Comments re SPI Anderson Division ; Revised Draft PSD Permit (No. SAC 

12-01)

Kevin Bundy to: R9AirPermits 01/10/2014 11:57 AM

From: Kevin Bundy <kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org>

To: R9AirPermits@EPA, 

Ms. Kelly,

Attached please find comments from the Center for Biological Diversity 

regarding the above-referenced draft PSD permit. A hard copy of the 

comments will follow in today's U.S. Mail. Due to the file size of some of 

the exhibits referenced in the comments, I am not submitting them by 

email, but rather will include all exhibits as PDF files on a CD 

accompanying the hard copy of the comments. Please include both the 

comments and the exhibits in the administrative record.

I would greatly appreciate confirmation by reply email of your receipt of 

the comments (and, when they arrive, the exhibits).

Thank you very much for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to 

contact me with any questions or concerns.

Best,

Kevin Bundy

Kevin P. Bundy

Senior Attorney

Center for Biological Diversity

351 California Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone: (415) 436-9682 x 313

Fax: (415) 436-9683

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org

Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this 

e-mail.

14 01 10 CBD SPI Anderson Anderson Revised Revised PSD comments.pd comments.pdf
Alaska • Arizona • California • Florida • Minnesota • Nevada • New Mexico • New York • Oregon • Vermont • Washington, DC 

Kevin P. Bundy • Senior Attorney • 351 California St., Suite 600 • San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone: 415-436-9682 x313 • Fax: 415-436-9683 • kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org 

 

January 10, 2014 

Via email: R9airpermits@epa.gov

Hard copy and CD of exhibits to follow by U.S. Mail 

Shaheerah Kelly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (AIR-3) 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

Re: Sierra Pacific Industries Anderson Division 

Revised Draft Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit 

(Application No. SAC 12-01) 

Dear Ms. Kelly: 

The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) submits the following comments 

on the revised draft Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit (“Revised Draft 

Permit”) and the accompanying Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality Impact 

Report (“AAQIR”) for the proposed Sierra Pacific Industries (“SPI”) Anderson biomass 

power plant (the “facility”).1 The Center is a non-profit environmental organization 

dedicated to the protection of imperiled species, their habitats, and the environment 

through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has more than 625,000 

members and online activists throughout the United States. The goal of the Center’s 

Climate Law Institute is to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution 

to protect biological diversity, the environment, and public health. Specific objectives 

include securing protections for species threatened by the impacts of global warming, 

ensuring compliance with applicable law in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 

other air pollution, and educating and mobilizing the public on global warming and air 

quality issues. 

The Center is pleased that EPA is undertaking a best available control technology 

(“BACT”) analysis for carbon dioxide emissions, including “biogenic” CO2 emissions, 

from the proposed facility. Although SPI has characterized this analysis as voluntary, it 

is in fact required by the plain terms of the Clean Air Act. EPA’s July 2010 rule 

exempting biogenic CO2 from regulation under the PSD and Title V programs has been 

adjudged unlawful and vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

 

1

 The Center submitted comments on the original draft PSD permit for this facility on 

October 17, 2012. To the extent those comments address greenhouse gas emissions from 

the facility, they remain relevant and are hereby incorporated by reference. 

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

2 

Although the Court of Appeal has stayed issuance of the mandate pending 

resolution of related cases currently before the United States Supreme Court, the decision 

is in all other respects final. EPA must apply the law as it exists at the time of permit 

issuance. See, e.g., Ziffrin v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78 (1943); State of Alabama v. 

EPA, 557 F.2d 1101, 1110 (5th Cir. 1977); In re Dominion Energy Bravton Point, LLC, 

12 E.A.D. 490, 614- 616 (EAB 2006); In re Phelps Dodge Corp., 10 E.A.D. 460,478 n. 

10 (EAB 2002). The law, following the Court of Appeal’s decision, is that EPA must 

require emissions limitations based on BACT for all pollutants “subject to regulation” 

under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(1), (4). Biogenic CO2, like any other form 

of CO2, is currently such a pollutant when emitted in sufficient amounts. See 40 C.F.R. § 

52.21(b)(49)(iii), (j)(2); Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, 31,590-91 (June 3, 2010) (“Tailoring Rule”). 

As set forth below, the Revised Draft Permit and AAQIR are inconsistent with the 

BACT analysis requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act, EPA guidance and 

regulations, and the decisions of the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”). EPA must 

either further revise the permit and AAQIR to comply with these standards or deny the 

application. 

