December 17, 2008 

ES-266-2008 

Gov Rel 9 

Mr. Brian Finneran 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

811 SW Sixth Ave 

Portland, OR 97204 

Re: Preliminary Comments on Proposed Regional Haze Rules 

Dear Brian: 

Portland General Electric Company (PGE) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the 

proposed Regional Haze rulemaking. As you know, the proposed rules are the result of the 

federal requirement that Oregon submit an initial implementation plan for regional haze (the 

Regional Haze SIP). This plan must include a determination of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) for each BART-eligible source in the state that emits any air pollutant 

which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 

mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR § 51.308(e)(1)(ii). The federal Clean Air Act contains specific 

criteria for establishing BART and these criteria are carried over into the regulations. In 

developing these regulations, EPA also promulgated guidelines to be used by the states in 

developing BART determinations. These guidelines, found in 40 CFR § 51 Appendix Y, contain 

the majority of the detail regarding how BART determinations are to be conducted. 

1. Background

On November 2, 2007, PGE submitted a BART analysis for its coal-fired power plant located in 

Boardman, Oregon (the Boardman plant).1

 Sources in existence on August 7, 1977 and that both 

fall into one of the designated source categories and have the potential to emit more that 250 tons 

per year of a haze-causing pollutant are required to determine BART if they cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR § 51.308(e). DEQ previously 

determined that the Boardman power plant was in existence, as that term is defined in the federal 

 

1

 The Foster-Wheeler boiler is identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as 

acid rain program ORISPL code 6106. 

 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 2 

Regional Haze program, on August 7, 1977.2 The Boardman plant emits more than 250 tons per 

year of NOx, SO2 and PM, is in one of the designated source categories and was determined by 

the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ or Department) to cause visibility 

impairment in at least one mandatory Class I area. Therefore, PGE engaged an extensive group 

of experts that assisted the company in preparing a BART determination for the Boardman plant. 

This report was submitted on November 2, 2007 and subsequently supplemented in response to 

dozens of questions posed by various state and federal agencies and interested third parties. The 

team of experts concluded that for the Boardman plant BART constituted the installation of new 

low-NOx burners with a modified overfire air system for NOx control and the installation of a 

semi-dry scrubbing system with fabric filters for SO2 and PM control. PGE concluded that due 

to the long lead time and complex engineering challenges the company needed five years from 

the date that the Regional Haze SIP is approved in order to engineer, bid, procure, install and 

start up the semi-dry scrubbing system. Federal law authorizes DEQ to allow up to five years 

from the date EPA approves the Regional Haze SIP. 40 CFR § 51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

On December 1, 2008, the Department issued the proposed Regional Haze proposal for public 

comment. The proposal includes new regulations that would require the installation of the 

controls identified below. 

Limit (Assumed Control) Installation Deadline Authority 

0.23 lb NOx/MMBtu (Low-NOx 

Burners/Overfire Air)* 

7/1/2011 BART 

0.12 lb SO2/MMBtu 

0.012 lb PM/MMBtu 

(Semi-Dry Scrubber) 

7/1/2014 BART 

0.070 lb NOx/MMBtu (SCR) 7/1/2017 Reasonable 

Progress 

* If LNB/OFA doesn’t meet limit, SNCR required by 7/1/2014 

 

2

 40 CFR § 51.301 defines “in existence on August 7, 1977” as “meaning that the owner or 

operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, 

State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, 

or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) 

entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or 

modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of 

construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time.” 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 3 

The Department’s proposed BART determination is consistent with the controls determined to be 

BART by PGE’s experts. However, the schedule proposed for installation of the semi-dry 

scrubber system is shorter than that proposed by PGE. DEQ anticipates presenting the final 

BART determination package to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) at its April 2009 

meeting. Assuming the EQC adopts the package in April 2009, it must then be submitted to 

EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). This process is anticipated to take a 

minimum of six months and more likely a year or longer. Assuming that EPA does not approve 

the Regional Haze SIP until July 1, 2010, the proposed rule does not provide all of the time 

allowed for PGE to install the semi-dry scrubbers.

