siting process and the

state environmental regulators participate in that process.

Below, the Board discusses the New York and California processes for siting electric

generating plants, as well as Illinois’ process under the Act for siting pollution control facilities.

New York and California Siting Processes. The siting processes in New York and

California were most frequently referred to in this record. New York’s siting process applies to

an electric generating facility with a capacity of 80 MW or more. Siting decisions are made by a

state board. The application for siting must include: (1) studies of impacts on air, water, visual

resources, land use, noise levels, and health, (2) proof that the proposed facility will meet state

and federal health, safety, and environmental regulations, and (3) applications for air and water

permits.

To facilitate the ability of local government and the public to evaluate the proposed

project, New York requires that the applicant provide funds for intervenors to use in the siting

process. The applicant must pay a fee of $1,000 per MW of capacity, not to exceed $300,000, to

be used as an intervenor fund. The funds are awarded to municipal and other local parties to

help pay for the expenses of expert witnesses and consultants. Any municipality or resident

within five miles of the proposed facility can become a party to the proceeding.

The state environmental agency reviews the air and water permit applications as part of

the siting process and must provide the permits to the siting board before the board decides

whether to approve siting. The siting board reviews the siting request based on a number of

criteria, including cumulative air quality impacts and public health and safety. Interestingly, one

of the criteria requires the siting board, before it can grant siting, to determine either: (1)

construction of the facility is reasonably consistent with the state energy plan, or (2) the

electricity generated by the facility will be sold in a competitive market. The state siting board

may supercede local requirements if it finds them unreasonably restrictive. Please refer to

Appendix F for a more detailed description of New York’s siting process.

California has given exclusive authority to a state commission to conduct a consolidated

approval process for siting all power plants that will have electric generating capacities of 50

MW or larger. The commission’s siting responsibilities include statewide planning analysis.

The siting process allows the project applicant to submit a single application for all necessary

state and local approvals and provides analysis of all aspects of a proposed project, including

need, environmental impact, safety, efficiency, and reliability.

While the state commission’s authority supercedes the authority of other state and local

agencies, the commission solicits their participation in the siting process to ensure compliance

with all applicable requirements, including local requirements. Under this approach, the

applicant seeks a single regulatory permit from the state commission. The California siting

process has public hearings and allows the public to participate. It includes a state-appointed

public adviser responsible for ensuring that the public and other interested parties have full

opportunities to participate in the siting process. Please refer to Appendix G for a more detailed

description of California’s siting process.

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. SB 172 changed the Act in 1981 so that local governments would

decide whether to grant siting approval for pollution control facilities. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2

(1998). Previously, the only way local governments could participate in the approval of

pollution control facilities within their borders was to provide comments in IEPA’s

environmental permitting process. Those comments were not binding on IEPA.

With SB 172, the applicable local unit of government to decide siting is the county board

if the facility’s proposed location is in an unincorporated area, or the governing body of the

municipality if the proposed location is in an incorporated area. See 415 ILCS 5/39(c) (1998).

The local government must conduct public hearings to determine whether to grant siting. The

process also provides for various public notices. Participation of neighboring officials and

residents in the process is allowed. For example, Section 39.2(d) of the Act, after prescribing

how to notify these officials, provides:

Members or representatives of the governing authority of a municipality

contiguous to the proposed site or contiguous to the municipality in which the

proposed site is located and, if the proposed site is located in a municipality,

members or representatives of the county board of a county in which the proposed

site is to be located may appear at and participate in public hearings held pursuant

to this Section.

The local siting authority must determine whether the proposed facility meets each of

nine statutory criteria. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1998). Those criteria are set forth in Appendix H.

The criteria, which include both land use and environmental considerations, apply to the siting

decision in lieu of local zoning or local land use requirements. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2(g) (1998).

IEPA is not directly involved in the local government’s hearing process. However, IEPA cannot

issue a development or construction permit for a pollution control facility unless the permit

applicant submits proof that it obtained local siting approval under SB 172. See 415 ILCS

5/39(c) (1998). Local siting decisions are appealable to the Board. See 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (1998).

Many of the SB 172 siting criteria are specific to waste facilities. Criteria, however,

could be tailored for siting peaker plants. Because the SB 172 approach requires the statutory

criteria to apply instead of local zoning, concern was expressed in the record that local

governments would lose some control over peaker plant siting by using the SB 172 approach.

Modified SB 172 approaches were suggested. One approach would have State-identified siting

criteria serve as minimum criteria that must be met, but which would not operate in lieu of local

zoning. Another approach would have State-identified siting criteria serve to inform local

governments of siting issues, but be voluntary. Under that approach, local governments would

not have to apply the criteria, but could look to the criteria for guidance if they chose to do so.

Another approach would involve creating regional siting authorities to make these

determinations. Several participants suggested that siting decisions should be appealable to the

Board, as they are under SB 172.

Board’s Concluding Remarks on Siting. State-run approaches to siting can provide for

broader public participation in siting and ensure that a larger perspective is brought to bear on

environmental issues and energy planning when selecting sites for power plants. They also offer

a more uniform application of siting criteria over a state than a patchwork of individual local

zoning decisions. A centralized or coordinated type of process, however, is not without potential

drawbacks. For example, this type of siting process has caused delays in siting electric plants,

including delays in California leading to changes in an effort to speed up its process. Also, in

most states with these comprehensive siting processes, the state board can overrule local

jurisdictional authority. Accordingly, state boards typically can approve siting over the objection

of the local host government.

Any number of permutations to existing siting schemes could be fashioned for combined

cycle and simple cycle plants. For example, environmental permitting programs might be made

a component of the siting process, as in New York and California, or they might remain separate

from the siting process, as they are now in Illinois. To enhance public participation and the

ability of local governments to assess peaker plant proposals, the State might require peaker

plant developers to provide something akin to the “intervenor” funds required in New York.

Local siting decisions might be based on State siting criteria and made appealable to a State

board, as in SB 172. State siting criteria might operate in lieu of local zoning requirements, or

serve as minimum standards to which local authorities may add local requirements. Of course,

concerns raised about siting schemes, including delays, power shortages, increased costs,

reliability problems, and loss of local control, should be considered.

Determining whether local zoning is adequate or whether additional siting requirements

are necessary in Illinois depends on what concerns the siting scheme seeks to address. As

discussed, the three primary concerns raised with the current siting process in Illinois were: (1)

the lack of a State energy plan, (2) the inability of local government to address environmental

impacts that may reach across political boundaries, and (3) the inability of neighboring residents

to effectively participate in a local government’s siting process, and the inability of neighboring

jurisdictions to ensure that their standards are being met.

If the State decides that it should step into the energy planning void left by the

restructuring of the electric industry, then a centralized State siting board might make sense. The

State might decide, on the other hand, that the void is a proper result of restructuring and that

State regulatory solutions should be implemented to address concerns over air emissions, noise

emissions, and water use. In that case, the State might limit any change in the current siting

process to require that neighboring communities be allowed to effectively participate in a local

government’s zoning decision on a peaker plant.

As for the first concern, this Informational Order provides helpful information to assist

the Governor in his consideration of whether the State should renew its role in energy planning

after restructuring. The second concern, on potential environmental impacts from air emissions,

noise emissions, and water use, can be addressed through State or regional regulation

independent of any siting process. As noted, the Board has recommended statewide regulatory

solutions to address air and noise. The record demonstrates that those approaches should be

protective. Regarding water use, the Board would expect the WRAC to recommend an effective

regulatory framework sorely lacking now on that important issue. If adequate regulatory

schemes are not implemented, however, those types of environmental concerns might need to be

addressed through a siting process.

Finally, regarding the third concern, legislation might be pursued that would allow the

input of neighboring communities in siting decisions. Local government officials and citizens

almost uniformly called for State action to address this concern.

Question 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?

The Board’s recommended regulation concerning air quality impact analyses and public

hearings should be required for new and expanding peaker plants seeking air construction permits.

Whether BACT should apply to control emissions from minor source peaker plants should be

evaluated in a rulemaking before the Board. At that time, the technical feasibility and economic

reasonableness of applying BACT to new, expanding, and existing minor source peaker plants can

be examined.