I. The Greenhouse Gas BACT Determination for the Facility Is Inconsistent 

with Clean Air Act Requirements 

The Clean Air Act defines BACT as 

an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each 

pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter emitted from or which 

results from any major emitting facility, which the permitting authority, on 

a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and 

economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such 

facility through application of production processes and available 

methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fuels, or 

treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each 

such pollutant. 

42 U.S.C. § 7479(3). The level of detail in a BACT determination should reflect the fivestep, “top-down” process described in EPA’s Draft New Source Review Workshop 

Manual.2

 “[I]n evaluating the rationality and defensibility of BACT determinations by 

permitting authorities, the [EAB] has required an analysis that reflects a level of detail in 

the BACT analysis comparable to the methodology in the NSR Manual.” In re General 

Motors, Inc., 10 E.A.D. 360, 366 (EAB 2002). 

While the permit applicant “is responsible for proposing an emissions limit that 

constitutes BACT for each regulated pollutant and for providing information on the 

 

2

 U.S. EPA, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual: Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting (Oct. 1990) (hereafter “NSR Manual”). 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

3 

control alternatives that can be used to achieve it,” the permitting authority—here EPA—

is responsible for “the ultimate BACT decision.” In the Matter of Genesee Power Station 

Ltd. P’ship, 4 E.A.D. 832, 835 (EAB 1993). BACT determinations “are one of the most 

critical elements in the PSD permitting process and thus ‘should be well documented in 

the record, and any decision to eliminate a control option should be adequately explained 

and justified.’” In re Russell City Energy Ctr., 15 E.A.D. __, PSD Appeal Nos. 10-01 to 

10-05, slip op. at 58 (EAB Nov. 18, 2010) (“Russell City II”); see also In re IndeckElwood LLC, 13 E.A.D. 126, 134 (EAB 2006); In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 

121, 131 (EAB 1999) (“Knauf I”); In re Newmont Nev. Energy Inv., LLC, 12 E.A.D. 429, 

442 (EAB 2005)). A BACT determination thus must reflect “considered judgment on the 

part of the permitting authority, as documented in the record.” Russell City II, slip op. at 

58 (internal quotations omitted). The Environmental Appeals Board has remanded 

permits “where the permit issuer’s BACT analyses were incomplete or the rationale was 

unclear.” Id. at 58 n.47. 

A. The AAQIR Fails to Explain or Support its Identification of Biomass 

Combustion as an Emissions “Control Measure” at Step 1 

The AAQIR does not supply any basis for its identification of biomass 

combustion, alone or in combination with other measures, as an emissions “control 

measure” at Step 1 of the BACT analysis. AAQIR at 19, 21. Biomass is simply the 

primary proposed fuel source for the facility. AAQIR at 1; Draft Permit Condition 

X.G.1. The purpose of Step 1 is not merely to describe what the applicant proposes to do 

anyway, but rather to identify control measures such as “inherently lower-emitting 

processes/practices,” add-on controls, and combinations thereof. NSR Manual at B.10. 

The AAQIR does not explain how biomass combustion, as a control measure, can 

be considered “inherently lower-emitting” than combustion of that same biomass as a 

primary fuel source.3

 Identifying combustion of a primary fuel as a “control measure” 

for emissions caused by combustion of that same fuel is fundamentally illogical. It is 

difficult to imagine that EPA would consider, for example, combustion of pipelinequality natural gas to be a “control measure” for emissions from a power plant that 

proposed to burn that exact same fuel. There is no basis in science, law, or logic for 

 

3

 Biomass combustion is quite carbon-intensive in any event; measured at the stack, 

biomass combustion typically results in more CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced 

than either coal or natural gas: 

Gas combined cycle 883 lb CO2/MWh 

Gas steam turbine 1,218 lb CO2/MWh 

Coal steam turbine 2,086 lb/CO2/MWh 

Biomass steam turbine 3,029 lb CO2/MWh 

Sources: EIA, Electric Power Annual, 2009: Carbon Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission 

Factors. Efficiency values used to calculate emissions from fossil fuel facilities 

calculated using EIA heat rate data. (http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/

epat5p4.html); biopower efficiency value is 24%, a standard industry value.
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

4 

concluding that combustion of biomass is “inherently lower-emitting” than combustion of 

biomass. Absent some rational explanation and evidentiary basis in the record—both of 

which are absent here—biomass combustion cannot be considered BACT for itself. 

