EPA's hint to coal generators (shhh...it's natural gas!)

As a newlywed 10 months into marriage, I’m still learning that dropping hints is not always the strongest form of communication. I might mention to my husband all week long things like, “Doesn’t queso from such-and-such restaurant sound good?” Then the weekend rolls around, and he still innocently asks, “What kind of restaurant should we try?”

Sometimes hints aren’t picked up on. Or even if they are, they aren’t always acted upon. But still, it's often more comfortable, less abrasive to use hints in place of direct communication.

It seems to me that the Environmental Protection Agency is a hint-dropper. The Administration doesn’t come out and force conversions from coal to natural gas or renewables. But through nagging mechanisms even more powerful than those possessed by the cast of Desperate Housewives, the EPA can make life tough on coal-fired generators.

On April 14, I attended an EPA hearing in Tulsa, Okla. concerning an ongoing debate over three coal-fired plants that are not under compliance of EPA’s Clean Air Visibility Rule. The plants are Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) Company’s Muskogee and Sooner Stations, and AEP-Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s Red Rock Station. According to the rule, the stations must achieve EPA’s emission limit for SO2 – 0.15 lb/mmBtu, or 95 percent removal. OG&E said it would cost about $10,000 per ton to reduce SO2 emissions to those levels through the use of scrubber technology at its two plants.

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP), recommending Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) switches for the plants. However, the EPA identified the SIP as one that “does not meet one or more of the required elements.”

Why doesn’t it meet the requirements? Steve Thompson, executive director of ODEQ, said the BART alternative in the SIP “reduces SO2 emissions more than the primary requirements in EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan.”

So what about that is unacceptable to the EPA?

Coal is still being burned. Visibility could still be affected to some degree in federal wildlife areas – the heart of the issue.

EPA states that “switches to natural gas are an acceptable method,” as a spokesperson from Oklahoma natural gas producer Chesapeake Energy pointed out at the hearing.

Oklahoma has an abundant supply of natural gas. Larry Nichols, CEO of Devon Energy, told me during a March interview that the company’s work in the Cana shale in western Oklahoma which has already netted 11 trillion cubic feet – larger than Devon’s four discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico. So a shortage of a natural gas supply would be close to impossible if these power companies were to do a partial or total switch.

It’s not just these Oklahoma coal plants that will soon be replaced by natural gas or another form of “cleaner” energy. On April 14, Tennessee Valley Authority announced the retirement of 18 coal-fired units. In many cases, it’s easier to retire a plant than to retrofit it, especially older plants.

Barney Racine, software development manger for the environmental solutions group of Honeywell Process Solutions, said the EPA’s focus is not so much on SO2 control, but rather a complete retreat from coal. “They’re not necessarily driving legislation from the emissions monitoring standpoint, but from the incentive side – the cost to burn coal vs. natural gas.”

Some coal will undoubtedly remain in the generation mix in the coming decades, but EPA will continue to drop hints that other forms of generation are preferable. While natural gas prices are low, many coal-fired generators will, reluctantly or not, make the switch. EPA’s hint will be taken with a grain of salt, or perhaps in some cases, enforced.

And hopefully through tactful hints rather than a means of force even more powerful than the EPA's, I’ll get my chips and queso this weekend.