The demonstration of compliance with existing numeric noise standards should be made

by existing peaker plants and by new peaker plants and expansions. Existing peaker plants have

been subject to the Board’s numeric noise standards and therefore should be able to demonstrate

that they comply with those standards by taking the appropriate sound measurements. Existing

facilities should make those demonstrations upon air permit renewals. The demonstrations of

new and expanding facilities could include noise modeling and should be submitted at the time

of air construction permit applications.

Finally, while the Board makes no recommendation on siting, any legislative amendment for

siting procedures should apply only to new facilities and expansions.

Question 5: How do other states regulate or restrict peaker plants?

Please refer to Appendix I for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and regulations

that may affect peaker plants. For example, Michigan requires BACT for all new sources of

VOM emissions, which is a more stringent threshold for triggering BACT than the federal

standards. Many other states have no noise regulations, or have very minimal noise regulations

compared to the noise standards in Illinois. Unlike Illinois, most other Midwestern states have

regulatory programs for water withdrawals. As for siting, a number of states have state boards

review requests to site electric generating plants, while others, like Illinois, leave siting decisions

to local governments applying their zoning ordinances.

CONCLUSION

Peaker plants have proliferated in Illinois in the wake of restructuring the electric power

industry. The largest influx of peaker plants is occurring in developed and developing parts of

the greater Chicago metropolitan area, often close to residential areas. This has raised public

concerns over potential environmental impacts posed by these plants.

In response to those public concerns, Governor Ryan requested the Board to conduct

inquiry hearings on peaker plants, which the Board has done. The Governor asked the Board to

determine, based on the inquiry hearing process, whether additional safeguards are necessary to

address concerns over air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, and siting with respect to

peaker plants.

The Board has carefully reviewed the voluminous record of this inquiry hearing process,

which includes the comments of individual citizens and citizen groups, local and State

government, and industry. Based on that record, the Board recommends that the State take

action to protect the environment by tightening current environmental regulations concerning

peaker plants.

Industry representatives asserted that environmental impacts from peaker plants are far

less than many other industries and therefore peaker plants should not be subject to any

additional requirements unless all such industries would similarly be subject to new

requirements. The Board recognizes that other industries may cause greater environmental

impacts than peaker plants. This, however, is not a reason to fail to act on the problems

presented in this record. Governor Ryan asked the Board to determine whether additional

requirements should be imposed on peaker plants, not other industries. Moreover, the

“legislature need not choose between legislating against all evils of the same kind or not

legislating at all.” Chicago National League Ball Club v. Thompson, 108 Ill. 2d 357, 367, 483

N.E.2d 1245, 1250 (1985).

The Board recommends that IEPA initiate a rulemaking with the Board to require permit

applicants to conduct air modeling when IEPA reviews air construction permit applications for

peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s PSD regulations. The Board also

recommends that IEPA adopt a rule to require public hearings on air construction permit

applications for all peaker plants.

The Board recommends that IEPA initiate a rulemaking with the Board to require new,

expanding, and existing peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s PSD

regulations to use BACT for reducing NOx in their air emissions. The rulemaking would provide a

forum to more fully address the appropriateness of imposing BACT, including its economic

reasonableness and technical feasibility in these instances.

The Board recommends that IEPA require peaker plants to demonstrate that their noise

emissions do not exceed the Board’s numeric noise standards. This demonstration should be

required of existing and proposed plants at the time of air permitting.

Finally, on the question of whether peaker plants should be subject to siting requirements

beyond local zoning, the Board does not make any specific recommendation on siting. Instead,

the Board provides the Governor with a thorough discussion of the concerns raised and potential

solutions.

The Board is honored to have served Governor Ryan and the citizens of Illinois through

this inquiry hearing process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the

above order was adopted on the 21st day of December 2000 by a vote of 7-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

RO1-10 ABBREVIATION LIST

ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

BACT

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION

LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PERSONS TESTIFYING IN R01-10

Chicago Hearings

August 23, 2000

Charles Fisher, Executive Director, Illinois Commerce Commission

Thomas Skinner, Director, IEPA

Christopher Romaine, Manager, Utility Unit, Permit Section, Division of Air Pollution

Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

Robert Kaleel, Manager of Air Quality Modeling Unit, Division of Air Pollution Control,

Bureau of Air, IEPA

Greg Zak, Noise Advisor, IEPA

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit, Bureau of Water Permits Section, IEPA

Rick Cobb, Manager, Groundwater Section, Bureau of Water, IEPA

Todd Marvel, Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and RCRA

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison/IEPA

Dr. Brian Anderson, Director, Office of Scientific Research and Analysis, IDNR

10.

Dr. Derek Winstanley, Chief, Illinois State Water Survey, IDNR

August 24, 2000

Gerald Erjavec, Business Development, Indeck Energy Services, Inc.

Greg Wassilkowsky, Manager, Business Development, Indeck Energy Services, Inc.

Arlene Juracek, Vice President, Regulatory and Legislative Services, ComEd

Steve Nauman, Vice President, Transmission Services, ComEd

Deirdre Hirner, Executive Director, IERG

Richard Bulley, Executive Director of Mid-America Interconnected Network

Freddi Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel, Midwest Independent Power

Suppliers

Michael Kearney, Manager, Economic Development, Ameren Corp.

Richard Trzupek, Manager, Air Quality, Huff & Huff

Suburban Hearings

Naperville

September 7, 2000

Mayor George Pradel, Naperville

State Senator Chris Lauzen

State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw

Mayor Vivian Lund, Warrenville

Paul Hass, Zoning Manager, DuPage County Department of Development Environmental

Concerns

Richard Ryan, President and Chairman, Standard Power and Light, Oak Brook

Diana Turnball, Consultant to variety of citzen groups, private foundations and

businesses who have been in opposition to some of the peaker plants

Carol Dorge, Attorney representing Lake County Conservation Alliance

Connie Schmidt, Representative of River Prairie Group

10.

Mark Goff, Resident, Warrenville

11.

Cathy Capezio, Resident, Aurora

12.

Terry Voitik, Resident, DuPage County, and Founder of Citizens Against Power Plants in

Residential Areas (CAPPRA)

13.

Maurice Gravenhorst, Member, CAPPRA

14.

Lucy Debarbaro, Member, CAPPRA

15.

Terry Voitik on behalf of Steve Arrigo, CAPPRA

16.

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

17.

Beverly Dejovine, Representative, Citizens Advocating Responsible Environments

(CARE), Bartlett

18.

Cathy Johnson, Vice Chair, Rural and City Preservation Association (R&CPA)

19.

Chris Gobel, Member, CAPPRA

20.

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

21.

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

22.

Chris Gobel, Member, CAPPRA

Joliet

September 14, 2000

Dr. Thomas Overbye, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer

Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Alan Jirik, Director, Environmental Affairs, Corn Products International, Inc.

Carol Stark, Director, Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, Lockport

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

Keith Harley, Chicago Legal Clinic

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

Michael Shay, Senior Planner Responsible for Long-Range Planning, Will County

Grayslake

September 21, 2000

State Senator Terry Link

State Representative Susan Garrett

Tom Lynch, Trustee, Libertyville Township

Betty Rae Kaiser, Trustee, Village of Wadsworth

Daniel J. Kucera, Chapman & Cutler, appearing on behalf of the Lake County Public

Water District

Jim LaBelle, Chairman, Lake County Board

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

Bonnie Carter, Commissioner, Lake County Board

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, Concerned Citizens of Lake County

13.

Diane Turnball, Representing Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Concerned Citizens of Lake

County, 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 in Lake County

22.

William McCarthy, Resident, Libertyville

23.

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

24.

Barbara Amendola, Resident, Zion

25.

Mark Sargis, Attorney, working with citizens who have been concerned about peaker

issues

26.

Cindy Skrukrud, Resident, Olin Mills, McHenry County

27.

Paul Geiselhart, Resident, Libertyville

28.

Dr. William Holaman, President, Illinois Citizen Action

29.