If anything, the record here confirms that biomass combustion does nothing to 

“control” the facility’s emissions. The BACT emissions limit proposed in the Revised 

Draft Permit (.36 lbs CO2e/lb steam produced, or 433,620 tons/year CO2e

4

) is actually 

higher than the uncontrolled emissions estimate (433,000 tons/year CO2e) provided in 

SPI’s GHG BACT analysis.5

 In ranking the effectiveness of identified control measures 

at Step 3 of the BACT analysis, moreover, the AAQIR identifies biomass combustion (in 

combination with other measures such as good boiler design and efficient combustion 

practices) as “the baseline from which all other alternatives will be evaluated.” AAQIR 

at 26. These purported “control measures” are thus simply a description of the proposed 

facility design, meaning that their implementation as BACT will result in zero actual 

emissions reductions. 

The AAQIR fails to explain why biomass combustion has been identified as a 

control measure. The document similarly fails to explain and justify its apparent 

conclusion that emissions limits supposedly based on BACT—again, defined as the 

“maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation . . . achievable for 

[this] facility,” 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3)— in fact represent no emissions reductions at all. 

Absent such explanation and justification, EPA’s identification of biomass combustion as 

a component of BACT for the facility is unsupported and clearly erroneous.6

B. The AAQIR Fails to Evaluate Whether Alternative Biomass Fuel 

Mixes May Be Considered “Clean Fuels” for Greenhouse Gas BACT 

Purposes 

Although neither the AAQIR nor the GHG BACT Analysis proposes to do so, one 

conceiveable basis for identifying at least some forms of biomass as control measures at 

Step 1 of the BACT analysis would be to evaluate whether those forms of biomass could 

be considered “clean fuels” in relation to other biomass feedstocks. See In Re Interpower 

of New York, 5 E.A.D. 130, 145 (EAB 1992) (“[A] proper BACT analysis must include 

 

4

 The Revised Draft Permit limits steam production to 275,000 lbs/hour. Revised Draft 

Permit Condition X.C.3. Conversion to mass annual CO2e emissions at permit limits is 

as follows: 275,000 lbs steam/hr * 8,760 hrs/yr = 2,409,000,000 lbs steam/yr * .36 lbs 

CO2e/lb steam = 867,240,000 lbs CO2e/yr = 433,620 tons CO2e/yr. 

5

 Environ Int’l Corp., Biomass-Fired Cogeneration Project: Best Available Control 

Technology Analysis for Greenhouse Gases (Aug. 15, 2013) (“GHG BACT Analysis”) at 

11 (Table 2-1). 

6

 The AAQIR does not mention, and therefore can find no support in, EPA’s March 2011 

Guidance for Determining Best Available Control Technology for Reducing Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions from Bioenergy Production (“Bioenergy BACT Guidance”). In any 

event, reliance on the Bioenergy BACT Guidance would be unlawful, as explained in the 

comments attached as Exhibit 1. Those comments are hereby incorporated by reference. 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

5 

consideration of cleaner forms of the fuel proposed by the source”). Failure to consider 

such options constitutes reversible error. Id. at 144 (finding remand appropriate where 

permitting authority failed to identify all more stringent “available” control options), 145 

(Clean Air Act “expressly require[s] consideration of clean fuels in selecting BACT”). 

In order to evaluate whether certain forms of biomass might be identified as 

“clean fuels,” EPA must answer three questions: (1) whether the Clean Air Act permits 

EPA to identify “inherently lower-emitting” forms of biomass fuels based on life cycle 

rather than stack emissions (BACT Step 1); (2) whether lower-emitting fuels are 

“available” and “applicable” to the facility (BACT Step 2); and (3) whether use of those 

fuels would be the most effective control option in light of the energy, environmental, 

and economic impacts of control (BACT Step 4). 

1. Consideration of Biomass Life Cycle Emissions 

At the outset, EPA must evaluate whether there is a statutory basis for considering 

certain forms of biomass to be “clean fuels” based on life cycle greenhouse gas 

emissions.7

 Typically, a determination that one form of a fuel (for example, low-sulfur 

coal) is cleaner than another would turn on comparative stack emissions. See, e.g., InterPower, 5 E.A.D. at 145-50 (discussing different stack emission limits based on sulfur 

content of available coal). In the biomass context, however, combustion of different 

forms of biomass will produce roughly the same amount of CO2 at the stack; stack 

emissions therefore offer little or no basis for identifying whether particular forms of 

biomass are “inherently lower-emitting.” 

