Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 06/27/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 200 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE. June 27, 2006 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair - 493-6341 David Roy, Council Liaison 407-7393 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Jeff Engell, Nancy York, Dale Adamy, Bruce Macdonald, Dave Dietrich, Eric Levine, Carrico Carrico, Greg McMaster Board Members Absent Cherie Trine Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Tara McGibben Guests John Bleem, Dave Ussery, Paul Schultz, Pam Milmoe The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. Public Comment • No public present. Agenda Item 1 Lucinda Smith gave a brief presentation about the state health department's mercury regulation proposal. • Levine: So, we're looking of course at the different numbers due to supposedly different methodologies in estimating the mercury emissions. If we used 2003 TRI reporting to set the levels allowed, would the emissions ceiling be that much less? • Bleem: I will cover the limits and measurements in the next presentation. We will cover that later. Let me know if it's not covered adequately. • Levine: The development of the proposal? Is it a purely health -based driven proposal? Or is it a mixture of health and some various proposals? • Smith: I don't know that right now. I can look it up and read their proposal but I can't comment on that. • Levine: The original clean air act, what would the comparison be? The reduction versus the staff... • Smith: Refers to Pam Milmoe. • Milmoe: I will cover that in my presentation. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 2 of 20 As Lucinda continues with her presentation, she asks the board while you're listening to the other presentations, please think about these two questions: Should Ft. Collins become involved in the Colorado Mercury rule -making? If yes, should the City join the Local Government Coalition or take another approach? Presentation by John Bleem with the Platte River Power Authority. Presentation on background/history, Platte River activities and regulatory issues. • Levine: How does the voting work? What is the amount of ownership of each of the cities? • Bleem: It's equal voting, if there is a tie, it is based on the amount of electricity purchased. • Levine: How much is Ft. Collins? • Bleem: It is about 47, 48%. Spoke to the two new rules. Clean Air Mercury Rule and the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Both were in Lucinda's presentation. • Dietrich: In a lot of cases, these numbers are based on emission factors, not measurements. Mercury is difficult to measure. • Bleem: Yes, that's one of the points we want to emphasize, it's really difficult to measure mercury accurately. • Dietrich: And that cost relates to installation and operation over a period of time? What's that cost related to? • Bleem: It's capital and/or minimum. • Dietrich: For how long? Capital investment lasts for how many years? • Bleem: It's a life cycle cost so every pound of mercury used... so you take the Capital and spread it out the life. • Dietrich: Over what life are you projecting capital cost? • Bleem: When I went to this conference, the DOE folks just said it included the capital price in its life cycle, I didn't ask whether it was 20 or 25 years. Good question, I don't know. • Smith: Are those costs are actual costs of existing control equipment or are those specific generating unit names there? • Bleem: They are just estimates. None of them have actually been installed. It's all strictly estimates. • Dietrich: For my comparison, could you give the cost per pound for SO2? • Bleem: We can figure that for you. We don't budget for specifics yet. That's about a dollar a pound. • Levine: What I'd be interested in though is the health -based perspective of the SO2 vs Mercury, in other words, they say very roughly that a gram deposited from the atmosphere can make a lake not safe anymore, for the fish, etc.. How would SO2 contamination or deposition, acid rain, what would be its equivalent effect on a body of water? • Bleem: This rule was studied from an economic perspective and on EPA's web site, I'm sure they'd have the economics for mercury and SO2 program, I don't recall, but both of those analyses were done. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 3 of 20 • Carrico: Have you ever seen any comparisons done like you are suggesting between S02 and Mercury? • Ussery: I haven't seen any comparisons with S02 and Mercury. • Milmoe: I have some comparisons, and S02 is measured in tons and Mercury measured in pounds, so that's really one of the issues that we have is that you are talking about a highly toxic pollutant. • Bleem: All you are really required to do in economic analysis is health effects and cost and so those are available, but like Dave said, they are likely apples and oranges, they're not the same health effect or the same dollars. • Carrico: So those costs are based on carbon injection? Or removal of mercury? How exactly does it work? • Bleem: All of these items you see down here, these acronyms for potential products are injection. • Carrico: Are there ways to tweak your present emissions control systems? • Bleem: No, you actually just inject small amounts of carbon and a chemical reaction between carbon and mercury pulls the mercury out. So you take the mercury from the flu gas and put it into the ash. And that's the concern with having the ashes, because of the high carbon content. • Milmoe: There is technology that is being demonstrated that would change where the carbon is injected in the process so that it wouldn't be in the ash. It is in every southern company demonstration. There are a number of different demonstrations. • Usary: None are conclusive results yet. • Bleem: Summary. Health concern in fish. Mercury is global issue. U.S. power plants are only —1% of total. 90% of emissions are from the eastern us. Measurement is difficult. Control capability unknown. • Dietrich: Your rate impact is how many dollars a year? You said 10 years? • Bleem: 10 million dollars over the next ten years. • Dietrich: So 1 million dollars a year? • Bleem: It actually doesn't come in quite that way because the sum is all front end loaded. • Macdonald: Noting Lucinda's presentation, that people are concerned about potentially increasing mercury in Colorado. To me, that doesn't seem possible. Really, whether we've used an emission factor that's changed over time, doesn't really make a change than what's actually emitted. The fact that we've got different emission factors today from what we had in 2003 doesn't mean that we have more emissions today than we had then, actually since. • Bleem: That's one of our major concerns. The measurement isn't there and the tools and techniques have changed, not the mercury production. • Macdonald: Do you see any way that mercury emissions would actually increase in any scenario that regulates air quality? • Bleem: Our plants are reviewed by the clean air committee. We've got the regional haze rule, and a number of things coming down the road. And as those plants are cleaned up more and more the co -benefits will kick in. It will pull out the S02, particulates, other things as well as mercury. So that co -benefit should continue and actually push it down. New plants coming in will be much cleaner than existing plants and the new standards will be the balance of how many plants come up and the new benefits. We don't see mercury emissions going up, and that's a great point. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 4 of 20 • Schultz: They certainly aren't going to up in the power plants that are planned at Comanche 3 and the Lamar reconfiguration. Those are planned to come on around 2010. The first phase of the program is just 8 years. In 2018, the amount allocated to states will be about half of the initial amount. I agree with you Macdonald, I don't see emissions increasing. • Ussery: In 2018 it will even be less. • Bleem: Just to give you an example, the new unit at Comanche is coming on new and the existing unit needs to be cleaned up significantly. So the net in mercury is going to be much lower. The very next plant that comes on, that netting that I talked about new versus old; that will actually bring that down, even though a new plant comes on. That's the balance between new plants and clean up of old plants. • Levine: If we set levels allowed high, allow cap and trade systems, allow a lot of regulatory flexibility, don't we send different signals to the decision makers and the whole power industry that are considering what to do next when they have option A and option B? It would seem like we're sending, rather than across the board kind of regulation that the clean air act originally intended. It was just maximum, best retro-fit technologies and Maximum Achievable Control Technologies that are the basic framework of the original clean air act. • Bleem: Yes, certainly, there could be more stringent rules. The signal sent by a more stringent rule would be to reduce more. We're owned by our citizens. It's expensive, and we've got a lot of questions about whether it performs and how to measure it, we've heard all that. If people say get there, but we'd be very cautious about a place that we're not sure we can even go. But certainly there could be more stringent rules on mercury. • Schultz: Whether the health benefits or environmental benefits would increase with additional reductions may or may not discernable; they may not be measurable. You'd move into the 70% versus 90%, there's no appreciable change in over all health benefit. • Levine: If you're taking about mercury continuous emissions monitors being not the most reliable. certainly the field of human health is the most tricky; and the one that drives this entire regulatory system. • Schultz: The focus is not on inhalation health effects. The focus is on what is proved from eating fish. • Bleem: The point is would stronger control requirements help, which can be done. 1 % in the west comes from coal fired plants. How much more 70% vs 90% vs 99; if 99% of the mercury is coming from somewhere else, how much more money is appropriate to spend at those very low emissions levels and power plants? But yes, the signal could be coming up and do more with what the rule is. • Ussery: And you know the model rule; remember we're talking about a control period in two phases, 2010 and 2018 that's where the majority of your trading will take place. Within that time we can try to get control technologies to where they can be effective, highly competitive and maybe even cost effective. After 2018 everybody going to likely be under control. • Levine: Under the Clean Air Act, what year was the mercury reduction due to take place? • Bleem: It wasn't specific in the Clean Air. • Milmoe: Under the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT); the way that standard works is that you would be required to install the maximum achievable control technology as expeditiously as possible. The 90% comes from the technology that's early Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 5 of 20 in place in waste combustion and both kinds of incinerators. Very similar technology that reduces mercury emissions as well as field tests demonstrations of technologies specifically on power plants that have been demonstrated several times that get a 90% reduction. So that's where that 90% is coming from. That under MACT would be the maximum achievable controlled technology. Then the date certain, that becomes the date. Stappa/Alapco, and in the past EPA, has said roughly 2012 would be as expeditiously as possible. Now it's looking like 2018. One thing to point out is that with banking and trading you don't have to sell them on the market, you can bank those. So even by 2018 new emissions credits could be coming on the market. So that's why the concern is that it won't actually be 2018; they'll be those credits out there that can be held back, and as they get rationed down, the cost goes up, and then those come on the market again. • Bleem: The Clean Air Act never said a percent reduction or time -frame. • Levine: Right, that's determined by technology. I noticed the CDPHE statement said that their proposal was no more than the minimum federal standard. Does that come into the legislation that's required by law that we can not exceed minimum federal standards and that's why that proposal is the way it is? • Bleem: The two aren't necessarily related. The proposal is lower than the federal standard; the state is allowed to do that by other legislation. They couldn't have done it were they not allowed to, but they're allowed to, so they went and did it. • Milmoe: There's flexibility in the EPA rule, it doesn't prohibit the state from tweaking the system. If it did, it'd become a state only provision. That is another point the air quality control commissioners talked about. They are considering some state only provision for this rule. The commission asked the division to consider at least one state only provision. • Macdonald: I have a comment about the MACT rule; I don't think it quite right in the way that was presented. My understanding for the existing units is they must perform to the best 12% of similar units. And that can be defined by broadening, because if we define those to be sub-tuminous coal units then we could have a lot less control on mercury than we would have under this cap and trade. There's a discrepancy there; it's how you define the source. If we were looking at 12% of sub-tuminous coal burning sources we'd probably have higher mercury emissions. For as under this rule, it's actually more stringent. New units they have to meet the best under MACT. • Milmoe: This rule you get about 60% of what they're saying... • Macdonald: You mentioned the uncertainty regarding the emissions. Compliance is based an annual average and I realize that any one sample can be off when you start comparing one hour versus another hour, but you're sampling for a whole year. Don't you expect to consume a more accurate figure? • Bleem: That's why we're installing the CEMS (Continuous Emissions Monitors), to see how the different coal seams produce and to see how that varies over the years. We pay a premium to get low -sulfur coal out of the mines to keep our sulfur down, and I am curious how does that compare with higher sulfur coal; it's based on a year. • Levine: Is the emissions factor based on a mass balance? I would think that would be easy and relatively straight forward. You look at the amount in the coal that you're using, and you look at the amount in the ash, and any discrepancy must have gone into the air. • Ussery: There's not lot of data on mercury in the coal that we're using. And it vanes a lot on the CEMS. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 6 of 20 Schultz: We've been doing that mass balance it's just not as easy as it seems. You're dealing with small amount of mercury. That's an exercise that's been done, and been doing. As far as maintanance goes, we were one of the facilities required in 1999 by the EPA, we were required to do stack testing, both inlet to scrubber and outlet to see what kind of removal we get. It's called the Ontario Hydro Stack method which uses a wet chemistry method and is very involved. We've repeated that testing in 2003. So we have snap -shops of supposedly real data but if you look at the test runs that measured there's significant variability between each of those 3 hour test runs. And then you get variability between a test done in 1999 versus 2003, and we're burning the same coal from the same mines. Ussery: We're installing the continuous emissions monitoring system a year -and -a -half before it's required by the EPA. The EPA is requiring a CEMS certified device by 1-1- 2009. We're installing this next year so we'll have a year's worth of data as to what we're really emitting a year before... Levine: Is the data that's used there, if you were higher than you thought, would that fit into your Title 5 operating permit? Usary: Mercury is not a title 5. Pam Milmoe from Boulder County Health Department presented the perspectives of the Local Government Coalition and Information. • Ussery: You use the term exposure. Exposure how, what's the meaning of exposure? • Milmoe: It's fish consumption. It's not air, its fish consumption. You have to ingest fish. • Levine: Fish consumption is part of lots of ecosystems. As well as just human consumption buying fish in the supermarket and consuming it, I would think that some of the effects could be possibly similar with natural eco systems. • Milmoe: I'm not following your question. • Levine: What I'm saying is, it would be harm to the environment, it is more than just necessarily just people consuming fish. • Ussury: The fish bought at the super market isn't being caught at these lakes. • Levine: I've read that most of it is EPA determinations of harm for health is based on consumption of ocean fish. • Milmoe: Canned tuna has an advisory out because of the mercury that can build up in your system. • Usuary: Is that coal fired generation in Colorado? Or is it coal fired generation in four corners? • Milmoe: Yes, in the four corners. • Engell: What's the typical emission rate for medical facility or municipal solid waste versus a power plant? A hundred times more? • Milmoe: I'm not sure. • Bleem: I had a slide that I didn't include, that showed the amount and volume of emission was much higher; the concentration was much higher in medical waste. • Lucinda: What's the t model? • Milmoe: I don't know. I just pulled it out of the study. • Levine: Speaks about his handout says that EPAs own study group estimated health benefits from mercury reduction about 100 times great as the agency then claimed. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 7 of 20 • Levine: Normally, according to Robert's Rules, we should have a motion on the table and then that kicks in the discussion on the issue. Would anyone mind doing it a little more informally? We can discuss it now a little bit and maybe in a while if anyone wants to make a motion we can do that? Is everyone okay with that, just a little more informal process than strict adherence to Robert's Rules? I'm just setting the format. • Macdonald: I've looked at a lot of mercury analysis including the mercury report to congress; they didn't state anything about the Clean Air Act. There's a lot more actual uncertainty in their report. You sited some models here with results and I have no reference as to who that is. But here are certain other modeling efforts that show that's it's not such a local issue; that in fact, the deposition does show up farther from the plant. And it's easy to set up models and come up with conclusions and assumptions and things, and the results can be tweaked. And people do that, we have to admit that that's a possibility. I'm less inclined to accept this notion that it is more of a local issue than not. And in regard to the notions of the marketplace not serving the public interest, I think the acid rain program is a real example of how the marketplace itself has worked out to the benefit of public health. I think there's very few people who would argue that that's not been successful; and STAPA/ALAPCO was against that in the beginning and now feels it's a successful program; at least they don't argue about it. I feel that this market approach should be given a little more credibility than you seem to be giving it. I'm not ready to accept that conclusion that the market place won't provide protection to public health. • Milmoe: The modeling results come from the EPA and they are counter to the agencies position on cap and trade. If any org had an interest in tweaking their models to show something, it wouldn't be this model; they would have their model say something else. Secondarily, the corroboration with the other data sources in the field data is important, that was an EPA funded by office of R&D that actually went to an appeals court to get EPA to release that information because they were withholding it and didn't want it to be released (Stupendale study that I mentioned). 75% of the emissions were from local sources and 65% were from local sources, I think it's a preponderance of evidence as we look more closely. I think EPA in this case, is a pretty credible source of that information. In terms of acid rain provisions, it certainly was a success. There were a lot of people concerned about it in the beginning. We did feel that it bore out. While there are local effects from SO2, in terms of haze and asthma, again it's measured in tons not pounds. SO2 is a criteria pollutant; it's not a hazardous air pollutant. And I think that's the line that got crossed in terms of using a market based approach. • Dietrich: You were saying you saw uncertainty on the statistics related to local impacts. One other thing that was presented was the fish advisory. Did you see any uncertainty related to that? • Macdonald: Yes, the fish advisories are basically in southwestern Colorado where the coal fired power plants have no controls. Where the four -corners areas have controls and will continue to have them. • Dietrich: Her statistics say that the advisories on fish occur in areas with the largest amounts of local emissions. So that would be contrary to what you just said where there was a lot of uncertainly related to the impact of local emissions. • Macdonald: I don't know if there were any fish advisories that were on Steamboat Springs. They do have controls. • Levine: Was it national data. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page S of 20 • Dietrich: What Bruce is saying is that there are other areas with large power plants that don't have fish advisories. • Milmoe: I think the point is, are there local impacts or aren't there. And I think where we see the larger sources; those have become more obvious to us. Who knows down the road, maybe there will be fish advisories because mercury is bio-cumulative. • Levine: That's what I would conclude from that. More local emissions; you see the fish advisories, if they're clear signs of less local emissions, well something's happening similar, but there's not enough at this point. • Dietrich: Hayden is a pig, power plant and was for a long time. You can't say wasn't a filthy power plant around Steamboat Springs. • Macdonald: We have to look too at different sources of mercury including mining operations. The fish advisory could be mining related as well as to deposition to the air. • Levine: The national statistics would indicate there seems to be some kind of correlation between large power plants. • York: It's not terribly sophisticated, but the information I read and in listening to National Public Radio, mercury is always associated with coal burning power plants. I'm surprised from the local source only being 50% and that coal burning is only l% source of total deposition. I find that kind of surprising. • Ussery: Understanding that it's possible that the NPR may be talking about Chinese coal fired power plants and not those in the US. • York: I think it was associated with coal. My understanding is that it was coal laden with mercury. And that I understand the point in that there are differences in the coal. • McMaster: China is a major producer from their coal plants. • Usuary: China is building approximately one 50OMW coal fired power plant every three months. China has no controls over their mercury. • McMaster: What's the quality of the data we're working with? At some point you have to make a judgment it's never as good as you want it or as much as you want, but is it good enough. Are the data good enough for us to proceed in a sound scientific manner? • Levine: My approach to environmental decision making has always been based on the precautionary approach. If you have enough data to make that decision you err on the side of human health. But I will agree that the data, some of it is certainly not certain enough for me, especially the local area data. • Engell: You look at one set of data here and power plants are responsible for 1% of the US total mercury emissions. But you look another reference and it's 43% of total US mercury emissions. It seems like there's a large uncertainly in whoever's numbers you look at. • Carrico: In looking at the data here on the power plants. There's a large uncertainty. • Bleem: Its 1% of the total deposition in the US. And it's 43% of the US man made emissions; they're different. • Milmoe: So I guess the question is not necessarily the percentage, but the impact of those pounds that are emitted. And of the pounds of mercury that are man-made, we can do something about that. • Dietrich: We can take a leadership role within the control technology. China and India. will come along eventually because they're choking the same way we did 50 years ago. And the US can take a leading role, and I consider it our responsibility to take a leading role because we are getting the emissions from China. And if we say it's all in China and Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 9 of 20 they can work it out later then I think we're just kicking ourselves. The US has always taken the lead role and I think we can be proud of that. • Levine: I was thinking that same thing. What better way to foment the development of those controls than to produce some standards which really encourages it instead of delays the development in control technology. • Adamy: In terms of the motion that can be put to the table and Lucinda's questions to the AQAB in her two bullets; I'm not sure what that motion would consist of and ponder how to approach it. • Levine: One possible motion, which I can't make as chair, would be to advise City Council to become a party, to have party status in this issue. And another, it could be the same motion or a different motion; another thing could be to join in partnership with the local government coalition. That's one or two possible motions. • Adamy: What would "another approach" be? • York: To drop it; that would be an approach. I think we're fortunate that Platte River Power Plant is here and that they're responsible. I'm really pleased with that. You're a responsible outfit. I appreciate that as a native of Fort Collins. But I also think that we should be, because we're such an important and high percentage large city that we should be part of the interested participants. I see only positives from that and nothing negative and it conforms to our goal of always trying to improve our air quality. If they're going 600 miles away then it's for the people who live 600 miles away. I think we should aspire to the highest level. • Levine: Everyone bemoans the increases in the price of gas, but when you come to the AQAB, this could drive some of what we'd like to do. If the price of coal -generated electricity were to clean itself up a little bit, and the price were slightly higher, there are other ways to produce electricity. The state wants to promote that. Like the price of increasing gas has some benefits such the same as coal increasing in price may benefit people. • Adamy: The price of coal going up creates incentive for alternative sources. • York: Per rate payer, $10 a year, do you all agree? • Dietrich: What's your annual operating budget? • Bleem: We have about a $106M operating budget; $1OM over ten years, it's about $1M a year. The typical home pays about $50.00 a month is a typical month for electricity. • Dietrich: If someone said you have to put in 70% of controls by year 2008, do you think you'd have enough suppliers to be able to provide the control technologies within that time period? • Usuary: Not by 2008. There's not enough activated carbon. • Bleem: That's a really good question. We would want to see warrantees to say they will guarantee it, not just say they can. • Dietrich: So, when by? 2010? • Bleem: In the lab and field tests they've met different levels within 70%-90%. • Dietrich: I know, but you guys have been in business a long time and have experience on control technologies and this goes back a long way. How many years does it take? The EPA sets a certain date before the market can respond, within a relatively effective control technology. Is 5 year window? • Bleem: The SO2 model started in early 1995, and that model is similar. • Schultz: For large capital projects there's a lot of planning involved. Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 10 of 20 • Bleem: The other thing is the testing time when you get comfort in that it's really going to work. We'd like to see it run and that's where DOE is trying to provide guidance and show that it really works, and that adds some time as well. • Dietrich: I understand there are no answers, but sometimes rules are laid down, it's happened before. And the market does respond to some level, not 100 % certainly. I'm talking about a reasonable response. I'm looking for some feeling if the regulation approach was to come, if it has to be done, what is now? It's not 18 or 20 more years to be perfect. • Bleem: It's been a long time developing different rules and the clean air mercury rule is the national rule. Industry was involved in that and the technology center, the government study people, all were involved and looking at getting it done by 2018 was acceptable, and the model rule is national. If several states come back and say they want to reduce more sooner. The industry hasn't weighed in on that, but 2018 is 13 years out. They could probably come back in a few years, but 2007 is ridiculous. • Dietrich: So I'm hearing about 10 years, say 10 years. • Ussery: That's reasonable. • Schultz: The companion regulation to CAMR is the CAIR Rule (Clean Air Interstate Rule) and that requires a lot of control equipment to be installed in the eastern power plants. And there's a lot of concern when everybody could put in controls within the time frames and constraints. • Dietrich: And there's a lot of lawyers involved in that stretching out decisions for years. I was trying to pin down technical. • Bleem: At least 5 years and probably closer to 10 with a few years of operation. If you prove it in plants for 3 years it may take 5 years