From an Article by Bob Rolley, Lock Haven Express, September 5, 2022
Renovo, Pa — Plans to build a Marcellus Shale natural gas-fired power plant here will proceed despite an Environmental Hearing Board ruling saying state-approved emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are too high.
Some eight years in the making, Renovo Energy Center LLC proposes to build a 1,000-megawatt power plant designed to provide electricity to thousands of customers in Pennsylvania and New York.
It would be erected on 68 acres that served as a former Pennsylvania Railroad railcar repair shop and railyard.mThe firm says the project investment could top $850 million, create 700 construction jobs and upward of 30 permanent positions.
REC was granted an air quality permit by the state Department of Environmental Protection, with the plant’s emissions controls based on the best available technology. The Clean Air Council, PennFuture and Center for Biological Diversity appealed that permit approval, alleging it allows “illegal levels of air pollution.”
The Aug. 29 ruling written by Chief EHB Judge Thomas W. Renwand essentially said DEP allowed too high of emission limits without explaining “its rationale for selecting a less stringent emission limit, and that rationale must be appropriate in light of all the evidence in the record.”
Further, he wrote, DEP permit writers retain discretion to set best available control technology levels that “do not necessarily reflect the highest possible control efficiencies but, rather will allow permittees to achieve compliance on a consistent basis. The existence of a similar facility with a lower emissions limit creates an obligation for the permit applicant and permit issuer to consider and document whether the same emission level can be achieved at the (REC) proposed facility.”
“This ruling is vindication for the community,” argued Joseph Otis Minott, executive director and chief counsel of Clean Air Council. “DEP must set pollution limits to protect the public based on science and law, not on the whims of the polluter.”
The REC project has been endorsed by the local Renovo Borough Council, the Clinton County Economic Partnership and the Clinton County Commissioners.
“DEP had simply not done what the law requires to protect the community from these types of emissions,” added Jessica O’Neill, senior attorney at PennFuture. “The Board recognized this clear violation and we will continue to press the rest of our claims against this flawed permit.”
The board granted partial summary judgment on the issues of the sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds limits in the permits. High levels of SO2 and volatile organic compounds can cause health risks.
In its application, REC stated that “a facility with the best emissions performance for one pollutant typically cannot meet the lowest emission level for another pollutant.” Rick Franzese, REC project manager, told The Express on Sunday that, “while we’re disappointed by the ruling, we will comply with it and we look forward to commencing construction on the project in a timely manner once the appeal is resolved.”
In statements to the county commissioners during their endorsement of the project this past May, Franzese had this to say: “The REC project remains viable so long as the appeal of the project’s air permit is favorably resolved. Investor interest in the Renovo facility remains high, and increasingly so in light of current events. In particular, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the need for energy security and independence, which for the near-term in the United States can be reliably provided by domestically-sourced natural gas. Renewables, such as solar and wind, are not yet fully reliable baseload power supplies, even when augmented with the most advanced storage technology currently available.
“Increased regulation is making coal-fired generation less viable, he said, so “gas-fired plants such as Renovo are needed to replace that baseload capacity. When state-of-the-art power plants such as the REC project come online, they typically displace electricity that would otherwise have been generated by older and less efficient coal-fired and other older baseload plants with less effective pollution controls, resulting in a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.
The groups appealing the permit disagree, with Robert Ukeiley, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, arguing that “trying to build a new methane-gas burning power plant at this point is just absurd. We need to be shifting to clean, cheap energy like solar and wind rather than dirty, expensive power plants which burn methane gas.”
XXX