Although all that is required of DEQ at this time is to promulgate BART, DEQ chose to go 

further and also impose a requirement under the future “Reasonable Progress” program. The 

first stage of the Regional Haze program is to determine and require BART. However, each state 

must subsequently develop a plan to ensure that by 2064 visibility is restored to pre-human 

levels in mandatory Class I areas (BART and Reasonable Progress controls are evaluated based 

on benefits to mandatory Class I areas only). Consistent with this requirement, states must 

submit SIPs containing emissions limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the 2064 visibility goal. DEQ must also 

demonstrate to EPA every ten years that the state is making reasonable progress towards the 

ultimate visibility improvement goal. These “Reasonable Progress” demonstrations do not 

require any determination of controls on stationary sources at this time and we are aware of no 

western state making Reasonable Progress based control determinations at the same time that the 

state is making BART determinations. For example, California just released its draft Regional 

Haze SIP and it is proposing no stationary source Reasonable Progress control determinations. 

Nonetheless, the Department has proposed as part of this rulemaking that the Boardman plant be 

required to install additional NOx controls, specifically selective catalytic reduction (SCR), in 

2017. These controls were demonstrated not to constitute BART due to their extreme cost and 

their limited effectiveness in addressing visibility impacts. 

PGE has reviewed the Department’s proposed BART and Reasonable Progress rules in light of 

this regulatory and statutory background. Based on our review, we have the following 

comments. 

2. Comments on Proposed NOx BART Rule

NOx BART Limit Determination
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 4 

PGE supports the Department’s NOx BART determination. The proposed NOx BART 

determination will reduce NOx from the Boardman plant by approximately 46% from current 

levels by preventing the formation of NOx in the first place. While this comes at a significant 

capital expense, we believe that these controls constitute BART and note that the Department’s 

determination is consistent with BART determinations throughout the western U.S. We believe 

that the determination of feasible control level is aggressive and concur with the Department that 

it is appropriate to determine compliance with the 0.23 lb/MMBtu heat input limit based on a 

rolling 12-month average. 

NOx BART Compliance Schedule

PGE generally supports the NOx BART installation schedule, but notes that compliance with 

these deadlines is dependent on EPA approving the Regional Haze SIP and DEQ approving the 

necessary preconstruction permits in a timely manner. Because of the need to know with 

certainty that the SIP is approved and the need for preconstruction permits prior to commencing 

construction, PGE is faced with potentially critical delays beyond its control. In order to avoid 

PGE being placed in the untenable position of having to proceed with millions of dollars worth 

of controls in the absence of clear regulatory or permit authority, PGE requests that DEQ add 

language authorizing the Department to delay installation of the controls in the event of delays 

beyond PGE’s reasonable control. We recognize that under federal law the Department cannot 

extend the compliance deadline by more than five years after EPA approves the portion of the 

SIP containing the NOx BART limits. 

Neither PGE nor the Department can have absolute certainty that EPA will approve the Regional 

Haze SIP. Therefore, PGE believes that it is critical to add language to the proposed rules 

specifying that if the Regional Haze SIP provisions relating to the NOx BART determination is 

disapproved that PGE is not required to proceed with installation of the controls as a matter of 

state rule. If EPA disapproves the SIP provisions mandating controls, that agency will 

presumably require some other approach. Therefore, we suggest that the proposed rules provide 

a mechanism for staying the control requirements in the event that EPA disapproves the SIP 

provisions mandating controls. 

3. Comments on Proposed SO2 BART Rule

SO2 BART Limit Determination
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 5 

PGE supports the Department’s SO2 BART determination. The proposed SO2 BART 

determination will reduce SO2 from the Boardman plant by approximately 80% from current 

levels through the installation of a semi-dry scrubber system. While this technology comes at 

both a capital expense and generation efficiency penalty, we agree that these controls constitute 

BART and note that the Department’s determination is consistent with or more aggressive than 

BART determinations throughout the western U.S. We concur with the Department that it is 

appropriate to determine compliance with the 0.12 lb/MMBtu heat input limit based on a rolling 

30-day average basis. 