to 8-10 years; but that's a wild guess. • Macdonald: I think vendors are promising better than that; they can get something up in a relatively short order. The biggest issue is how many qualified suppliers are there going to be between now and say 2012. There's going to be a strain on them just on manufacturing capability. • Levine: The Illinois proposal dated June 06, it states 90% controlled by 2012. By July 09 you're looking at a 75% reduction. • Dietrich: I'm not quite sure I understand how that works. You buy a 70% control system then throw it out and buy a 90% control system, is that what that means? • Milmoe: It's co -benefits from CAIR probably in Illinois because they're subject to the CARE rule. It's co -benefits that we're not subject to. • Bleem: There have been some plants that have been able to reduce that percent beyond 90%. I guess that ties to your question, is it to get to 90%, how many years. • Dietrich: I know, some are going to make it and some aren't. • Ussery: A lot of the claims of availability of the actuated carbon injection gloss over the cause and balance of plant issues also. Those claims don't take into effect all the effects that it's going to have on the ash sales. A lot of the activated carbon coming to the US right now is from China. They can turn that off at any time; they are the largest producers of activated carbon from what I understand. And interestingly enough, when they're making their activated carbon in China, they're emitting mercury. • Levine: Are there any other technologies besides the activated carbon? Waste incinerators; is it activated carbon all the way around? • Milmoe: There are other technologies that we talked about earlier that are being tested. Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 11 of 20 • Bleem: The majority of it is activated carbon, or treated somewhere mixed with another chemicals. • Ussary: They're also talking about treating the coal through combustion activities and what it does to the material itself. • Levine: So what you were saying John, that some of these plants are having trouble meeting it, are those particular plants the older dirtier plants, rather than newer, cleaner plants on average or that doesn't have any relationship? • Bleem: I don't know. • Schultz: I think a lot if it is a case by case. The coal you burn is really dependent on the mercury species you're dealing with. Elemental mercury is very difficult to remove and typically the only way you can it out is with activated carbon injection kind of system that would be treated with some other material that removes that. If you have bituminous coals that have high chlorine content you will end up oxidizing the mercury because of chlorine and oxidized mercury is more soluble and can be removed in a SO2 scrubber configuration. CAIR rules back east they will get the co -benefit on mercury removable by putting on SO2 scrubbers because of the coal that they have and the high chlorine content. Sub -bituminous coals like Rawhide bums, we have very little, almost low detection levels, on the chlorine; almost all is elemental form and isn't easily removed with traditional methods. • Levine: So in that presentation that talked about using halogen, you talked about chlorine specifically? • Schultz: It's usually some sort of form of that. Then there's concern about down -stream corrosion. If you start putting in chlorine in your coal or treating it... • Levine: Okay, I was wondering if there was a specific one. • York: Maybe we can get to the questions. Nancy York moved that we recommend to city council that Fort Collins become involved in the Colorado Mercury Ruling. • Adamy: Can we have some more discussion before we have a second? • Levine: I don't see why not. • Adamy: I'm still dwelling on the "take another approach" idea. • Levine: I forget if I'm allowed to second the motion, but I'm not going to. • Smith: I can comment on the "or take another approach" because I added that clause. I think the options would be; you could not even make a motion. You can recommend that the City do nothing on this issue. You can recommend that we take a position to join the local government coalition, which I think we can assume will work with other member governments to look at in some fashion, at a more expeditious control. Or you can recommend that the City become a party by ourselves. And if that were the case, then you could recommend that we support the Clean Air Mercury Rule; or that we support the health department's proposal. One of the challenges though is that we don't have all the proposals right in front of us, we don't have the details of the STAP/ALAPCO-like approach that the health department might look at, or the intra-state trading program. I was trying to pose questions that were somewhat simple, just to get the gist of where the board thinks the City should go. Is this issue important enough for the City to try and weigh in and should we generally push for a more stringent control? If so, I would Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 12 of 20 recommend that working with the local government coalition would be the best way to do that rather than having the board say, we think the City should specifically take this position, because there just aren't enough details yet. • Adamy: Very good. • York: We could just recommend the City join with local government coalition in addressing this issue and not be part of the rule making. • Smith: The local government coalition is going to be part of the rule making. It would be less work for each individual participant, and it would be a collective process of determining the position. That could be one recommendation and a motion like that might help flush out where the board is on this issue. • York: One will imply the other, is that right? If I were to change my motion that the City should join the local government coalition. That automatically says that we'll be part of the rule making. • Smith: Right. • McMaster: It sounds like there's a possibility that there could be several motions that can be made. Dale...? • Macdonald: I would prefer them to be separate. • Engell: I would agree with that. • McMaster: Then we should start with the first one on whether the city should be involved. • Macdonald: That's your motion though, right? • York: Yes, that was the first motion. I'm going to make the other one too because I feel we should be part of the other governmental coalition. • Macdonald: So you're changing your motion? • McMaster: No, she's going back to what you were saying, the first one is do we want the city to be involved; and then the next might provide a better direction on how that involvement would be. People would like to opt out of the second one, that doesn't say we're not involved; then I guess we can wait and see what happens. • York: Is there a second? • McMaster: I'll second your first motion. Nancy York moves again to recommend to city council that Fort Collins become involved in the Colorado Mercury Rule making process. Greg McMaster seconded the motion. Discussion: • Macdonald: Is that formally like a party to the hearings and do we sign up for that? • York: We come up with party. • Levine: Any one of us individually can do exactly that just by sending a letter before July 20, or... • Smith: Right, July 20. • Levine: ... July 20 indicating that they are in fact a party in support status. • York: Now do we have some discussion? • McMaster: Yes, the motion has been seconded. • Macdonald: And what would this have an effect on regarding the power? I mean would they be required to do anything? Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 13 of 20 • York: No. We know that they are going to meet or exceed what ever happens. • Dietrich: Platte River board is not part of the rule making decision. • Bleem: The Colorado utilities coalition hasn't decided on party status yet. • Levine: What is the Colorado Utilities coalition? Is it made up of private and public utilities? • Bleem: It's all the utilities in the state. It's Excel Energy, Tri State Generation, Colorado Springs Utility and Platte River Power. I didn't include the south utilities. • Levine: How many private? • Bleem: Excel is private. Colorado Springs is a municipality. Tri State is an REA which is completely different; they're a co-op. We are municipal. So there are two municipals one co-op and one private. • Levine: It seems like the public should have some say in coming up with the positions of publicly owned utility companies. And it seems strange that utility companies that are owned both private and public seems to be promoting an industry take on things. I'm wondering exactly how appropriate that process might be. • Bleem: On this issue we've been meeting together and haven't decided on party status or not. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. All four of the power suppliers in the state are working together. • Levine: I believe the wonderful thing about public utilities besides some of the good pricing that we have, is that the public is involved in another way than pure marketplace decisions; just like public health decisions should involve the public and the public is first. That to me is more of the ideal way that the public utilities or public entity should really function in my personal opinion. • Bleem: As I say, sometimes we agree with the investor owned and sometimes we don't. We haven't taken party status yet. • Levine: Any more comments or questions on this first motion? This is party status. Okay all in favor of the motion raise your hands. Board voted unanimous on recommend party status. Nancy York moved the AQAB join the local government coalition. Greg McMaster seconded the motion. Discussion: Macdonald: I have a concern about it and that is that we're still investigating the state's proposal and even going back to STAP/ALAPCO and I understand from the presentation that their conclusions are more or less in place and I think if we join them we're pre- empting our ability to make an informed decision. Adamy: I would like to know from the City's stand point, is there staff to support this? Smith: Yes, there would be staff to support a party, being involved in this rule making as a party, whether it be with a local government coalition or alone. I have wondered about that question. If members of the local government coalition aren't on the same page, what happens then? I would imagine there would be an opportunity for members of the coalition to make their own point. It would be challenging to commit to that when we don't know exactly what we're committing to. I see pros and cons to that. The con is that we don't know exactly what direction it will go. The pro is that it will involve more Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 14 of 20 engaged discussion and decision making and learning more about issues of the local government. • Macdonald: I think we would still be able to meet with them even independantly. • Smith: I think that's true, we could take advantage of the discussion. • Macdonald: It's not preempting us from disagreeing. • Levine: Of course the advantage of a coalition is to share resources as much as fight over what all the parties can agree on. • Macdonald: What resources are we sharing? We just talk about it and come up with a discussion. • Levine: The good thing about this coalition is that we heard this presentation full of information which did impress me personally. We benefit from that and I see it as less of a work load on the City which has budget and staff problems and more of a piggy -back on what's been done already and add support to that. From what I heard about the presentation I certainly, in the great majority, agree with the majority of the presentation. It's enough that I feel comfortable the City of Fort Collins joining. I think we would probably benefit more in saving of resources. • Adamy: I have a question about the process. We're making a motion to recommend to Council, and then it goes forward from that. Council takes our recommendation; do they have the choice of making that decision? • Smith: That's a good question and I'm glad that you brought that up. This is somewhat of a unique situation. Normally because the City has the legislative policy agenda; city government positions can be based on that and go forward to the City Manager with a notification to Council and if the Council has a problem or would like to have it come before them, they can let staff know. That is probably the way this would work. But a recommendation from the Board to City Council would help the City Council know where the citizen advisory board is on this issue. And that could come into play as to whether the Council wanted to have a resolution on consent or have a public discussion about that. There is the potential at one council meeting they could weigh in on this. • Adamy: In advance of the July 20 date? • Smith: Yes. • Levine: Time is short on this entire issue. • Smith: Right, the board won't have another chance to weigh in on this. • McMaster: Bruce brought up an interesting issue. You can be part of a coalition and make it larger and does that have more impact or have a smaller coalition working their way in. Which way we go about that I don't know. • Adamy: The issue it seems to be is where the AQAB stands on the issue and the Council should know how we stand. It might be more philosophical; I suspect that the council may or may not deliberate on it and choose not to because of the time constraint. Ours is just a showing of how we feel about the coalition. • York: Part of the reason is because I believe mercury is a toxin and should be regulated. • Adamy: I think all of us probably see it that way too. • York: As far as the Colorado Utilities expected estimates not being accurate, PRPA is already acting on that. I see the collaboration as being a value. I don't think it ties our hands as far as, I think we can still be independent as far as our strategy. And I trust Lucinda and the natural resources air quality people totally. And that based on years of Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 15 of 20 recognition of the work that's been done. I only see the advantage of collaborative process. I don't think it should be traded. • Engell: By joining, it absolutely hamstrings the ability to collaborate on some issues like trading. I think taking away a free market approach to the entire process doesn't let us collaborate anymore. I think it limits that. That seems to be the underlying issue between the two groups is can it be traded can it not be traded. That seems to be the big divider. I don't think the case is here that's compelling enough to not allow further discussion on that, then to just disregard; open market influences. • York: I think it's a policy issue and it's a toxin. • Engell: I don't disagree with the substance itself. The case isn't here that a free market approach wouldn't work. • Lucinda: One thing that Pam just mentioned is that the local government coalition members and maybe all the other stakeholders haven't had a chance to look at the intra state trading approach — it may still be