Telephone 919-967-1450 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421

CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356

___________

Good afternoon. My name is Myra Blake, and I am an attorney with the Southern 

Environmental Law Center, representing the Fall-Line Alliance for a Clean Environment, the 

Ogeechee Riverkeeper, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. SELC is a nonprofit 

environmental advocacy organization dedicated to protecting clean air and water and to 

promoting healthy, livable communities in the Southeast. As a general matter, we applaud 

EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. But we are concerned 

with EPA’s proposal to create a category of “transitional sources” that will be exempt from the 

standards in the GHG rule if they “commence construction” within 12 months of publication of 

the proposal in the Federal Register. While we have concerns about the legality of the 

transitional source exemption, I will limit my comments today to why one of the potential 

transitional sources, Plant Washington, does not meet the qualifications for this categorization. 

Plant Washington is a proposed 850 MW coal plant that Power4Georgians is seeking to develop. 

The facility should not be exempted for three reasons. First, Plant Washington does not meet the 

definition of a transitional source; second, Plant Washington does not fit the rationale for the 

exemption; and third, the exemption encourages facilities that are unnecessary and not fully 

conceived, such as Plant Washington, to be rushed into construction. 

The proposed rule defines a transitional source as a source “that received a complete 

permit that meets the requirements of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program . . . 

prior to April 13, 2012.” Even assuming that EPA has the authority to exempt transitional 

sources, Plant Washington does not meet this definition. EPA listed Plant Washington as a 

potential transitional source in the proposed rule because at that time EPA did not know whether 
2

Plant Washington had received a complete air permit. But it has since become clear that Plant 

Washington did not have a complete permit by April 13, and has not received a complete permit 

to date. Plant Washington’s air permit is currently undergoing administrative amendments

because previous versions of the permit did not comply with the Clean Air Act. EPA has 

acknowledged this in a recent briefing before the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in which 

Power4Georgians is seeking to invalidate the EPA’s MATS requirements for new sources. In 

short, P4G did not have authorization to build or operate Plant Washington as of the April 13 

deadline. 

Second, Plant Washington does not even fit EPA’s rationale for exempting transitional 

sources because it is not a fully formed project poised to commence construction. P4G has not 

made significant expenditures on the plant or advances in its design. Many key elements of 

Plant Washington remain “to be determined,” including the design features of most of its 

emissions sources and emission control devices, such as the selective catalytic reduction system, 

the scrubber, the baghouse, and even many components of the boiler itself. And although P4G 

claims that it has spent $30 million on Plant Washington, P4G has not provided evidence to 

verify this amount. There is no indication that P4G has contracted for any supporting systems or 

for the sale of electricity, and it does not appear that P4G has even purchased any property on 

which to build Plant Washington. And even if P4G has spent what it claims, this is less than 

1.5% percent of its total projected costs of over 2.1 billion. In addition, the majority of Plant 

Washington’s funders have pulled out, and P4G has not been able to attract other investors 

because it has not demonstrated that the project is necessary to meet energy needs or will be able 

to compete with existing energy sources. Moreover, P4G has stated, contrary to previous 
3

assertions, that it never intended to build or operate Plant Washington. In sum, P4G is nowhere 

near ready to construct Plant Washington. 

Finally, the requirement to commence construction within 12 months only encourages 

unnecessary facilities like Plant Washington to be rushed into construction. In the past sources 

have gamed the definition of “commencing construction” by taking minor actions such as 

pouring concrete. As such, the requirement to “commence construction” within 12 months does 

not serve as a good surrogate to ensure that only facilities with significant sunk costs are 

exempted. If Plant Washington is classified as a transitional source in the final rule, P4G would 

have a perverse incentive to expend additional resources and hasten efforts to “commence 

construction” on this half-baked project, all in an effort to do precisely what Congress sought to 

avoid – evade complying with protective New Source Performance Standards.

All of this matters because Plant Washington will emit significant quantities of carbon 

dioxide. To put it in perspective, Plant Washington will emit more CO2 than roughly half the 

countries in the world individually. This would undermine President Obama’s promise to reduce 

GHG emissions by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020. 

In conclusion, Plant Washington should not be exempted from the greenhouse gas rule.