by
James Monteleone
The Daily Times
31 August 2009
FRUITLAND—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
working to improve regional air visibility, has requested
reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions at the Four Corners Power
Plant, a coal-fired facility that emits the nation's highest
levels of the pollutant.
Regulators on Friday initiated a 30-day public
comment period on the proposed plan to require the Arizona Pubic
Service Co. facility to install the most efficient available
technology to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and particulate
matter, pollutants believed to cause haze throughout the Four
Corners region.
The action is being taken through the EPA
Regional Haze Program, designated by Congress in 1999 to improve
visibility in all national parks, national monuments and
wilderness areas. The EPA has cited 16 protected locations within
a 300 kilometer radius where air visibility is reportedly hindered
by the Four Corners Power Plant, including the Grand Canyon,
Arches National Park and Mesa Verde National Park.
"In the West, people are used to seeing vistas
for long distances. It's been documented that over time, the
visibility has been reduced," said Colleen McKaughan, associate
director of the regional EPA Air Division.
Congress is concerned with the increased haze
common at national parks and wilderness areas because "people go
there specifically because they want to see the views," McKaughan
said.
Many power plants across the country, such as
the PNM San Juan Generating Station, already have considered such
emission improvements, and are working with state regulators to
develop and implement pollution-reducing technology.
Because the 2,040-megawatt APS Four Corners
Power Plant is on the Navajo Nation, it is exempt from New Mexico
jurisdiction. Navajo EPA has deferred regulation of the regional
haze pollutants to the federal EPA.
A second APS plant, the Navajo Generating
Station located on the Navajo Nation near Page, Ariz., also was
requested to improve haze emissions under the EPA mandate. That
site is the nation's fourth highest polluter of nitrogen oxide,
behind the Four Corners facility, according to the EPA.
Retrofitting new environmental technology on
the nearly 40-year-old power plant in Fruitland could be extremely
expensive.
Weighing available op-tions for emissions
reduction, the EPA recommends a combination of three different
technologies that absorb increased levels of nitrogen oxide as
coal particulate is burned in boilers.
The proposed projects are estimated to cost
between $435 million and $917 million to install, depending on
which technologies the EPA requires at the Four Corners Power
Plant, according to APS.
The lowest cost technology is anticipated to
cut nitrogen oxide emissions at least 30 percent. The high-end
project could cut emissions of the chemical by more than 90
percent, according to an APS report detailing the EPA mandate.
Maintaining the advanced technology, however, is estimated to cost
more than $180 million each year of operation.
But unlike air quality standards affecting
human health, visibility emissions are negotiated with the EPA
with cost effectiveness taken into consideration by regulators.
APS suggested implementing a combination of the
less-expensive, emissions-cutting technologies that will burn
higher concentrations of nitrogen oxide concentrations, said
Edward Fox, an APS vice president.
"We think we can get significant reductions
from those two technologies," Fox said. "We may end up disagreeing
with EPA on that."
Although the proposed emission cuts to improve
regional air visibility was not a surprise requirement for the
facility that provides electricity across Arizona, Utah and
California, the continued expense for this and other proposed air
quality regulation programs could test whether coal-generated
power will continue to be an affordable energy source.
"You try to get a handle of how much can you
invest on these units to consider all the environmental things
that may be coming, to determine whether these units are
economically viable," Fox said.
The expenses often are passed along to
consumers as electricity rate-setting regulation allows. New
operating costs also would cause a dramatic cut to Navajo Nation
government royalties paid by the plant, a major source of income
for the annual tribal government budget, Fox said.
"Here the economics decision has other
implications," he said.
The EPA, weighing feedback and concerns
expressed through the public comment forum, will take such
economic impacts into consideration while drafting a final
improvement proposal, McKaughan said. The comment period will run
through Sept. 28.
Rob Smith, the Sierra Club southwest regional
director, said the increased costs of cleaning pollutions created
by a coal-fired power plant ideally will encourage energy
suppliers to abandon the old technology in favor of cleaner
generating systems, such as natural gas-fueled plants or renewable
energies.
"It is the cost of doing business if you're
going to insist on burning coal, part of the cost of business is
cleaning up the mess," Smith said. "If it's cheaper to be doing
something else, we should be doing something else."