on the table. • Engell: I just hate to limit something that could be successful, or have a positive benefit. • Levine: We heard from Boulder County, where's Latimer County? • Smith: I did ask my contact, Doug Ryan, and he said at this point Larimer County, the county board of commissioners, they're not planning to weigh in. I don't know to what extent they have discussed or been involved with this issue and I haven't checked the Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board past agendas to see if they've talked about this. But from their staff person, they're not planning to weigh in. • Levine: Thanks. • Macdonald: I agree and have confidence in Lucinda. • Smith: It would be helpful for me to have content and some sort of direction. Whether we have our own party status or join the coalition. Where do you think the City should go with this? And it's a hard question to answer because we don't have everything in front of us right now. • Levine: My general opinion is emissions of hazardous pollutants need to be regulated on health -based criteria. The closer we can get to that kind of framework I think the better it is. • Macdonald: I would point out the MACT standard that everyone wants is not health - based It's based on control technologies. • Levine: It is. But I think it should go one iteration further; it is health -based, but I think you're right. • Macdonald: And that's a pretty big leap. And I think we have to look at the fact too that if we did get into this type issue, and we started dealing with sub -bituminous pulverized coal units we might have less of an emission out of this facility as a regulatory... • Levine: I was talking about Maximum Achievable Control Technology in general. • Macdonald: Yes, but as specifically applied, we'd be the best 12% of sources and that might not be as much as we'd have controls under this rule, we don't really know. No one's really done that analysis. • Levine: We're making a decision with imperfect data. That's why taking the precautionary approach makes the decision easier for me and I have more confidence and it would be the correct one in terms of protecting human health and the environment. And worse case if that decision is off a bit then it cost consumers a few cents more on their bill. I weigh the two and higher on the side is public health issue. Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 16 of20 • York: Am I correct Pam, for the local government coalition, what is written in stone? • Milmoe: We would like to create a coalition that has some basic premise to it; some directional basis. In general those that have signed up agree that a source by source control technology approach is the way to handle this particular pollutant. That is sort of the basis of our; that's a premise. If you don't agree it undermines the value of the coalition as a group that agrees. All the coalitions, such as the utility and environmental coalitions, a lot of people participate in coalitions because it does save time and resources. In general, from the EPA program we need to meet those control limits; we need to meet that cap. The question is do we do it by a trading system in one option or do we do it by state based system? That cap is the official limit. We need to meet emissions under the EPA rule. We can go beyond that if we wanted to in our own program. It's not being regulated under section 111, it's being regulated under section 112 and we need to meet the limit the EPA gave us and the question is how do we do that. • Levine: Do you want me to ask the board to vote to extend the meeting another ten minutes right now? I apologize. I thought things were going to go over. All in favor? The AQAB voted -all in favor of extending the meeting another ten minutes. • Milmoe: I would say we're going into the rule making process with a set of assumptions, but there is more information that goes on the table that we would need to discuss, and it's possible that the state can come back with an approach that's source specific but has way far off dates or something like that. We too don't have all the information and it will involve collaboration and discussion. The point is to go into it with a shared vision then we can work together more effectively. What I've heard other coalitions do on different perspectives is in their testimony and in their pre -hearing statements they identify where there's consensus and then they identify the minor instances where there isn't. • Adamy: Nancy, would you consider re -wording your motion? Is that possible once a motion has been made? • York: You can make a motion to amend. • Adamy: Here's what I'm thinking; because of the lack of data and because of some of the issues we're trying to project a stand by the board and how we feel about the information we've heard tonight. And perhaps there's unintended consequences of joining the local government coalition; perhaps we can agree on some wording that would give a message to City Council that if Council has the opportunity to discuss and would know the boards feeling and might more likely discuss this and come up with an idea that would help give them direction in this issue. For instance we can say that we believe the mercury is a noxious chemical and ought to be treated has a health issue and consider that as a direction for City; rather than joining the coalition. I'm not sure how to re -word your motion now. • York: I think the most effective approach, the most cost effective, time effective approach is to be part of the coalition. I believe that we should have source reduction and regulations. • Adamy: I do too. • York: I personally don't think we should be trading hazardous pollutants. I think we should reduce the source. I think it's a health issue that effects future generations. It's a powerful... Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 17 of 20 • Adamy: I agree. We might not be making that statement by joining the coalition. • McMaster: Maybe the amendment could be re -worded entirely or it could be the reason for joining the coalition. • Levine: We're not limited to wordings. • McMaster: Going back to what Lucinda said; the real point is to give direction of what this board thinks to Council. And maybe if we vote on this one that it could affect the next one. Sounds like what we're trying to get at is do we think it should be treated as toxic hazardous material and whether things like caps and trading and... • Macdonald: But we're not giving up any of our ability to make that kind of judgment; in saying whether we do that as part of this group or not. We would include that it needs to be regulated. • McMaster: We want to have a motion or something suggesting that is our feeling. • York: It's the collaborative process; if we agree to that which is the basis for being part of that coalition, as the basis. From there we can refer to the our staff judgment. I think it would be more efficient; sharing the information, sharing the meeting attendance. I would imagine our staff would collaborate with PRPA; except Jeff wants to reserve the possibility of trading toxic deadly... • Engel: I just think that by letting things that are incredibly efficient working them selves out; markets in general. You can set up un-intentianal consequences that maybe you didn't see from the beginning. And I'm not sure we have enough information on that that's so binding to this process going forward. • Levine: I think Nancy's point is if I may. I think the cap and trade on this particular pollutant Nancy's concerned with un-intended consequences is also. I