Evan Craig, Volunteer Chair, Woods and Wet Lands Group of the Sierra Club

Roger Finnell, Engineer, Division of Aeronautics, Bureau of Airport Engineering, IDOT

John Smith, Representative of Illinois Section of American Waterworks Association

Brent Gregory, Representative of National Association of Water Companies, Illinois

Chapter

James R. Monk, President, Illinois Energy Association

Patricio Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, Natural Resources Defense Council

Brian Urbaszewski, Director, Environmental Health Programs, American Lung

Association

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

Carol Dorge, Attorney representing Lake County Conservation Alliance

October 6, 2000

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

Scott Phillips, Attorney, IEPA

Kathleen Bassi, Attorney, IEPA

Chris Romaine, Manager, Utility Unit, Permit Section, Division of Air Pollution Control,

Bureau of Air, IEPA

Greg Zak, Noise Advisor, IEPA

Todd Marvel, Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and RCRA

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison/IEPA

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit, Bureau of Water Permits Section, IEPA

APPENDIX C

R01-10 EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit Number

Description of Document

Illinois

Commerce

Commission

Prefiled testimony of Charles Fisher

Exhibit 1 (8/23/00)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Prefiled testimony of Agency

(Agency) Group Exhibit 1 (8/23/00) witnesses

(Thomas

Skinner,

Christopher Romaine, Robert

Kaleel, Greg Zak, Stephen

Nightingale, Richard Cobb, and

Todd

Marvel)

Agency Group Exhibit 2 (8/23/00)

Set of 20 documents, beginning with

“Simple Cycle Gas Turbine

Application Diagram,” and including

two oversized maps

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Prefiled testimony of Brian

DNR Exhibit 2 (8/23/00)

Prefiled testimony of Dr. Derek

Winstanley

Indeck Energy Services, Inc.

Prefiled testimony of Gerald Erjavec

(Indeck) Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Indeck Exhibit 2 (8/24/00)

Copy of PowerPoint presentation

and Supporting Documentation

Commonwealth

Edison

Exhibit

Prefiled testimony of Arlene Juracek

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

Prefiled testimony of Dierdre Hirner

(IERG) Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Mid-America Interconnected Network, Inc.

Prefiled testimony of Richard Bulley

(MAIN) Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Midwest Independent Power Suppliers

Prefiled testimony of Freddi

Coordination Group Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Greenberg

Ameren Corporation Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Prefiled testimony of Michael

Kearney

Huff & Huff Environmental Consultants

Prefiled testimony of Richard

Citizens Against Power Plants in Residential

CAPPRA Mission Statement

Areas (CAPPRA) Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

Steven Berning, et al. v. The City

of Aurora, et al., 00-CH-0361,

DuPage County Circuit Court

CAPPRA Exhibit 3 (9/7/00)

Testimony of Michael Warfel

CAPPRA Exhibit 4 (9/7/00)

Testimony

Steve

Arrigo

DuPage County Board Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

Versar

Report

DuPage County Board Exhibit 2 (9/7/00)

Map - DuPage County

Municipalities and Unincorporated

Areas

DuPage County Board Exhibit 3 (9/7/00)

Testimony of Paul J. Hoss, Zoning

Manager for DuPage County

Department of Development and

Environmental Concerns

Standard Light and Power Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

Addendum No. 2 to Application for

Electrical Generation Facility

BartlettCARE (Citizens Advocating

Testimony

Beverly

DeJovine

Responsible Environments) Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

Susan Zingle (Zingle) Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

“Peaker” Electrical Generating

Zingle Exhibit 2 (9/7/00)

Testimony of Lake County

Conservation Alliance

Zingle Exhibit 3 (9/14/00)

Testimony of Lake County

Zingle Exhibit 5 (10/6/00)

“Typical Daily Load Curve” of

“The Status of U.S. Electricity

Arthur Andersen’s “Impact Analysis

Mallory Parcel – Libertyville,

Illinois”

Zingle Exhibit 8 (10/6/00)

“Effects of the Proposed Indeck

Facility on Property Values, Land

Zingle Exhibit 9 (10/6/00)

August 15, 2000 letter from Lake

County

State’s Attorney, Michael J.

Waller,

Kenneth

Larson

Zingle Exhibit 10 (10/6/00)

News Articles, beginning with

Zingle Exhibit 11 (10/6/00)

“Business Overview – Electrical

Generating Companies”

Sierra Club Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

Testimony of Connie Sue Schmidt

Dr. Thomas Overbye Exhibit 1 (9/14/00)

“Need for New Peaker Generation

Corn Products Exhibit 1 (9/14/00)

Testimony of Alan L. Jirik

Carol Stark (Stark) Exhibit 1 (9/14/00)

Testimony of Carol Stark

Chicago Legal Clinic Exhibit 1 (9/14/00)

Petition to USEPA requesting

Chicago Legal Clinic Exhibit 2 (9/14/00)

Testimony of Keith Harley

Link Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Statement of State Senator Terry

Link

Lynch Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Comments of Tom Lynch,

Libertyville Township Trustee

Kaiser Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Village of Wadsworth Resolution

R130 and letter of December 21,

1999

Kucera Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Comments on behalf of the Lake

Lake County Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Testimony of Jim LaBelle,

Chairman Lake County Board

Lake County Exhibit 2 (9/21/00)

Testimony of Sandy Cole, Lake

County

Board

Member

Lake County Exhibit 3 (9/21/00)

Testimony of Bonnie Thomson

Lake County Exhibit 4 (9/21/00)

Testimony of Gregory E. Elam,

EO of American Energy

Solutions, including power point

presentation and Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission article

Lake County Exhibit 5 (9/21/00)

Lake County 2000 – Legislative

Testimony of Larry Eaton on behalf

of Liberty Prairie Conservancy,

Prairie Holdings Corporation, and

Prairie Crossing Homeowners

Association

Concerned Citizens of Lake County (CCLC)

Testimony of Chris Geiselhart,

Comments of Richard Domanik

during an April 25, 2000 hearing in

Libertyville, with attached articles

Nesvig Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Testimony of E.M. Nesvig

Nesvig Exhibit 2 (9/21/00)

“Electric Power Monthly”

(July

2000

edition)

Nesvig Exhibit 3 (10/5/00)

Written testimony of E.M. Nesvig

Nesvig Exhibit 4 (10/5/00)

Hard copy of Air Permit Public

Hearing Presentation (September

28, 2000) by Elwood Energy II and

Elwood Energy III

Nesvig Exhibit 5 (10/5/00)

“U.S. Electricity Imports and

Exports 1995–1999”

McCarthy Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Correspondence

William

McCarthy, PhD, regarding

proposed Libertyville plant

McCarthy Exhibit 2 (9/21/00)

Guidance for Power Plant Siting and

McCarthy Exhibit 3 (9/21/00)

“Catalytica” publication regarding

“Xonon

Technology”

Sargis Exhibit 1 (9/21/00)

Written comments of Mark R.

Sargis (dated September 7, 2000)

Illinois Department of Transportation

October 5, 2000 letter from James

Exhibit

(10/5/00)

Bildilli to Chairman Claire A.

Manning

Gregory Exhibit 1 (10/5/00)

Written testimony of Brent Gregory

Monk Exhibit 1 (10/5/00)

Written testimony of James Monk

Monk Exhibit 2 (10/5/00)

“System Peak Load and Capacity –

American Lung Association Exhibit 1 (10/5/00)

Joint Comments of the American

Lung Association of Metropolitan

Chicago and the Illinois

Environmental Council

Dorge Exhibit 1 (10/5/00)

Written comments of Lake County

Conservation Alliance, with

attachments

Dorge Exhibit 2 (10/5/00)

“Peaker” Natural Gas Fired

Turbines – Permits Issued

Dorge Exhibit 3 (10/5/00)

“Peaker” Natural Gas Fired

Turbines Permits Issued – PSD

Dorge Exhibit 4 (10/5/00)

Group of four exhibits, beginning

with “Lake County Conservation

Alliance written comments in

Carlton air permitting proceeding"

APPENDIX D

R01-10 PUBLIC COMMENTS

Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc. submitted by Cindy Conte,

Manager, State Affairs

Debbie Halvorson, Sentator, 40th District

3 Ron

Molinaro

m Peter J. Cioni, Director of Community Development

Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals submitted by Bob

Mosteller, Deputy Director

Larry R. Eaton

7 Susan

Zingle

Response to Questions of Charles E. Fisher

Agency Response to Questions

John A. Smith, Illinois State Water Survey

“The Status of U.S. Electricity Deregulation” submitted by Susan

Zingle, LCCA Executive Director

Lawrence H. Robertson

Harold and Barbara Snyder

Byron and Kristin Henn

Sheri and Keith Fitzgerald

James and Kelly Reuland

William A. Thompson and Karen R. Thompson

Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Krajecki

60 Dorothy

Gum

Norman L. Curry, Fox

Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Berg

Phyllis Pierson, Sugar

69 Margaret

Kathleen

McCrimmon

A. Gum, Big Rock, Illinois

Wray V. McKenzie, Jr.