Biomass fuels may differ, however, in their life cycle greenhouse gas emissions—

or, more accurately, in the relative period of time during which biomass combustion 

results in increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (the so-called “carbon debt” period). 

As numerous recent studies have shown, the carbon debts associated with different 

biomass fuels vary depending on the nature of the feedstock and what would happen to it 

if it were not burned for energy.8

 Combustion of whole trees, for example, results in both 

 

7

 In contrast, biomass cannot be considered a “clean fuel” relative to many non-biomass

fuels due to the comparatively higher emissions of criteria pollutants—including 

particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides—associated with biomass 

combustion. See Partnership for Policy Integrity, Air Pollution from Biomass Energy 

(April 2011), available at http://pfpi.net/air-pollution-2 (attached as Ex. 2) (concluding 

based on comparative air permit data that emission rates for many criteria pollutants at 

biomass facilities are higher than those from natural gas or coal-fired facilities). 

8

 A Science Advisory Board panel convened by EPA for purposes of reviewing biomass 

carbon accounting proposals under the Clean Air Act concluded that accurate assessment 

of biomass-related CO2 emissions requires a comparison between combustion for energy 

and an alternative “baseline” predicated on what otherwise would have happened to the 

material in the absence of bioenergy production. See Science Advisory Board Review of 

EPA’s Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources 5-6 

(Sept. 28, 2012) (“SAB Panel Report”) (attached as Ex. 3). 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

6 

conversion of standing carbon stocks to atmospheric CO2 and lost future sequestration; 

because it typically takes a very long time for the trees to grow back and resequester that 

lost carbon, biomass fuels derived from whole trees incur carbon debt periods ranging 

from decades to centuries (and that in some cases may be permanent).9 Studies have 

found long carbon debts and carbon stock losses even where trees are purportedly 

removed for forest fire threat reduction purposes.10 Combustion of logging “residues” 

(typically branches, tops, and small trees) may incur somewhat shorter carbon debt 

periods depending on the size of the material and how long it would have taken to 

decompose if not burned; that said, combustion of even small residues may result in 

carbon debts spanning years or decades.11 Different timber harvesting operations also 

have considerably different effects on logging-related greenhouse gas emissions from 

forest soils.12 

The carbon debts associated with combustion of other “waste” materials—for 

example, mill waste—similarly depend on the likely alternative fate of that material. If, 

 

9 See, e.g., Bjart Holtsmark, The outcome is in the assumptions: analyzing the effects on 

atmospheric CO2 levels of increased use of bioenergy from forest biomass, Global 

Change Biology Bioenergy (2012), doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12015 (attached as Ex. 4); Stephen 

R. Mitchell, et al., Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy 

production, Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2012), doi: 10.1111/j.1757-

1707.2012.01173.x (attached as Ex. 5); Ernst-Detlef Schulze, et al., Large-scale 

bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor 

greenhouse gas neutral, Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2012), doi: 10.1111/j.1757-

1707.2012.01169.x (attached as Ex. 6); Jon McKechnie, et al., Forest bioenergy or forest 

carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels, 45 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 789 (2011) (attached as Ex. 7); Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences, Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Report to the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (2010), available at

https://www.manomet.org/publications-tools/sustainable-economies/biomasssustainability-and-carbon-policy-study-full-report. 10 See John L. Campbell, et al., Can fuel-reduction treatments really increase forest 

carbon storage in the western US by reducing future fire emissions? Front. Ecol. Env’t

(2011), doi:10.1890/110057 (attached as Ex. 8); Tara Hudiburg, et al., Regional carbon 

dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production, Nature Climate Change (2011), doi: 

10.1038/NCLIMATE1264 (attached as Ex. 9). 

11 See, e.g., Kim Pingoud, et al., Global warming potential factors and warming payback 

time as climate indicators of forest biomass use, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 

(2011), DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9331-9 (attached as Ex. 10); Anna Repo, et al., Indirect 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Producing Bioenergy from Forest Harvest Residues, 

Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2010), doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01065.x 

(attached as Ex. 11). 