think both of you have the concern of un-intended consequences. One thing that I'd like to say, I guess I'm making an assumption here; when you have a coalition usually obviously a coalition needs to work together and it's a consensus kind of maximum approach. What that tends to do is foster a very conservative type of approach. What comes out of the coalition is never the most radical and far reaching type of thinking. It's what the most conservative member of the coalition is comfortable with. • Adamy: This is a specific coalition with a specific goal in mind. So, I'm not sure if it's going to be a coalition... could we for instance; we've already made a motion we're going to be involved in the rule making process, rather than join the coalition, would it be advisable this board says that in that rule making process, this board says that it should not be a cap and trade. Then this board could weigh in on it and we could see where we stand. • Levine: Absolutely. That's another motion. • Macdonald: I think we should vote. • Levine: Are we calling the question? I think we need to restate the motion. • Smith: I have written down that we recommend to city council that we join a local coalition; and I don't know if you'd like something like in support of mercury control that is more expeditious than identified in the clean air mercury rule. That gives some sort of shape and doesn't talk about cap and trade; that gives it some component of direction. • York: I would accept that as an amendment. • Dietrich: So what the coalition is saying is that they recommend that mercury be regulated as a hazadaous air pollutant and that maximum achievable control technology Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 18 of 20 be implemented as expeditiously as possible? Is that what they're saying; is that a fair statement? • Smith: This second suggestion from Dave is a little more specific on how to clarify the direction. Would you mind repeating? • Milmoe: It's one or the other, cap and trade. That's how they differ. • Dietrich: What I said is that mercury should be regulated as a hazadous air pollutant and that maximum achievable control technology be implemented as expeditiously as possible on a source specific basis. • Dietrich: I thought that's what you were getting at Lucinda. • Smith: I was trying to be more vague. I think this is useful because as long as it captures the perspective of the local government coalition as it stands now. We might as well have it out on the table and get your view on it. I think that's helpful. • York: That was my intent as motion maker. • McMaster: Second. • Dietrich: So now the motion reads that the board will recommend we join the coalition in support of... • Smith: Regulating mercury as a hazardous air pollutant and implemented as expeditiously ously as possible on a source specific basis. • Dietrich: By joining the coalition that's what we are saying, is it not? • Macdonald: In the end I think that pre -limits our ability in making an independent judgment. • Dietrich: I don't disagree with that. By joining the coalition, if that's what the vote is about, that is what the coalition is saying, right? • Smith: Right. This vote will capture a few different elements. The AQAB voted on the motion to "Recommend to City Council that Fort Collins join the Local Government Coalition in support of regulating mercury as a hazardous air pollutant and that MACT (Max Achievable Control Technology) be implemented as expeditiously as possible on a source -specific basis". Jeff Engell and Bruce MacDonald are not in favor of ioininQ and therefore did not raise their hands in agreement. The motion carries 5-2. Agenda Item 2: Fort Collins Sustainability Group Resolution Levine: We've had two motions so far, but that doesn't mean we have to stop there. Does anyone have anything else? Are we done with this agenda item because the clock has run out. We have one possible agenda item to recommend to Council which I think is on a relatively short time frame. It's the City's Climate Program Resolution. If we're going to do that I would ask for another 10 minute extension. This climate program has been modified, it's actually a little milder. Please look at it in your packets. It's basically the resolution itself. Section one second line: scratch out entire third line, and then scratch out the first four words in the next line. And it will read: to proceed on behalf of the city to develop an updated plan that will describe the status of community... That is what we're looking for a recommendation of support to council on. It's not re-evaluating anything, it's just taking our present climate program and describing the steps that we will take to meet the goals that we said in 1999. Adamy: Who's the author and who scratched? Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 19 of 20 Levine: It was a committee that did it. I didn't have anything to do with it. I am part of the group and I voted via email that sounded fine to me. It went to Council members and community groups and basically what came back was maybe the council would be a little bit more comfortable if they thought it was to re-evaluate the current program. There was some slight degree of discomfort, but everyone seemed to be fine with it. So Council would be comfortable within the original 1999 plan. We updated it so we have a chance of meeting the goals. How about a motion on this then we can have discussion because our time is a little short. Dale Adamy moved to adopt the Fort Collins Sustainability Group's Resolution with the changes that Eric Levine presented. Jeff Engell seconded the motion. • Macdonald: Is there a time frame for that, is that this year or next year? • Levine: It was left open. If it passes, it's up to the City and Council, it's left to their discretion. • McMaster: A task force could say this is when and push details through. • Dietrich: Are we able to amend this in anyway? • Levine: They're just looking for support. If we were to amend it, I would just think we would just go and recommend our own to City Council. • York: What would your amendment be? • Dietrich: Just what Bruce just said; to convene by a certain date. • Levine: If we pass this motion we can recommend that and pass another motion. I wasn't thinking about certain dates and I think the people that amended this weren't thinking about what the public discussion or time frame would be. Any other comments, questions, discussion? • York: It'd be nice to have as soon as possible. • Macdonald: It's just a clarification and we can pass it with a comment. The AQAB voted in favor of passing the FCSG Resolution, 7-0. • Levine: This board could weigh in and if this does pass we can lobby for representatives and go in with proposals for time frames. • York: Can we add a line that we as a board consider this is an urgent and undertaken expeditiously? • Smith: What if you included something like that in your recommendation to council which is different than modifying this resolution but it conveys the point. • Macdonald: Yes, I don't think we should tie up the original resolution. • York: We could add a note stating we feel that is an important situation. The AQAB voted to adjourn the meeting. All in favor. Minutes The minutes for May 24, 2006 will be approved at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned 8.30 PM Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 20 of 20 Submitted by Tara McGibben Administrative Secretary I Approved by the Board onTt) ,�— 2006 Signed Tara McGibben Date Administrative Secretary I Extension: 6600