Marilyn Lasecki and Edmund Lasecki, Jr.

Patricia McBroom and Roger McBroom

Cheryl Romano and Thomas Romano

Patrick and Linda Barnes

Carla S. Miller

John and Carrie Loehmann

Helen LeBeau

James E. McCrimmon

Lynette and Dave Weidin

91 Jane

Erdman

Frederick C. Runge

Julie A. Anderson, Elburn Illinois

(unable to read name) Elburn, Illinois

Ben Halls

Kathryn M. Hellwig,

Anita Sennett,

Gregory G. Goss and Jo A. Goss

William and Cheryl Oeser

100

Debra E. Raymond, Big Rock

Rose Marie Diedesch and Bill C. Diedesch

107

Udo A. Heinze on Behalf of Ameren Corporation

108 Jeannine

Kannegiesser,

Center for Neighborhood Technology

109

Patricia Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, Natural Resources

Defense Council, Washington, D.C.

110

Illinois Municipal Electric Agency submitted by Ronald D. Earl,

General Manager & CEO

111

Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives submitted by Earl W.

Struck, President/CEO

Peter and Dawn Roberts

115

Cathy Jo Magee

116

C. Beau and Sue Carlson

117

Richard A. and Mary C. LaFleur

William F. Fline, Sr.

Elaine and Harold Morris

Patricia and Joseph Heimonen

Barry and Leah A. Morsch

Mark and Lisa Spangler

158

Allen and Jeanette Krodel

159

Robert and Sharon Phillips

Midwest Generatin of EME, LLC submitted by Cynthia A. Faur

164

Commonwealth Edison company submitted by Christopher W.

Zibart

165

Joint Testimony of the American Lung Association of

Metropolitan Chicago (ALAMC) and the Illinois

Environmental Council (IEC) submitted by Brian

Urbaszewaki, Director of Environmental Health Programs,

American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago

166

Final Comments of Carol L. Dorge, Attorney on Behalf of the Lake

County Conservation Alliance (LCCA)

167

Illinois Energy Association submitted by James R. Monk, President

168

Illinois EPA Additional Comments submitted by Scott 0. Phillips,

Deputy Counsel

169

Sierra Club Woods & Wetlands Group submitted by Evan L. Craig

170

PG & E National Energy Group submitted by

Stephen Brick, Director, External Relations and

Evnironmental Affairs

171

Midwest Independent Power

Suppliers Coordination Group submitted by Freddi L.

Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel

172

Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter

173

Indeck Energy Services, Inc. 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

Julie and Karl Kettelkamp

180

Audrey and David Boston

181 Suzanne

Pyle

182

Terry and Sherilyn Sorensen

Mr. and Mrs. Bradley Scott

186

Ersel C. Schuster, McHenry County Board, District 6

187

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group submitted by Katherine

D. Hodge

188

Dr. Donna M. Lawlor and Lynn Hoeth

189

Concerned Citizens of Lake County & Liberty Prairie Conservancy

submitted by Dianne Turnball

190

Jim LaBelle, Chairman, Sandy Cole and Bonnie Thomson Carter,

Members of the County Board, Lake County, Illinois submitted by

Lois Scott and Burton Scott

NEW YORK SITING PROCESS

In the State of New York, applications to construct and operate an electric generating

facility with a capacity of 80 MW or more are ruled upon by the New York State Board on

Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (NYS Siting Board) after various filings and

hearings. The NYS Siting Board is comprised of chairmen and commissioners of various state

agencies. The NYS Siting Board also includes two members of the public, appointed by the

Governor of New York for each project, who reside near the proposed site.

The New York siting process requires the applicant to file a preliminary scoping

statement for the proposed project, describing the following: the proposed facility and its

environmental setting; potential environmental impacts from construction and operation;

proposed mitigation of potential environmental impacts; and reasonable alternatives to the

proposed facility. During this pre-application phase, a hearing examiner may mediate

disagreements on the scope and method of any environmental impact studies needed in the

application.

The application itself must contain the following: a description of the facility and the site

including all applicable environmental characteristics; studies of impacts on air, water, visual

resources, land use, noise levels, health, and other matters; proof that the proposed facility will

meet state and federal health, safety, and environmental regulations; applications for air and

water permits; and a complete report of the applicant’s public involvement program activities

and how it encouraged citizens to participate.

The applicant must publish notice that it filed the preliminary scoping statement and the

application, and serve copies of those documents on interested state agencies, members of the

legislature, municipalities, local libraries, and other interested persons and organizations. During

the siting process, the applicant must carry out a meaningful public involvement program. The

applicant is expected to hold public meetings, offer presentations to individual groups and

organizations, and establish a presence in the community (

e.g.

, establishing a local office, toll-

free telephone number, Internet Web site, or a community advisory group).

To facilitate the ability of local government and the public to evaluate the proposed

project, New York requires that the applicant provide funds for intervenors to use in the siting

process. When the applicant submits the application, it must include a fee of $1,000 per MW of

capacity, not to exceed $300,000, to be used as an intervenor fund. The funds are awarded to

municipal and other local parties to help pay for the expenses of expert witnesses and

consultants. At least 50% of the fund is designated for the use of municipalities. The applicant

receives any intervenor funds remaining at the end of the case.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) reviews

applications for air and water permits submitted as part of the siting process application. The

DEC must provide the permits to the NYS Siting Board before that board decides whether to

approve siting by granting the applicant a Certificate of Environmental Compatability and Public

Need. To grant a Certificate, the NYS Siting Board must determine:

•

Either:

Construction of the facility is reasonably consistent with the most recent state energy plan

(the final 1994 plan assesses the state’s current energy supplies, infrastructure, and

policies, and forecasts energy needs and supplies through 2012), or

The electricity generated by the facility will be sold into the competitive market;

•

The nature of the probable environmental impacts, including an evaluation of cumulative

air quality impacts;

•

The facility minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given environmental and other

pertinent considerations;

•

The facility is compatible with public health and safety;

•

The facility will not discharge or emit any pollutants in violation of existing requirements

and standards;

•

The facility will control the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes;

•

The facility is designed to operate in compliance with state and local legal provisions,

other than those local legal provisions that the NYS Siting Board finds unreasonably

restrictive; and

•

The construction and operation of the facility is in the public interest.

Various state agencies involved in the environment, public health, or energy are normally

active parties in the New York siting process. Any municipality or resident within a five-mile

radius of a proposed facility can become a party to the proceeding. Any organization or resident

outside of the five-mile radius may request party status. Party status enables the person or entity

to submit testimony, cross-examine witnesses, and file legal briefs. The NYS Siting Board’s

goal is to decide whether to grant siting within 14 months after it receives the application.

APPENDIX G

CALIFORNIA SITING PROCESS

California has empowered the California Energy Commission (CEC) to conduct a

consolidated approval process for siting all power plants that will have electric generating

capacities of 50 MW or larger. The CEC’s siting responsibilities include statewide planning

analysis. The siting process allows the project applicant to submit a single application for all

necessary state and local approvals and provides analysis of all aspects of a proposed project,

including need, environmental impact, safety, efficiency, and reliability.

The CEC has exclusive authority to approve the construction and operation of these

plants. While the CEC’s authority supercedes the authority of other state and local agencies, the

CEC solicits their participation in the siting process to ensure compliance with all applicable

requirements, including local requirements. Under this approach, the applicant seeks a single

regulatory permit from the CEC.

The California siting process, which has public hearings and allows the public to

participate, has two main phases. The first phase is expected to take nine months to one year to

complete. It typically involves a conceptual review of the project, determining the need for a

proposed plant, site suitability and acceptability, and alternatives to the proposed project. The

second phase is expected to take 12 to 18 months to complete. It involves consideration of the

specific site, technology, and equipment. In the second phase, the design, construction,

operation, and closure of the power plant is reviewed against applicable laws, rules, and

ordinances. The second phase is used to identify negative environmental effects and ways to

mitigate them. The CEC also determines, or reconfirms, the need for the facility.