SO2 BART Compliance Schedule

PGE generally supports the SO2 BART installation schedule, but notes that compliance with the 

deadline is also dependent on EPA approving the Regional Haze SIP and DEQ approving the 

necessary preconstruction permits in a timely manner. As noted above PGE needs to know with 

certainty that the SIP is approved and that it has all permits in hand prior to commencing 

construction of several hundred million dollars worth of control equipment. In addition, if EPA 

does not approve the portions of the Regional Haze SIP containing the SO2 limits in a reasonable 

time frame then PGE will not have enough time to procure and install the controls. Therefore, 

we suggest that either DEQ change the installation deadline to be five years from the date of 

EPA approval of the relevant portions of the Regional Haze SIP or that DEQ add a provision to 

the rules extending the deadline to five years post-SIP approval in the event that EPA does not 

approve these portions of the SIP by the end of 2009. 

Alternative SO2 BART Determination

PGE also requests that DEQ add an alternative SO2 BART determination to the proposed 

regulations. Section 169A(g) of the Clean Air Act specifies that BART determinations must take 

into account the remaining useful life of the BART eligible emission unit. See, also 40 CFR § 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). EPA stated that this factor should be accounted for in assessing the cost 

impacts of a particular control technology. 70 Fed. Reg. 39127 (July 6, 2005). In its November 

2007 BART determination PGE noted that the possible premature cessation of operations of the 

coal-fired boiler may be appropriate for consideration in determining BART. Consistent with 40 

CFR § 51, App Y Section IV(D)(4)(k) (“How do I take into account a project’s ‘remaining 

useful life’ in calculating control costs”), PGE recognized the possibility that it might be 

necessary to include a regulatory scenario that anticipated the early closure of the FosterWheeler boiler. Based on the continued uncertainties about fuel cost/availability, replacement 

power, carbon regulation, control technologies and combustion technologies, PGE believes that 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 6 

including an alternative to the proposed BART determination is appropriate. EPA specifically 

anticipated sources needing flexibility and seeking alternatives, and addressed this possibility in 

Section IV(D)(4)(k)(3) of 40 CFR § 51, App Y. In evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the 

proposed SO2 controls, PGE assumed that the controls would be in place and operational for 

twenty years. As a result, the annualized capital cost was amortized over the full twenty-year life 

of the control device. We believe that it is consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s 

regulations to include an alternate BART determination for SO2 that reflects a shorter facility life 

than the twenty-year life assumed in the current evaluation. 

Incorporating an alternative SO2 BART determination into the Oregon BART rules provides 

PGE the flexibility needed to best protect its customers while protecting the environment. PGE 

is requesting the option to assume a federally enforceable permit limit requiring cessation of the 

Foster-Wheeler boiler operations by the end of 2020 in lieu of installing the semi-dry scrubbers. 

In order to ensure adequate time to incorporate the permit limit into its permit as well as to 

ensure that the permit limit was in place prior to the 2014 deadline for installing the SO2

controls, PGE would need to apply for this federally enforceable limit no later than July 1, 2012. 

If PGE submitted an application requesting the condition by that date, and responded in a timely 

fashion to any Department requests, PGE would be required to terminate operation of the FosterWheeler boiler by 2020. Alternatively, if PGE did not submit an application by July 1, 2012 

requesting the permit limit, PGE would be bound by the Department’s proposed SO2 BART 

compliance deadlines and would have to install the semi-dry scrubbers by July 1, 2014. Both 

options, including the requirement to submit the permit limit application by July 1, 2012, would 

be placed in the rules. PGE, with guidance from the Oregon Public Utilities Commission 

(OPUC) and stakeholders, would then need to decide no later than July 1, 2012 whether to install 

the SO2 BART controls or cease operating the Foster-Wheeler boiler by the end of 2020. 

Incorporating the recommended alternative SO2 BART determination with the 2012 decision 

point into the Oregon BART rules is consistent with all federal requirements. As noted above, 

not only is there no prohibition on the Department incorporating alternative BART options, 

Appendix Y to the federal BART regulations states that alternatives are permissible so long as 

each option independently meets the BART criteria. 40 CFR § 51, App Y, Section IV(D)(4)(k). 