12 Thomas Buchholz, et al., Mineral soil carbon fluxes in forests and implications for 

carbon balance assessments, Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2013), doi: 

10.1111/gcbb.12044 (attached as Ex. 12). 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

7 

for example, the mill waste otherwise would be stored or disposed of in a manner likely 

to generate equivalent or greater short-term greenhouse gas emissions (including, for 

example, substantial emissions of methane), the carbon debt associated with combustion 

arguably might be relatively short; on the other hand, if that material would otherwise be 

crafted into durable wood products, the carbon debt associated with production could be 

longer. 

In the BACT context, each of these considerations must be evaluated on a “caseby-case” basis, NSR Manual at B.1-B.2, with reference to the fuels available at a 

particular facility and the likely alternative fate of the biomass material if not used for 

fuel. Such an evaluation would not necessarily be unduly complex given adequate 

information and accurate assumptions about growth rates and alternative fates of 

materials.13 Again, however, EPA must determine at the outset whether the text and 

structure of the Clean Air Act’s PSD provisions allow consideration of relative carbon 

debt periods over time in determining whether certain fuels are “inherently loweremitting” for BACT purposes. If EPA determines such an analysis is permissible under 

the statute, it must undertake such an analysis here. 

2. “Available” and “Applicable” Alternative Fuels 

SPI’s BACT analysis and the AAQIR assume a biomass fuel mix consisting of 

75% mill waste and 25% “other” material (including forest-sourced material). AAQIR at 

26. The fuel supply conditions in the Revised Draft Permit, however, do not require use 

of this or any other fuel mix; rather, almost any legally harvested wood or wood waste 

could be used as fuel. Revised Draft Permit Condition X.G.1. In particular, materials 

harvested for fire threat reduction and “forest stand improvement” (a broad category that 

could be read as encompassing virtually all forms of timber management) could consist 

of larger, whole trees with long carbon debt periods. 

To the extent EPA determines it may do so under the Clean Air Act, the agency 

must assess whether there are other available and applicable fuel mixes that would result 

in shorter carbon debt periods (i.e., that would be inherently lower-emitting than either 

the assumed fuel mix or other fuel mixes). For example, the Environmental Impact 

Report prepared by Shasta County for the facility indicates that SPI could power the 

facility using only mill waste from the Anderson and Shasta Lake facilities: 

Based on information supplied by the project applicant, there were 

different estimates of the project’s biomass fuel blend by fuel type. One 

 

13 For example, the State of Massachusetts has created simple-to-use, spreadsheet-based 

models that differentiate between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with 

combustion of whole trees and residues for purposes of implementing the state’s 

renewable energy standard regulations. See Exec. Office of Energy & Envtl. Affairs, 

Renewable Portfolio Standard — Biomass Policy Regulatory Process, at

http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/biomass/

renewable-portfolio-standard-biomass-policy.html. 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

8 

estimate assumed that the entire project (100%) could be fueled by mill 

residuals from the SPI Anderson and the SPI Shasta Lake sawmill 

operations. It is reported that the SPI Anderson Sawmill facility has the 

capability to provide sixty-five percent (65%) of the fuel requirements of 

the proposed biomass facility by using 100% of the SPI Anderson mill 

residuals. The remaining 35% of the annual biomass needed can be mill 

residuals from the SPI Shasta Lake Sawmill facility, located eighteen (18) 

miles north of the SPI Anderson facility.14 

Requiring the facility to use only mill waste rather than forest-sourced material 

(whole trees and logging residues) could conceivably reduce the carbon debt associated 

with biomass combustion at the facility in comparison to the “assumed” and permitted 

fuel mixes, depending on what would happen to the mill waste if it were not used as 

biomass fuel. Such a requirement, moreover, would not “redefine the source” given 

SPI’s statement that “use of the biomass fuel generated by the existing facility is part of 

the original motivation for the project.” GHG BACT Analysis at 15. In light of the 

evidence that use of mill waste alone may be an available and applicable control option, 

EPA must evaluate this possibility, along with other fuel mixes and fuel supply 

conditions that could potentially reduce net greenhouse gas emissions over time. 

Finally, even if EPA determines that it cannot consider life cycle or relative 

carbon debt implications of different fuels in the BACT process, EPA nonetheless should 

evaluate a mill waste only alternative under Clean Air Act section 165(a)(2) to determine 

whether that alternative could reduce air quality and other environmental impacts as 

compared to the proposed project. See 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(2); In re Prairie State 

Generating Co., 13 E.A.D. 1, 30-31 (EAB 2006), aff’d sub nom. Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 

499 F.3d 653, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). 

3. Evaluation of Most Effective Controls 

At Step 4 of the BACT analysis, EPA must determine, among other things, 

whether a particular control measure is cost-effective. See generally NSR Manual at 

B.31-B.46. 