The California siting process includes a public adviser, nominated by the CEC and

appointed by the Governor of California to a three-year term. The public adviser is responsible

for ensuring that the public and other interested parties have full opportunities to participate in

the siting process. The public adviser does not act as the public’s legal counsel before the CEC

but instead advises the public on how to effectively participate in the proceedings.

California has experienced delays with its siting process, resulting in changes to the

program. The CEC amended its procedures to allow any proponent of a natural-gas fired

merchant power plant to proceed to the second phase without applying for an exemption from

the first phase. Apparently the California legislature created a “fast track” siting process of six

months for new electric generating facilities presenting no significant adverse environmental

impacts. It also appears that, under that legislation, a simple cycle peaker plant can receive a

three-year operating permit in less than four months if it presents no significant adverse

environmental impacts and is equipped with certain stringent emission control technology. A

permit condition, however, requires the facility, within three years, to either convert to a

combined cycle operation or cease operating.

APPENDIX H

ILLINOIS SB 172 SITING CRITERIA

The Environmental Protection Act’s pollution control facility siting criteria are as

follows:

the facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is

intended to serve;

ii.

the facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the

public health, safety and welfare will be protected;

iii.

the facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character

of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the

surrounding property;

iv.

(A) for a facility other than a sanitary landfill or waste disposal site, the

facility is located outside the boundary of the 100 year floodplain or the

site is flood-proofed; (B) for a facility that is a sanitary landfill or waste

disposal site, the facility is located outside the 100-year floodplain, or if

the facility is a facility described in subsection (b)(3) of Section 22.19a,

the site is flood-proofed;

the plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to

the surrounding area from fire, spills, or other operational accidents;

vi.

the traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize

the impact on existing traffic flows;

vii.

if the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an

emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes notification,

containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental

release;

viii.

if the facility is to be located in a county where the county board has

adopted a solid waste management plan consistent with the planning

requirements of the Local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste

Planning and Recycling Act, the facility is consistent with that plan; and

ix.

if the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any

applicable requirements specified by the Board for such areas have been

met. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a) (1998).

APPENDIX I

State Laws & Regulations

Peaker Plants

Area

LAWS and

REGULATIONS

DESCRIPTION

ARIZONA

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Efforts

(5/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

The ACC issued an order that requires electricity providers to derive 1.1

% of their total product from renewable energy sources by 2007.

Implementation will begin with 0.4 % from renewables by January 1,

2001. 50 % of their renewable power must be derived from solar-

generating facilities.

CALIFORNIA

Siting

“

Guidance for Power Plant

Siting and Best Available

Control Technology

,”

July 22, 1999

http://www.arb.ca.gov/powerpl/p

owerpl.htm

In July 1999, the CA Air Resources Board approved guidelines for

major power plant permits. The guidelines are intended to ensure that

air districts require power plants to use the cleanest emissions control

technology currently available. Districts will also be expected to require

newer, cleaner control technology as it becomes available. This

document doesn’t establish any new laws or rules but provides

guidance on applying existing state & federal rules and authority to

peaker/merchant power plants.

•

SITING:

California Energy Commission (CEC) and local Air

Districts have control over siting power plants >50 MW. Electric

generating facilities >50 MW are required to receive certification

from the Energy Facilities Siting and Environmental Protection

Division. Certifications are open to the public.

In the siting phase, the design, construction, operation, and closure

of the power plant is closely examined in relation to applicable laws,

ordinances, rules, and standards. Adverse environmental effects

are identified and mitigation measures established. The need for

the facility is determined, or reconfirmed, if preceded by a Notice of

Intent. The siting process ensures that the proposed power plants

are safe, reliable, environmentally sound, and comply with all

applicable requirements. The Siting Division also oversees

construction and operation.

Air

•

AIR DISTRICTS:

Local Air Districts provide analysis and

recommendations to the CEC on proposed projects to determine

compliance with air pollution control regulations. The Local Air

Districts utilize a permitting process to control emissions from non-

vehicular sources (stationary sources) that is incorporated into the

CEC’s power plant siting process. The CEC’s power plant siting

regulations specifically provide for the district’s participation in the

process. Each district’s regulations may vary depending on the air

quality conditions in the district and the district’s policies and

strategies for attaining or maintaining compliance with the federal

and State ambient air quality standards. The district’s analysis and

recommendations are provided to the CEC in a document known

as a Determination of Compliance (DOC).

Air

•

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES:

Major sources

are required by permit to use “California BACT”, which is equivalent

to the more stringent federal lowest achievable emission rate

(LAER) in most California air districts.

•

EMISSIONS OFFSETS:

Air pollution control and air quality

management district (district) new source review (NSR) rules and

regulations employ both best available control technology (BACT)

and emission offset requirements to reduce the impact on air

quality from new or modified stationary sources. If emission

increases are above certain specified levels, district NSR rules

require the application of BACT. If the emission increases after the

installation of BACT are still above specified levels, then emission

offsets may be required.

•

AIR IMPACT ANALYSIS:

California Health & Safety Code requires

Air Districts to evaluate air quality impacts in addition to the Federal

CAA requirements on Prevention of Significant Deterioration. This

ensures new permits will not be issued for emission units (sources)

that will prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of

any applicable air quality standard.

•

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT:

Power plant applicants are asked

to submit a Health Risk Assessment under the California

Environmental Quality Act and the Health & Safety Code. A health

risk assessment addresses three categories of health impacts from

all pathways of exposure, if appropriate: acute health effects from

inhalation only, chronic non-cancer health effects, and cancer risks

from multiple exposure paths.

•

ADDITIONAL PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS:

Permits

address startup/shutdown emissions, continuous air monitoring,

sulfur content of fuel, and ammonia slip from air pollution controls.

ter

Water Recycling Act of 1991

http://leginfo.ca.gov

•

Established grants and loans for water reclamation projects and

encouraged water reuse among suppliers.

•

Applies only to public entities that produce or supply water and to

entities responsible for groundwater replenishment.

CONNECTICUT

Energy

Portfolio

An Act Concerning Electric

Restructuring

(RB 5005)

(4/98)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/tab5rev.html#CT

•

The bill requires renewable energy funding, a 5.5 % renewable

portfolio standard, and environmental protections.

Noise

State Policy Regarding

Noise

(CT General Statutes Ch. 442,

Sec. 22a-67 to 22a-76)

http://www.cslib.org////statutes/tit

le22a/t22a-p5.htm

•

Noise regulations address impulse noises and a model ordinance.

FLORIDA

Siting

Electrical Power Plant Siting

Act, 1973

(Florida Statute Section

403.501-.518)

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/P

rograms/progER-pps.htm

•

FL has an

Siting Coordination Office

that is responsible for siting

of:

Electrical Power Plants

Electrical Transmission Lines

Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

High Speed Rails

Hazardous Waste Facilities

•

Electrical Power Plant Siting Act applies only to steam or solar

electric generation > 75MW. This would include combined-cycle

plants but not simple-cycle combustion turbines.

•

Final approval body for the permits is not the Siting Board, but the

Department of Environmental Protection.

•

Fees are charged to the applicant.

•

BACT for NOx is 9 ppm based on dry low NOx combustion

technology.

Ten Year Site Plan

Requirements (TYSP)

(Part of the electrical power

plant siting process)

•

The Public Service Commission (PSC) oversees the submission of

plans by the utilities that describe current generation capacity and

anticipated need for more capacity. The TYSPs also provide

generic information on future sites for power plants to

accommodate the anticipated need. This information includes land

use data, environmental factors, and similar topics which allows

other state and local agencies to comment on the Plans to the

PSC. Based on this information and its own conclusions, the PSC

will determine the suitability of the plan.

Need Determination

(Part of the electrical power

plant siting process, s.

403.519, F.S.)

•

Need Determination is a formal process and is conducted by the

Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC reviews the need for

the generation capacity that would be produced by the proposed

facility in relation to the needs of the region, and to the state as a

whole. The PSC also looks at whether the facility would be the

most cost-effective means of obtaining the capacity.

Environmental Impact

Statement

(Statute section 62-1.211(1),

F.A.C.)

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/L

aw_Rule/apform-pps-a.htm

•

Site certification application forms for power plants resemble an

Environmental Impact Statement. Site Certifications are issued by

the Governor and Cabinet. Prior to issuance of a Site Certification,

the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Department of

Community Affairs (DCA), Public Service Commission (PSC),

Water Management Districts (WMD), and other affected agencies

are required to assess the potential effects upon the environment,

ecology and society by the proposed plant in order to insure that

the construction and operation of the plant will be consistent with

applicable environmental standards.