The 2020 alternative BART determination clearly meets the BART criteria. As noted above, the 

Clean Air Act requires consideration of the remaining useful life of the plant. EPA’s rules 

recognize that if the remaining useful life is limited by permit condition then the costeffectiveness needs to be determined based on amortizing the capital cost over the reduced 

equipment life. The cost-effectiveness of the semi-dry scrubbers based on a useful life of 6.5 

years (i.e., the number of years after July 1, 2014 that the control would be operated if the Foster-
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 7 

Wheeler boiler ceased operation in 2020) is approximately $5,200 per ton of SO2 controlled (see 

attached spreadsheet for details of cost-effectiveness evaluation).3 This cost-effectiveness far 

exceeds the range of SO2 cost-effectiveness evaluated by EPA in establishing the presumptive 

BART limits. In EPA’s assessment they looked at costs ranging from $400/ton to $2,000/ton. 

The cost-effectiveness of the semi-dry scrubbers if operated only 6.5 years would be almost 

triple the high end of the range of what EPA considered cost-effective. Therefore, with only a 

6.5-year operational life it is appropriate to consider BART to require no additional SO2 controls 

so long as the Foster-Wheeler boiler is required to cease operation by the end of 2020. This 

determination would not affect the requirement to operate the NOx BART controls and nor 

would it affect PGE’s obligation to control mercury emitted from the boiler. 

It is also appropriate to consider the alternative SO2 BART determination in light of the long 

term benefits to the environment provided by both options. If the plant installed the proposed 

BART controls (i.e., low-NOx burners, modified overfire air and semi-dry scrubbers) and 

operated through 2040, the aggregate visibility pollutant (i.e., NOx, SO2 and PM) emissions 

calculated on a potential to emit basis would total 336,358 tons.4 If the proposed NOx/SO2

BART controls and SCR were installed, the aggregate visibility pollutant emissions through 

2040 would total 237,149 tons. If NOx BART but no other controls were installed on the boiler 

and the boiler ceased operation at the end of 2020, 232,453 tons of visibility pollutants would be 

emitted. A comparison of the aggregate emissions is presented below. 

Controls Installed Boiler Operated Total Visibility Pollutant Emissions (tons) 

Through NOx SO2 PM Aggregate 

LNB/OFA 12/31/2020 63,588 158,311 10,554 232,453 

LNB/OFA and SD scrubbers 12/31/2040 184,960 139,313 12,084 336,358 

LNB/OFA, SD Scrubbers & 

SCR 12/31/2040 85,752 139,313 12,084 237,149 

Notes: All computations start 1/1/2011; emissions calculations based on plant potential to emit. 

 3

 Section 4(k)(2) of Appendix Y specifies that the remaining useful life of a control is the 

difference between the date the controls would go into place and the date the controlled unit 

permanently stops operation. 

4

 2040 is the current projected life of the Foster-Wheeler boiler that was identified in 

PGE’s BART analysis. However, there is no legal requirement to cease operation of the boiler at 

that time and the actual life of the boiler could be longer. 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 8 

These suggested revisions are consistent with the BART requirements, are environmentally 

beneficial and also provide additional benefits. As the Department knows, the electrical 

generation business is in a time of tremendous transition. Over the next decade we anticipate 

tremendous advances in both electricity generation and control technology (e.g., carbon capture 

and sequestration). In addition, we anticipate that carbon will become subject to regulation. The 

full costs and benefits of these changes cannot be fully assessed at this time. However, by the 

time that PGE must decide whether to apply for its federally enforceable condition requiring 

cessation of operation of the Foster-Wheeler boiler or install the SO2 BART controls, both PGE 

and the OPUC likely will have a better idea of the best future for the Boardman plant. As the 

Department knows, PGE is also regulated by the OPUC, and resource decisions such as the 

installation of BART controls must be fully vetted in the OPUC’s Integrated Resource Planning 