As a threshold matter, SPI’s cost-effectiveness threshold for greenhouse gases of 

$7/ton, GHG BACT Analysis at 9-10, is both unsubstantiated and too low. SPI does not 

explain why a comparison of CO and CO2 emissions factors for “external natural gas 

combustion” is an appropriate way of “scaling” the cost-effectiveness of CO2 controls at 

a biomass facility. See GHG BACT Analysis at 9.15 Carbon monoxide emissions from 

biomass combustion tend to be considerably higher than those from natural gas 

 

14 Second Recirculated Draft EIR for the Sierra Pacific Cogeneration Power Project 2.0-

30 (February 2012) (excerpt attached as Ex. 13). 

15 The AAQIR does not appear to address SPI’s proposed cost-effectiveness metric at all; 

as a result, it provides no additional support for using $7/ton as a benchmark for assessing 

control options. 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

9 

combustion; accordingly, use of an appropriate CO emissions factor for biomass 

combustion could result in a much higher numerator in SPI’s “scaling” ratio, and a higher 

cost-effectiveness threshold overall. Moreover, SPI has provided no explanation as to 

why CO was selected as the criteria pollutant comparator, rather than NOx or particulate 

matter or anything else. Given this lack of explanation and supporting evidence, SPI’s 

proposed $7/ton figure appears arbitrary and unrelated to the project under consideration. 

The $7/ton threshold is also too low. The most relevant regulatory comparison 

point would be the cost of a greenhouse gas allowance under California’s AB 32 cap-andtrade system. Under that system, the November 2013 auction settlement price for 2013 

vintage allowances was $11.48, and the settlement price for 2016 vintage allowances was 

$11.10.16 Prices for the same allowances on the secondary market are currently slightly 

higher than the settlement prices at direct auction.17 As a further point of comparison, 

EPA has estimated the social cost of carbon in 2015 as ranging from $12-$116/ton, 

figures EPA acknowledges may underestimate the cost of climate damage.18 SPI’s 

proposed $7/ton cost-effectiveness threshold not only falls well below relevant regulatory 

thresholds, but also fails to internalize even a fraction of the potential social cost of the 

facility’s emissions. 

EPA must therefore identify (or require SPI to identify) a well-substantiated, 

realistic cost-effectiveness threshold. It must then evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 

alternative biomass fuels with lower life cycle emissions (i.e., shorter carbon debt 

periods) against this threshold, and constrain the facility’s fuel supply to the lowestemitting cost-effective mix. 

II. The GHG BACT Analysis and AAQIR Improperly Rejected Carbon 

Capture and Sequestration as a Control Measure. 

SPI’s GHG BACT Analysis and the AAQIR rejected carbon capture and 

sequestration as a control measure due to excessive cost. 19 The cost estimate was based 

in part on the assumption that the only way to dispose of captured CO2 was to build a 

pipeline all the way to an oil field in Brentwood, California, many miles to the south, for 

use in enhanced oil recovery operations. See AAQIR at 28 (“SPI estimated that the oil 

field nearest to the Anderson facility is located in Brentwood, California, approximately 

25 miles west of Stockton, California.”). 

 

16 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/auction.htm. 17 Envtl. Defense Fund, California Carbon Market Watch A Comprehensive Analysis of 

the Golden State’s Cap-and-Trade Program 13-15 (2014), available at

http://www.edf.org/california-cap-and-trade-updates. 18 See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html. 19 The Center takes no position on whether carbon capture and sequestration would be 

effective as a technical matter given local geologic conditions; for present purposes, the 

Center simply objects to SPI’s and EPA’s failure to evaluate the technical and economic 

effectiveness of local disposal options. 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

10 

However, enhanced oil recovery is not the only possible way to sequester CO2. 

Carbon dioxide also may be injected into local geological formations under proper 

conditions. California Department of Conservation maps show that the facility is located 

atop a sedimentary basin with historic and active gas fields.20 Sedimentary basins of this 

nature are worthy of investigation as potential injection zones for captured CO2.21 A 

search performed on the NATCARB GIS viewer for the sedimentary basin within a 10-

mile radius of Anderson, California shows saline formation sequestration capacity 

estimates ranging from 370 million metric tonnes to nearly 5,100 million metric tonnes.22 

SPI must provide, and EPA must evaluate, information pertaining to the technological 

and economic feasibility of local CO2 storage. 