GEORGIA

Water

Water Withdrawal Permits

http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/abo

utepd_files/branches_files/wrb.htm

•

GA has a Water Withdrawal Permit Program.

•

Develops short-term and long-term water management policies and

strategies to address environmental problems induced by

unsustainable use of Georgia's water resources.

Air

Air Permit Modeling

http://167.193.59.200/metdata/

•

GA maintains a Web site with geographical meteorological data for

air permit modeling based on 5 years of data.

HAWAII

Noise

Noise Pollution

(Hawaii

Revised Statutes Chapter

342F)

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs

current/Vol06/hrs342f/HRS_342F

.htm

•

Hawaii’s noise regulations incorporate both a permit program and

enforcement provisions.

ILLINOIS

Air

Air Pollution

(35 IL Admin Code, Subtitle B)

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/title35/

35conten.htm

•

State rules follow federal requirements.

Energy Portfolio

Renewable Energy

Initiatives

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

09/00 - Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley announced that the City

of Chicago and 47 other local government bodies plan to buy

electric power as a group, requiring that 20% of the purchase (80

MW) come from renewable energy. The City has issued a request

for proposals to the 13 licensed power providers in Illinois. This is

the first opportunity that government agencies have had to

purchase power competitively since Illinois passed its restructuring

law.

•

10/99: Commonwealth Edison plans to allocate $250 million to a

special fund to support environmental initiatives and energy-

efficiency programs throughout the State.

Noise

(35 Illinois Admin.

Code 900 – 952)

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/title35/

35conten.htm

•

According to Greg Zak of the IEPA, Illinois is more active than any

other state in regulating noise. However, some states may have

cities that regulate noise through local ordinances.

INDIANA

Air

•

Requires BACT for all new projects emitting >25 tons per year

VOM.

Siting

•

Requires public utilities to obtain a

certificate of necessity

prior to

constructing electric generating facilities. (The Indiana Utility

Regulatory Commission considers Independent Power Producers

to be public utilities.)

ter

Water Rights & Resources

(Indiana Code, 14-25)

http://www.ai.org/dnr/index.html

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/co

de/title14/ar25/ch4.html

•

Registration and annual reporting requirement for owners of

significant water withdrawal facilities (> 1,000,000 gallons/day of

surface water, groundwater, or combination).

•

Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has statutory authority to

require, by rule, a permit for most water withdrawals from navigable

waters, but authority has not yet been exercised.

•

NRC is required to develop and maintain inventories, gather and

assess all information needed to properly define water resource

availability.

•

NRC can establish, by rule, minimum stream flows.

•

Where groundwater is threatened, Department of Natural

Resources (DNR) may designate a “restricted use area.” Permit is

then required for withdrawal of >100,000 gal/day beyond use at

time of restricted use designation. In granting or refusing a permit,

the DNR considers the concept of beneficial use.

IOWA

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Legislation

(3/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/tab5rev.html#CT

•

The DNR has proposed including a Renewable Portfolio Standard

in restructuring legislation. The proposal would require renewable

energy sources, such as wind, to be 4% in 2005 and increase to

10% by 2015.

•

Each peaker application is reviewed for acid rain potential and, in

some cases, new sources must purchase credits from USEPA.

ter

Water Allocation and Use;

Flood Plain Control

(Code of Iowa, 455B.261-290)

(1999)

http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiz

a/epd/wtrsuply/alloca.htm

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/cgi-

bin/IACODE/Code1999SUPPLE

MENT.pl

•

Permit is required for any person who diverts, stores or withdraws

>25,000 gal of water/day (surface or groundwater). Permits are

generally issued for 10 years but, depending on geological

conditions, can be for lesser period of time.

•

Permit program insures consistency in decisions on allocations.

Allocations are based upon concept of “beneficial use,” the key

points of which are:

water resources are to be put to beneficial use to the fullest

extent;

water and unreasonable uses are prevented;

water conservation is expected;

established average minimum instream flows are protected.

•

Administrative process resolves water use conflicts.

•

Provisions are in place for public involvement in issuing water

allocation permits and in generally establishing water use policies.

KENTUCKY

Air

•

State rules follow federal air requirements.

Noise

Kentucky State Noise

Control Act

(Kentucky Revised Statutes:

KRS 220.30-100 to 220.30-

190)

http://162.114.4.13/KRS/224-

30/CHAPTER.HTM

•

Regulations address a model ordinance.

MAINE

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Legislation

(5/97)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Maine's restructuring legislation contains the nation's most

aggressive renewables portfolio, requiring 30% of generation to be

from renewable energy sources (including hydroelectric).

MASSACHUSETTS

•

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Legislation

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Massachusetts restructuring legislation includes a renewable

portfolio requirement and established a renewable energy fund,

funded via a system benefits charge. Funds will also be used to

create initiatives to increase the supply of and demand for

renewable energy.

MICHIGAN

Air

Emissions Limitations and

Prohibitions – New Sources

of VOC Emissions

(R336.1702)

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/pub/a

qd/rules/part7.pdf

•

Requires BACT for all new sources of VOCs.

MINNESOTA

Siting

Power Plant Siting Act

(MN Admin Code 116C.51-

69.)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u

s/stats/116C/

•

Power Plant Siting Act applies to facilities greater than 50 MW.

•

The siting authority is the State Environmental Quality Board whose

purpose is to locate facilities compatible with environmental

preservation and efficient use of resources. The Board is to choose

locations that minimize adverse human and environmental impact

while insuring continuing electric power system reliability and that

electric energy needs are met.

•

The Board develops an inventory of study areas to guide the site

selection process. The inventory is developed in a public planning

process where all interested persons can participate in developing

the criteria and standards to be used by the Board.

•

A utility (public or private) must apply to the Board for designation

of a specific site for a specific size and type of facility. The

application shall contain at least two proposed sites. The Board

has 12-18 months to issue a decision. When the board designates

a site, it issues a

certificate of site compatibility

to the utility with any

appropriate conditions. No large electric power generating plant

can be constructed except on a site designated by the Board.

•

In designating a site, the Board considers:

effects on land, water and air resources;

effects of water and air discharges and electric fields resulting

from such facilities on public health and welfare, vegetation,

animals, materials and aesthetic values, including base line

studies, predictive modeling, and monitoring of the water and air

mass at proposed and operating sites and routes;

new or improved methods for minimizing adverse impacts of

water and air discharges and other matters pertaining to the

effects of power plants on the water and air environment;

sites proposed for future development and expansion and their

relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the

state;

effects of new electric power generation and transmission

technologies and systems related to power plants designed to

minimize adverse environmental effects;

potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed

large electric power generating plants;

direct and indirect economic impact of proposed sites and

routes including, but not limited to, productive agricultural land

lost or impaired;

adverse direct and indirect environmental effects which cannot

be avoided;

alternatives to the applicant's proposed site

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should

the proposed site or route be approved; and

where appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other

state and federal agencies and local entities.

•

The Board must hold a public hearing in the county where the

proposed facility is to be located.

ter

Water Supply Management

(MN Statutes:

Ch. 103G)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u

s/stats/103G

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/water

s/programs/water_mgt_section/ap

propriations/permits.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/water

s/programs/water_mgt_section/ap

propriations/progdesc.html

•

Permit is required for all users withdrawing (surface and

groundwater) more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons

per year. (Exceptions include: domestic uses serving less than 25

person, certain agricultural drainage systems, test pumping of a

groundwater source, and reuse of water already authorized by

permit, e.g., water purchased from a municipal water system.)

•

Permits are granted for no longer than 5 years.

•

Policy is to manage water resources to ensure an adequate supply

to meet long-range seasonal requirements for domestic,

agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power navigation, and

quality control purposes.

•

Water Appropriation Permit Program exists to balance competing

management objectives that include both development and

protection of MN’s water resources.

•

Permitted users are required to submit annual reports of water use.

Reported information is used to evaluate impacts and to aid in

resolving conflicts.

Noise

Noise Pollution Control

(MN

Rules Chapter 7030)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u

s/arule/7030/

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/progr

ams/pubs/noise.pdf

•

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is empowered to

enforce the state of Minnesota noise rules.