(IRP) process. That process includes extensive public and stakeholder input and detailed 

modeling of resource decisions to yield the best combination of expected costs and risks. By 

building this decision point into the BART rules, it will help ensure that the decisions regarding 

Boardman are made with the most complete information. By enabling a more comprehensive 

and reasoned decision making process on the future of Boardman we also anticipate that DEQ 

will reduce the fiscal impacts to businesses in Oregon as compared to the Department’s proposed 

BART rules. 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Exemption

We appreciate the recognition in the proposed rules that the technology based limits do not apply 

during startups and shutdowns. EPA was clear in the BART regulations that startups and 

shutdowns were not normal operating conditions and that the BART visibility impact assessment 

was intended to assess normal operating conditions. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate 

to not include periods of startup and shutdown in determining compliance. However, it is 

equally true that the controls cannot be anticipated to perform as designed during a malfunction 

(defined under federal law, see, e.g. 40 CFR 63.2, as an upset that is not reasonably foreseeable 

or preventable and not resulting from inadequate design or maintenance). Therefore, we suggest 

that the regulations similarly note that malfunction periods should similarly not be included 

when evaluating whether the controls are operating properly and compliance is being achieved. 

PM Limit Error

The proposed BART rule identifies the PM limit as 0.12 lb/MMBtu heat input, but PGE’s BART 

determination and the Department’s documentation indicate that it should read “0.012 lb/mmBtu 

heat input.” We believe this was just a typographical error. 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 9 

Recommended BART Rule Edits

For the reasons stated above, we request that section 1 of the proposed OAR 340-223-0030 (the 

Boardman BART rule) be revised as follows: 

340-223-0030 

BART Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman CoalFired Power Plant (Federal Acid rain program facility ORISPL code 6106) 

(1) Emissions limits: 

(a) On and after July 1, 2011, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.28 

lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average and 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as 

a 12-month rolling average. 

(A)If it is demonstrated by July 1, 2012 that the emission limits in (a) cannot 

be achieved with combustion controls, the Department may grant an extension 

of compliance to July 1, 2014. 

(B)If an extension is granted, the nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 

0.23 lb/mm Btu heat input as a 30-day rolling average on and after July 1, 

2014. 

(b) On and after July 1, 2014, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.12 

lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average. 

(c) On and after July 1, 2014, particulate matter emissions must not exceed 

0.012 lb/mmBtu heat input as determined by compliance source testing. 

(d) The emission limits in (a) through (c) above do not apply during periods 

of startup, or shutdown or malfunction. 

(e) The emission limits in (b) and (c) above do not apply if the operator has 

assumed a federally enforceable permit condition prior to July 1, 2014 

requiring that the Foster-Wheeler boiler cease emissions by December 31, 

2020. In order to ensure adequate time for the Department to process the 

permit modification by this deadline, the request for the federally enforceable 

permit condition must be submitted to the Department no later than July 1, 

2012. If the permittee submits a permit application requesting the permit 

limit on or before July 1, 2012 and submits to all Department information 

requests associated with the application in a timely manner, the permittee 

shall be deemed to have the permit condition in place. 

(f) The emission limits in (a), (b) and (c) above do not apply if EPA 

disapproves the portion of the Regional Haze SIP containing these limits or 

that portion of the Regional Haze SIP is otherwise invalidated.
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 10 

(g) If EPA fails to approve the portion of the Regional Haze SIP containing 

the emission limits and compliance deadlines in (b) and (c) above by 

December 31, 2009, then those deadlines shall automatically change to five 

years after approval of the portion of the Regional Haze SIP containing these 

limits and deadlines.

(h) The Department may extend the deadlines in (a), (b) and (c) above to 

account for delays beyond the reasonable control of the permittee, including 

delays in the issuance of permits authorizing construction of the controls. 

The Department may not extend the compliance deadline more than five 

years after the date that EPA approves the portion of the Regional Haze SIP 

containing these limits and deadlines.