SPI also improperly rejected (and EPA failed to evaluate) the availability and 

cost-effectiveness of pre-combustion CO2 removal technology in combination with a 

biomass gasification system. SPI evaluated only a post-combustion system based on the 

unsubstantiated assertion that gasification “would amount to redefining the source.” 

GHG BACT Analysis at 19-20. SPI fails to provide information demonstrating that this 

is the case. A gasification unit would presumably use the same biomass fuels, which SPI 

has identified as a primary purpose of the facility. GHG BACT Analysis at 15. SPI has 

provided no evidence that biomass gasification could not meet SPI’s operational criteria. 

Given that the proposed boiler for the facility is already designed to run on natural gas 

during startup and shutdown, SPI and EPA must assess whether it also could run on 

syngas. In short, EPA cannot reject pre-combustion CO2 removal options without first 

demonstrating that gasification would improperly redefine the source. 

III. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, EPA should not issue the Revised Draft Permit as 

written. Rather, EPA must either gather further information and perform the analysis 

required under the Clean Air Act or deny the application. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin P. Bundy 

Senior Attorney 

Encl. (see attached list of exhibits) 

 

20 Cal. Dept. of Conservation, Oil, Gas & Geothermal Fields in California (2001), 

available at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/petroleum/documents/

MAP_OIL_GAS_GEOTHERMAL.PDF (attached as Ex. 14). 

21 See, e.g., North American Carbon Atlas Partnership, North American Carbon Storage 

Atlas 2, 5-6, 10, 12-13 (2012), available at www.nacsap.org (attached as Ex. 15). 

22 http://www.natcarbviewer.com/. 
Ms. Shaheerah Kelly 

Re: Revised Draft PSD Permit; SPI Anderson Biomass Facility (No. SAC 12-01) 

January 10, 2014 

11 

List of Attached Exhibits 

(Submitted as PDF Files on enclosed CD) 

Exhibit Title 

1 Center for Biological Diversity, Comments Regarding the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Guidance for Determining Best Available Control 

Technology for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Bioenergy 

Production (March 2011). 

2 Partnership for Policy Integrity, Air Pollution from Biomass Energy (April 

2011). 

3 Science Advisory Board Review of EPA’s Accounting Framework for 

Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources (Sept. 28, 2012). 

4 Bjart Holtsmark, The outcome is in the assumptions: analyzing the effects on 

atmospheric CO2 levels of increased use of bioenergy from forest biomass, 

Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2012), doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12015. 

5 Stephen R. Mitchell, et al., Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in 

forest bioenergy production, Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2012), doi: 

10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01173.x. 

6 Ernst-Detlef Schulze, et al., Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of 

forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral, Global 

Change Biology Bioenergy (2012), doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01169.x. 

7 Jon McKechnie, et al., Forest Bioenergy or Forest Carbon? Assessing TradeOffs in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Wood-Based Fuels, 45 Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 789 (2011). 

8 John L. Campbell, et al., Can fuel-reduction treatments really increase forest 

carbon storage in the western US by reducing future fire emissions? Front. 

Ecol. Env’t (2011), doi:10.1890/110057.

9 Tara Hudiburg, et al., Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy 

production, Nature Climate Change (2011), doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1264. 

10 Kim Pingoud, et al., Global warming potential factors and warming payback 

time as climate indicators of forest biomass use, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. 

Change (2011), DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9331-9. 

11 Anna Repo, et al., Indirect Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Producing 

Bioenergy from Forest Harvest Residues, Global Change Biology Bioenergy 

(2010), doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01065.x. 

12 Thomas Buchholz, et al., Mineral soil carbon fluxes in forests and implications 

for carbon balance assessments, Global Change Biology Bioenergy (2013), 

doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12044. 

13 Second Recirculated Draft EIR for the Sierra Pacific Cogeneration Power 

Project (February 2012) (excerpt). 

14 Cal. Dept. of Conservation, Oil, Gas & Geothermal Fields in California (2001). 

15 North American Carbon Atlas Partnership, North American Carbon Storage 

Atlas 2, 5-6, 10, 12-13 (2012).