MISSOURI

Air

•

State air rules follow federal requirements.

•

Major source threshold is 100 tons per year.

ter

Geology, Water Resources

and Geodetic Survey

(

Missouri Revised Statutes,

Chapter 256)

http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/dgls/

wrp/waterusestatutes.htm

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/stat

utes/c200-299/2560400.htm

•

Major water users must register with Department of Natural

Resources (DNR). A major water user is defined as an entity that

is capable of withdrawing or diverting 100,000 gal or more per day

from any water source.

•

Failure to register may result in DNR request that Attorney General

file action to stop all withdrawal or diversion. Purpose of

registration program is to insure the development of information

required for the analysis of certain future water resource

management needs.

NEVADA

Portfolio

Electric Utility

Restructuring, AB 366

(6/99)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/tab5rev.html#CT

•

AB 366 provides that the PUC establish portfolio standards for

renewable energy. The standard will phase-in a requirement

(beginning with 0.2 % by January 2001 and adding 0.2 % of a

percent biannually) that 1% of energy consumed be from

renewable energy resources.

NEW JERSEY

ter

Water Supply Management

Act

(NJAC 7:19-1)

•

Water resources management is required for >100,000 gallons per

day.

Noise

Noise Control Rules

(NJAC 7:29)

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforc

ement/pcp/olem-noise.htm

•

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has

developed a Model Noise Ordinance that can be adopted by local

municipalities.

•

NJDEP does not have a noise control program and does not

investigate noise complaints. Noise control is handled locally.

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

The restructuring legislation in NJ requires spending $230 million

for home weatherization, renewable energy and other programs,

and increases spending on new energy conservation programs.

Also, electric generation companies must disclose a set of

environmental characteristics, including power plant fuels and

emissions.

NEW YORK

Siting

Siting and Approval

(Article X of Public Service

Law)

http://www.dps.state.ny.us/articl

ex.htm

•

The NY Public Service Commission (NY State Board on Electric

Generation Siting and the Environment ) is in charge of siting and

approval of all new power plants.

•

Article X of the Public Service Law sets forth a unified and

expedited review process for applications for power plants > 80

MW.

•

Proceedings are open to the public

•

Siting Board may preempt local zoning.

•

Siting may take up to 18 months.

•

Siting Board must determine:

either:

(a) construction of the facility is reasonably consistent with the

most recent

State Energy Plan

, or

(b) the electricity generated by the facility will be sold into the

competitive market;

the nature of the probable environmental impacts (including an

evaluation of cumulative air quality impacts);

the facility minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given

environmental and other pertinent considerations;

the facility is compatible with public health and safety;

the facility will not discharge or emit any pollutants in violation of

existing requirements and standards;

the facility will control the disposal of solid and hazardous

wastes;

the facility is designed to operate in compliance with state and

local legal provisions, other than those local legal provisions that

the Siting Board finds unreasonably restrictive; and

the construction and operation of the facility is in the public

interest.

Intervenor Fund for Siting

Review

(Article X, Section 164)

Power plant applicants are required to pay $1,000 per MW of

capacity up to $300,000 to establish an Intervenor Fund.

Funds are used to defray expenses associated with the siting

review.

Proposed Amendment to

Article X

(New York State Bill A09039)

The bill would authorize the Commissioner of Environmental

Conservation to issue environmental permits necessary to the siting

of an electric generation facility if the Siting Board is unable to do so

and would make some technical changes to the siting law.

The bill would also require the Energy Planning Board to do a

reliability study of the state’s transmission and distribution systems.

New York State Energy Plan

1994

(New York State Energy

Office)

•

The Final 1994 State Energy Plan calls for significant reductions in

State energy taxes and endorses greater competition in utility

purchases of electricity in order to lower electric rates in the state.

The plan reaffirms the state's long-term energy, economic and

environmental goals and its commitment to energy efficiency, but

places increased emphasis on the use of energy policy as a means

to promote sustained economic development. The plan assesses

New York's current energy supplies, infrastructure and policies, and

forecasts energy needs and supplies through the year 2012. Based

on those findings, the plan sets policy goals and objectives and

recommends 180 specific actions. The plan was prepared by the

staffs of the State Energy Office and the State Departments of

Environmental Conservation and Public Service in response to

1992 legislation that formalized Governor Mario Cuomo's model for

integrated energy planning. The State Energy Planning Board,

which approved the plan on October 31,1994 is made up of the

commissioners of those three agencies. State energy law requires

that any state action related to energy be reasonably consistent

with the plan's findings and recommendations.

ter

Water Supply Permits

(Chapter 6, New York Codes,

Rules and Regulations. Part

601: 6 NYCRR 601)

•

Required for suppliers of potable water with 5 or more service

connections.

•

Applicants must demonstrate:

Plans are justified by public necessity.

Plans take proper consideration of other sources of supply

which are or may become available.

Plans provide for proper and safe construction of all work

connected therewith.

Plans provide for proper sanitary control of the watershed and

proper protection of the supply.

Plans provide for an adequate water supply.

Plans are just and equitable to the other municipal corporations

and civil divisions of the state affected thereby and to the

inhabitants thereof, particular consideration being given to the

present and future necessities for sources of water supply.

Plans make fair and equitable provisions for the determination

and payment of any and all damages to persons and property,

both direct and indirect, which result from the acquisition of said

lands or the execution of said plans.

Plans, in accordance with local water resources needs and

conditions, include a description of an adequate near term and

long range water conservation program.

•

Entities holding Water Supply Permits must report average and

peak usage to the NY Department of Environmental Conservation

annually. If customer demand grows (i.e., new peaker plant begins

withdrawing from the water supply), supplier must re-demonstrate

the above to the state if the demand exceeds amount authorized in

the Water Supply Permit.

Water Well Program

(Environmental Conservation

Law 15-1525)

•

Pre-notification must be filled with the state prior to drilling

specifying desired yield.

•

No restrictions are specified on the amount of water withdrawal.

However, under NY Civil Law, property owners have water rights.

If a well causes drawdowns that impact an off-site property owner’s

water use, then they can sue.

Water Withdrawal

Registration

(6 NYCRR, Chapter X,

Subchapter A, Article 1)

•

Applies to withdrawals from Great Lakes:

•

Great Lakes (6 NYCRR 675):

withdrawals >100,000 gpd averaged over 30-day period

OR -

lake water loss > 2,000,000 gpd averaged over 30-day

period

•

No restrictions are specified on the amount of water withdrawal, just

that withdrawals must be registered. Registration fee is $100 /

year.

Long Island Water

Withdrawal Restrictions

•

Water withdrawals from wells are restricted by quantity on Long

Island since over pumpage of groundwater on Long Island can

cause infiltration of saltwater into the aquifer.

Electric Utility Restructuring

•

Funds to support energy conservation and renewable energy are

made available to energy suppliers from the New York State

Energy Research and Development Authority. Funds were created

through the New York Public Service Commission order

establishing a system benefits charge on electricity sales.

OHIO

Siting

OH Admin. Code 4906:

Ohio

Power Siting Board

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublish

ing.com/oac/

•

The Ohio Power Siting Board within the Public Utilities Commission

is the approval authority for all major utilities > 50 MWe.

•

Meetings of the Board where action is taken or deliberations

conducted are open to the public.

•

Applicants for new facilities must consider at least 1 alternate site.

•

Applications are required to address:

Justification of Need:

Description of generation and associated facility

alternatives

Type, number of units, and estimated net demonstrated

capability, heat rate, annual capacity factor, and hours of

annual generation

Land area requirement

Fuel quantity and quality

Types of pollutant emissions

Water requirement, source of water, treatment, quantity of

any discharge and names of receiving streams

Siting issues:

Location

major features

the topographic, geologic, and hydrologic suitability for

each alternate site

Water:

natural and man-affected water budgets

existing maps of aquifers which may be directly affected

Emissions control & safety equipment

Local ambient air quality of proposed sites

Locations of major and anticipated sources of air pollution

Plans for future additions and the maximum generating capacity

anticipated for the site.

Financial data

Environmental data

Social and ecological data:

Noise

Health & Safety

Impact of water use

Economics, land use, and community development

Cultural impact

Agricultural district impact

•

After the Board certifies applications for new facilities, public

hearings are held in the local vicinity of the proposed facility.

•

The Board collects application fees.