4. Comments on Proposed Reasonable Progress Rule

SCR Is Not Justified by Reasonable Progress Requirements 

PGE has significant concerns regarding DEQ’s proposal that SCR is required under the 

Reasonable Progress program. In the November 2007 BART determination report, PGE 

demonstrated that SCR is not BART for the Boardman boiler. The technology is not costeffective, does not provide material benefits to visibility in the mandatory Class 1 areas and has 

material non-air quality environmental impacts. For all these reasons DEQ reasonably 

concluded that SCR is not BART. Section 169A(g)(1) of the federal Clean Air Act mandates 

that the same considerations must be applied in determining what constitutes Reasonable 

Progress controls. Therefore, for the same reasons that DEQ determined that SCR did not 

constitute BART, it should not consider SCR to be required by Reasonable Progress. 

DEQ Has No Basis For Imposing Reasonable Progress Requirements on Boardman At 

This Time

PGE is similarly concerned about DEQ’s choice to proceed at this time with a Reasonable 

Progress determination for the Boardman Plant while not considering Reasonable Progress for 

any other emission sources in Oregon. We are not aware of any other state in the western U.S. 

addressing additional controls under Reasonable Progress at this time. The Reasonable Progress 

assessment in the Department’s proposed Regional Haze SIP states that “it is not reasonable to 

require controls” for any of the stationary source categories reviewed and notes that the 

Department will be developing guidance for conducting Reasonable Progress control 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 11 

determinations over the next five years. Proposed Regional Haze Plan at 171. Putting aside the 

fact that for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph SCR does not meet the Reasonable 

Progress guidelines established by statute and EPA guidance, it is arbitrary for DEQ to single out 

one source for a program that is otherwise in its nascent stages and where no other source in the 

state is under consideration. For these reasons we propose that DEQ not include the Reasonable 

Progress component in the BART rules. DEQ can address Reasonable Progress for the 

Boardman plant when it develops its Reasonable Progress SIP for the state as a whole. 

Alternative Reasonable Progress Determination

Even if DEQ were to proceed with Reasonable Progress at this time for the Boardman Plant and 

SCR was determined to constitute a Reasonable Progress control, we believe that DEQ should 

include an alternative determination similar to what is proposed above for BART. EPA’s June 

2007 EPA Reasonable Progress guidance states: 

“The fourth statutory factor is ‘the remaining useful life of any existing source 

subject to [reasonable progress] requirements.’ This factor is generally best 

treated as one element of the overall cost analysis. The “remaining useful life” 

of a source, if it represents a relatively short time period, may affect the 

annualized costs of retrofit controls. For example, the methods for calculating 

annualized costs in EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual require the use 

of a specified time period for amortization that varies based upon the type of 

control. If the remaining useful life of the source will clearly exceed this time 

period, the remaining useful life factor has essentially no effect on control costs 

and on the reasonable progress determination process. Where the remaining 

useful life of the source is less than the time period for amortizing the costs of 

the retrofit control, you may wish to use this shorter time period in your cost 

calculations.” 

This statement supports a similar approach to that required under BART where a shorter facility 

life is taken into account when determining cost-effectiveness. In evaluating the costeffectiveness of SCR, PGE assumed that the controls would be in place and operational for 

twenty years. As a result, the annualized capital cost was amortized over the full twenty-year life 

of the control device. We believe that it is consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s 

regulations to include an alternate Reasonable Progress determination for NOx that reflects a 

shorter facility life. 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 12 

If DEQ proceeds with requiring SCR as Reasonable Progress, PGE recommends incorporating 

an option under which PGE may assume a federally enforceable permit limit requiring cessation 

of the Foster-Wheeler boiler operations by 2029. In order to ensure adequate time to incorporate 

the permit limit into its permit as well as to ensure that the permit limit is in place prior to the 

2017 deadline currently proposed for installing SCR, PGE would need to apply for this federally 

enforceable limit no later than July 1, 2015. If PGE submitted an application requesting the 

condition by that date, and responded in a timely fashion to any Department requests, it would be 

required to terminate operation of the Foster-Wheeler boiler by 2029. Alternatively, if PGE did 

not submit an application by July 1, 2015 requesting the permit limit, PGE would be bound by 

the Department’s proposed Reasonable Progress NOx control compliance deadline and would 

have to install SCR by July 1, 2017. Both options, including the requirement to submit the 

permit limit application by July 1, 2015, would be placed in the rules. PGE, with guidance from 

the OPUC and stakeholders, would then need to decide no later than July 1, 2015 whether to 

install SCR or cease operating the Foster-Wheeler boiler by the end of 2029. 

Incorporating the recommended option into the Oregon Reasonable Progress rules is consistent 

with all federal requirements. As with BART, there is no prohibition on the Department 

incorporating alternative Reasonable Progress options so long as each option independently 

meets the Reasonable Progress criteria. The alternative Reasonable Progress option clearly 

meets all the statutory and regulatory criteria. As noted above, the Section 169A of the federal 

Clean Air Act requires consideration of the remaining useful life of the plant for both BART and 

Reasonable Progress determinations. EPA’s rules recognize that if the remaining useful life is 

limited by permit condition then the cost-effectiveness needs to be determined based on 

amortizing the capital cost over the reduced equipment life. 40 CFR 51, App. Y Section 

IV(D)(4)(k). The cost-effectiveness of the SCR based on a useful life of 12.5 years (i.e., the 

number of years after July 1, 2017 that the control would be operated if the plant had to close by 

the end of 2029) is over $7,300 per ton of NOx controlled. This cost-effectiveness far exceeds 

the range of NOx cost-effectiveness evaluated by EPA in establishing the presumptive BART 

limits. In EPA’s assessment they looked at costs ranging from $100/ton to $1,000/ton. The costeffectiveness of the SCR if operated only 12.5 years would be over seven times greater than the 

high end range of what EPA considered cost-effective. Therefore, with only a 12.5-year 

operational life it is appropriate to consider the cessation of operation of the Foster-Wheeler 

boiler by the end of 2029 to constitute Reasonable Progress. This determination would not affect 

the requirement to operate the NOx and SO2 BART controls and nor would it affect PGE’s 

obligation to control mercury from the boiler. 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 13 

It is also appropriate to consider the alternative of cessation of the Foster-Wheeler boiler 

operations at the end of 2029 to be Reasonable Progress in light of the long term benefits to the 

environment provided by both options. If the plant installed the proposed BART controls (i.e., 

low-NOx burners, modified overfire air and semi-dry scrubbers) and operated through 2040, the 

aggregate visibility pollutant emissions calculated on a potential to emit basis would total 

336,358 tons. If the BART controls and SCR were installed, the aggregate visibility pollutant 

emissions through 2040 would total 237,149 tons. If the BART controls were installed on the 

boiler, no SCR was installed, and the boiler ceased operation at the end of 2029, then 231,292 

tons of visibility pollutants would be emitted. By not installing the SCR, a material quantity of 

ammonia emissions would be avoided. A comparison of the aggregate emissions is presented 

below. 

 

Controls Installed Boiler Operated Total Emissions (tons) 

Through NOx SO2 PM Aggregate 

LNB/OFA and SD 

scrubbers 12/31/2029 118,208 104,485 8,602 231,292 

LNB/OFA and SD 

scrubbers 12/31/2040 184,960 139,313 12,084 336,358 

LNB/OFA, SD 

Scrubbers & SCR 12/31/2040 85,752 139,313 12,084 237,149 

Notes: All computations start 1/1/2011; emissions calculations based on plant potential to emit. 

These suggested revisions are consistent with the Reasonable Progress requirements, are 

environmentally beneficial and also provide additional benefits. As we discussed above, the 

electrical generation business is in a time of tremendous transition. Over the next decade we 

anticipate tremendous advances in both electricity generation and control technology (e.g., 

carbon capture and sequestration). In addition, we anticipate that carbon will become subject to 

regulation. The full costs and benefits of these changes cannot be fully assessed at this time. 