Air

NOx – Reasonably Available

Control Technology

(OAC 3745-14)

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublish

ing.com/oac/

•

According to IEPA, certain minor sources must use BAT (Best

Available Technology), OAC 3745-14-3.

•

Major sources are required to use BACT per federal regulations:

15 ppm NOx for natural gas turbines, 42 ppm NOx for oil burning.

•

For NOx sources >100 tpy, Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) is required in certain counties. RACT for

combustion turbines is 75 PPMVD for those firing gaseous fuels

and 110 PPMVD for those firing distillate oil or diesel fuel.

ter

Application for Permit for

major increase in withdrawal

of waters of the State

(Ohio Revised Code 1501.30

& 33)

Registration of facilities

capable of withdrawing

>100,00 gal/day;

Groundwater Stress Areas

(Ohio Revised Code 1521.16)

Determination of reasonable

use of water

(Ohio Revised Code 1521.17)

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublish

ing.com/revisedcode/

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/w

ater/waterinv/waterinv.html

•

Permits are required for those making a new or increased

consumptive use of water than an average of 2 millions gallons per

day over a 30-day period.

•

Registration is required for any facility or combination of facilities

with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water

(surface or ground) daily. Annual reporting is required of those who

must register. The purpose of registration and reporting is to gather

data to assist in resolving future water use conflicts.

•

Chief of DNR Division of water has authority to designate “ground

water stress areas” and to require water withdrawal registration in

these areas for users of water less than the normal 100,000 gallon

threshold.

•

Chief also has responsibility to maintain water Resources Inventory

that must include information to assist in determining the

reasonableness of water use.

•

While “reasonable use” is used by courts to determine water

conflicts, legislature has set forth nine specific factors (applicable to

both surface and groundwater) which define reasonableness.

•

“Consumptive use” is defined as a use of water resources other

than a diversion that results in a loss of that water to the basin from

which it is withdrawn and includes, but is not limited to, evaporation,

evapotranspiration, and incorporation of water into a product or

agricultural crop.

Energy

Portfoli

Electric Utility Restructuring

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Restructuring legislation includes a provision for a $110 million

revolving load fund for residential and small commercial energy

efficiency and renewable energy projects. Also, electricity

marketers must disclose environmental information to consumers.

OREGON

Noise

Noise Control Classification

of Violations

(Oregon Admin. Rules 340-

012-0052)

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/

OARS_300/OAR_340/340_012.h

tml

•

Regulations address a model ordinance.

PENNSYLVANIA

Air

Stationary Sources of NOx &

VOCs

(Pennsylvania Code Ch.

129.91)

http://pacode.com/secure/data/025

/chapter129/chap129toc.html

•

PA charges emissions fees: $42/ton (1999).

•

PA requires RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology) for

all major sources of VOC, NOx.

Energy Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

(9/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

A $21 million Green Energy Fund was created by the Public Utilities

Commission (PUC) to be used for investment in green energy

projects such as wind, solar, and biomass. The fund, which

currently has $5 million, is expected to grow to more than $20

million over the next six years. The fund was created as part of a

negotiated settlement between the PUC and PPL in the utility's

restructuring case two years ago. Businesses and nonprofit

organizations that wish to invest in green energy within PPL's

territory may apply for the funds.

TEXAS

ter

Use of Reclaimed Water

(Texas Admin Code Title 30

Part 1 Chapter 210)

(1997)

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/

rules/index.html

•

Establishes general requirements, quality criteria, design, and

operational requirements for the beneficial use of reclaimed water

that may be substituted for potable water and/or raw water.

•

Due to limited supply and high demand, reclaimed water can be

much less expensive than using municipal drinking water or treating

groundwater. The rule is intended to conserve surface and ground

water and to help ensure an adequate supply of water resources for

present and future needs.

•

Use of reclaimed water is voluntary.

•

Locating reuse facilities near the municipal wastewater treatment

plant helps to minimize infrastructure costs in constructing a

distribution line.

•

Reclaimed water is provided to the user on a demand-only basis.

•

Approved uses include cooling tower make up water under §210.32

(2)(F).

Water Use Permits

(Texas Water Code, §11.121)

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/stat

utes/wa/wa001100toc.html

•

Texas industries must obtain water rights to use surface water or

protected groundwater. Such authorization may be with or without a

term, on an annual or seasonal basis, or on a temporary or

emergency basis.

Siting

•

Does not have a siting commission for power plant projects.

•

Texas requires

certificates of convenience and necessity

for power

plant projects initiated by utilities, but not for projects initiated by

independent power producers.

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

(9/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Texas' renewables portfolio standard requires that the State's

utilities install or contract to buy power from 2,000 MW of

renewable generating capacity by January 1, 2009.

WISCONSIN

Siting

State Energy Policy

(Wisconsin Statute: 1.12)

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-

bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=11157

1&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=ch.

%20196

Power Plant Siting

(WI Admin Code Ch. PSC 111,

112)

Environmental Analysis

(WI Admin Code Ch. PSC 4)

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-

bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=95483

&infobase=codex.nfo&jump=top

•

Wisconsin’s State Energy Policy includes policy on:

considering the maximum conservation of energy resources as

an important factor when making any major decision that would

significantly affect energy usage

reducing the ratio of energy consumption to economic activity in

the state

renewable energy resources

protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats,

lakes, woodlands, open spaces and groundwater resources.

•

Ch. PSC 111, 112 require the Public Service Commission (PSC) to

develop a Strategic Energy Assessment (SEA) for power plants.

The SEA involves an assessment of electric demand and supply,

and information from electricity suppliers on economic, pollutant,

and energy conservation data.

•

Ch. PSC 111,112 require

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity

for electric generating facilities. According to the Illinois

Commerce Commission, this requirement applies to facilities > 100

MW. Applications for certificates include:

at least 2 sites: preferred & alternate

number of units, type, size, fuel

hours of operation

generating capacity

pollutant emissions

need for facility in terms of demand

alternative sources of electric supply including energy

conservation & efficiency

Natural resources affected

Ecological resources affected

Community information

•

According to IEPA, siting is required for facilities >12,000 kW.

•

Ch. PSC 4 establishes procedures to provide the PSC with

adequate information on the short- and long-term environmental

effects of its actions as required by the WI Environmental

Protection Act, ch. 274, section 1, laws of 1971 and s. 1.11 of the

Wisconsin Statutes. PSC 4 requires the PSC to prepare an

Environmental Assessment (EA) to assist the PSC in determining

environmental impact of proposed facilities. Combustion turbines

are included as types of projects requiring an EA. The PSC can

approve or deny siting based on the EA or Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). The EA is made available to the public, and

hearings are held.

ter

Water Resources

(Wisconsin Statues, Chapter

28, Subchapter II)

Water Quality and Quantity;

General Regulations

(Wisconsin Statues, Chapter

28, Subchapter III)

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/S

tatutes.html

DNR Rules, Chapter NR 142

•

Wisconsin law provides for:

development of statewide water quantity resources plan

registration and annual reporting (with fees) of major

withdrawals (>100,000 gal/day in 30-day period)

permit approval process (with administrative hearing process)

for construction, development and operation of wells where

capacity and rate of withdrawal of groundwater from all wells on

one property is in excess of 100,000 gal/day. Approval is

withheld or restricted if withdrawal will adversely effect or

reduce availability of public water supply or doesn’t meet

grounds for approval which are:

No adverse effect on public water rights in navigable waters

no conflict with any applicable plan for future uses of waters

of state or water quantity resources plan

Reasonable conservation practices have been incorporated

no significant adverse impact on environment and

ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin or the upper

Mississippi River basin

plan for withdrawal consistent with the protection of public

health, safety and welfare and not detrimental to public

interest

no significant detrimental effect on the quantity and quality

of the waters of the state (even more factors apply if the

proposed withdrawal will result in an “interbasin diversion”)

4. permit approval process for diversion of water from any lake or

stream >2,000,000 gal/day in any 30-day period. If DNR

receives application for a withdrawal from the Great lakes basin

that will result in a new water loss averaging 5,000,000 gal/day

in any 30-day period, DNR notifies governors of other Great

Lakes States, requesting their input.

•

Regulations define “water loss” and “consumptive use.”

•

Rules incorporate methods for citizens to initiate DNR

investigations of alleged violations.

Note:

This list is not meant to be all-inclusive.