However, by the time that PGE must decide whether to apply for its federally enforceable 

condition requiring cessation of operation of the Foster-Wheeler boiler or install SCR, both PGE 

and the Oregon Public Utilities Commission will have a much better idea of the best future for 

the Boardman plant. By building this decision point into the Reasonable Progress rules, it is 

possible to ensure that the decisions regarding Boardman are made with the most complete 

information. By enabling a more comprehensive and reasoned decision making process on the 

future of Boardman we also anticipate that DEQ will reduce the fiscal impacts to businesses in 

Oregon as compared to the Department’s proposed rulemaking. 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 14 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Exemption

As noted above in relation to the BART controls we appreciate the recognition in the proposed 

rules that the technology based Reasonable Progress limit does not apply during startups and 

shutdowns. EPA was clear in the BART regulations that startups and shutdowns were not 

normal operating conditions and that the BART visibility impact assessment was intended to 

assess normal operating conditions. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to not include 

periods of startup and shutdown in determining compliance. However, it is equally true that the 

controls cannot be anticipated to perform as designed during a malfunction (defined under 

federal law as an upset that is not reasonably foreseeable or preventable and not resulting from 

inadequate design or maintenance). Therefore, we suggest that the regulations similarly note that 

malfunction periods should similarly not be included when evaluating whether the controls are 

operating properly and compliance is being achieved. 

For the reasons stated above, we request that the proposed OAR 340-223-0040 (the Boardman 

Reasonable Progress rule) be revised as follows: 

340-223-0040 

Additional NOx Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman 

Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid rain program facility ORISPL code 

6106) 

(1) On and after July 1, 2017, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.070 

lb/mmBtu heat input, excluding periods of startup, or shutdown or malfunction. 

(a) Compliance with the NOx emissions limit must be determined with a 

continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with OAR 340-223-

0030(2) and (3). 

(b) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control 

equipment used to comply with the emission limit begins operation. 

(c) A compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted by January 

1, 2018. 

(d) The emission limit in (1) above does not apply if the operator has assumed a 

federally enforceable permit condition prior to July 1, 2017 requiring that the FosterWheeler boiler cease emissions by December 31, 2029. In order to ensure adequate 

time for the Department to process the permit modification by this deadline, the 

request for the federally enforceable permit condition must be submitted to the 

Department no later than July 1, 2015. If the permittee submits a permit application 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 15 

requesting the permit limit on or before July 1, 2015 and submits to all 

Department information requests associated with the application in a timely 

manner, the permittee shall be deemed to have the permit condition in place.

(e)The emission limit in (1) above does not apply if EPA disapproves the 

portion of the Regional Haze SIP containing that limit or that portion of the 

Regional Haze SIP is otherwise invalidated.

(f) If EPA fails to approve the portion of the Regional Haze SIP containing 

the emission limit and compliance deadline in (1) above by December 31, 

2009, then those deadlines shall automatically change to eight years after 

approval of the portion of the Regional Haze SIP containing these limits and 

deadlines.

5. Conclusion

Attached please find spreadsheets documenting the cost-effectiveness values stated in our 

comments above as well as the comparative emissions between the different BART and 

Reasonable Progress alternatives. Please consider these spreadsheets to be an addendum to our 

November 2007 report. You will also find a flow diagram that visually presents the proposed 

alternative BART and Reasonable Progress determinations. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. As you know, the OPUC and PGE must 

engage in a public IRP process that includes considering alternatives to the emission controls. 

By incorporating the BART and Reasonable Progress alternatives discussed above DEQ will 

better align the DEQ and OPUC processes. This protects the best interests of PGE, its customers 

and the Oregon economy while also satisfying all state and federal requirements, including 

protection of Oregon air quality. Therefore, we believe that it provides an important 

improvement to the proposed rules. We hope that DEQ will recognize these benefits, 

incorporate our suggested edits into the proposed rule and re-notice the package so as to enable 

the greatest degree of public participation. 
Mr. Brian Finneran 

December 17, 2008 

Page 16 

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss these comments further. 

Sincerely, 

Arya Behbehani-Divers 

cc: Stephen Quennoz 

 Loren Mayer 

Attachments: Tables 1-4 

 Flow Diagram