# October 11, 2011 

# STEAM ELECTRIC ELG

RULEMAKING

UMRA AND FEDERALISM IMPLICATIONS:

CONSULTATION MEETING

#  Background



#  Timeline

 Profile of Potentially Affected Entities

 Considerations of Rulemaking



#  Appendix

- List of Potentially Affected Entities



# AGENDA

2

#  Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG)

 National standards, based on performance of treatment and control
technologies, for wastewater discharges to surface water and

municipal sewage treatment plants

 Developed on an industry

- by

- industry basis

 Represent pollutant reductions that are economically achievable for

an industry using the best available technology

.



#  ELG implementation

 Direct dischargers: Implemented through National Pollutant


# Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program

 Indirect dischargers: Implemented through national pretreatment

program

3



# BACKGROUND

#  Steam Electric Power Generating ELG (40 CFR 423):

 Facilities “primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing

fossil

- type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the thermodynamic medium.”



#  Relevance to State, local and tribal governments

 As steam electric plant owners (e.g., municipal utilities)

 As regulators (e.g., NPDES program implementation)



# BACKGROUND (CONT’D)

4

#  1982 : EPA finalizes current effluent guidelines

 2005: Annual ELG review highlights Steam Electric industry as major 

# contributor of toxic and nonconventional pollutants

 Significant process and technology changes since 1982



#  Fall 2009

 Detailed Study completed

 EPA announces its intent to update the effluent guidelines



#  Summer 2010: Information Collection Request (ICR)

 Detailed questionnaire sent to 733 facilities, out of approximately 1,200 fossil

and nuclear

- fueled steam electric power plants

 All coal

- and petroleum coke

- fired units and sample of oil, natural gas, and

nuclear units

 Gather technical information about plant processes, effluent and waste characteristics and financial/economic data



#  July 2012: Proposed regulation

 January 2014: Final regulation

 2014

– 2019: Implement new requirements through 5

- year NPDES permit cycle

5



# TIMELINE

#  Approximately 500 plants with coal

- fired units

 Many steam

- fueled generating units are “base

- load” with generally high capacity factors

 Account for approximately 48% of nationwide net generation



#  ~40 plants with oil

- fired units

 Many oil

- fired generating units are peaking units with low capacity utilization



#  Approximately 1 percent of nationwide net generation



#  ~ 200 plants with natural gas

- fired units

 22% of nationwide net generation



#  63 nuclear plants

 19% of nationwide net generation



#  Fossil

- fueled steam

- turbine generating units range in size (nameplate capacity) from 1 MW

to more than 1 ,000 MW

6 

# PROFILE OF STEAM ELECTRIC INDUSTRY

Steam Electric Plants, by Fuel

#  Industry includes investor

- owned, publicly

- owned, and rural



# cooperatives

 Investor

- owned utilities: For

- profit businesses organized as individual

corporations or holding companies

 Publicly

- owned electric utilities: State authorities, municipalities,

political subdivisions, and Federally

- owned facilities

 Cooperative electric utilities (“coops”): Member

- owned entities
established under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, provide
electricity to small rural and farming communities



#  Plants often have multiple owners with varying shares in


# different generation units

7 

# PROFILE OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

ENTITIES

### DRAFT

- 5/22/2011 

## 8 

# PROFILE OF PLANTS OWNED BY GOVERNMENT

ENTITIES AND COOPERATIVES

B a s e d o n s u r vey r e s p o n s e s ( o u t o f a to t a l o f 6 77
p la n t s w it h in t h e s c o p e o f t h e s u r vey ) :



##  1 5 8 st a tes/ lo c a l g over n m en t s a n d

c o o p e r a t ive s a r e e s t im a te d to b e p o te n t ially

im p a c te d by t h e r e g u la t io n

 T h e s e e n t it ie s h ave ow n e r s h ip ( o r p a r t
ow n e r s h ip ) in 1 8 2 p la n t s

 A g ove r n m e n t e n t it ie s is t h e d o m in a n t ow n e r
in 1 5 2 s u r veye d p la n t s G o v e r n m e n t

- O w n e d P l a n t s b y F u e l T y p e

G o v e r n m e n t

- O w n e d P l a n t s b y N a m e p l a t e C a p a c i t y



##  T h e 1 8 2 g ove r n m e n t

- own e d p la n t s in s u r vey
a c c o u n t fo r ~ 10 0,000 M W in a g g r e g a te

n a m e p la te p owe r g e n e r a t io n c a p a c it y

 P la n t n a m e p la te p owe r g e n e r a t io n c a p a c it ies
r a n g e f ro m le s s t h a n 2 0 M W to ove r 3 , 3 00M W
( M e d ia n 4 0 0M W )

# CONSIDERATIONS OF RULEMAKING

9 

#  Scope of rulemaking

 Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater

 Ash handling (fly ash, bottom ash)

 Landfill operations (leachate)

 Other waste streams, if warranted



#  Subcategorization , if warranted

 Coordination with other EPA rules affecting Steam Electric 

# industry

 Energy supply impacts

 Supply impacts on marginal, low

- capacity factor, peaking units

 Compliance could result in closure

 Some oil

- fired plants are required to have oil capability for times of natural gas shortages (e.g., adverse weather conditions)



#  Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), Federalism, Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, and Tribal considerations

 Environmental Justice and Children’s Health considerations

#  UMRA: “Federal mandates” that might result in expenditures 

# by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million* or more in any one

year

 UMRA analysis

 Include State , local, and Tribal governments (exclude Federal 

# governments)

 Determine the domestic parent entity( ies ) for each plant that will incur direct compliance costs

 Calculate parent entity

- level compliance costs

 Evaluate magnitude of the regulatory impact on government entities, 

# considering:

 Compliance costs incurred by government entities owning facilities

 Administrative costs incurred to implement the revised Steam Electric

ELGs.

10 

# UMRA AND FEDERALISM

* Indexed. The current threshold is $147 million.

#  Federalism: “Substantial direct effects on the States, on the


# relationship between the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government .” (E.O. 13132)

 EPA’s Numerical tests for “substantial direct effects”

 Annualized direct compliance costs to state and local governments
$25 million or more, in the aggregate, in any one year

 Annualized direct compliance costs to state and local governments

equal or greater than 1% of annual revenues of small governments

11 

# UMRA AND FEDERALISM ( C O NT ’ D )

#  EPA identified facilities using the questionnaire responses.

 Ownership shares for all entities

 Industry sector (NAICS code), total electric generation, revenue, and employment data obtained for parent entities

 Population data from U.S. Census

 Complemented with data from EIA, FERC, Dun & Bradstreet, Standard & Poor’s, and American Business Information



#  Additional screening for small government entities

 Preliminary findings (based on survey of 677 Steam Electric plants):

 158 states/local governments and cooperatives are estimated to be potentially impacted by the regulation, based on ownership (or part ownership) in 182 plants



#  Government entity is the dominant owner (largest ownership share) in 152 of these plants

 108 small government or cooperative entities have ownership shares in 121 steam electric plants

12 

# IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY

AFFECTED GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

#  Project Lead:

 Ron Jordan, 202

- 566

- 1003 , jordan.ronald@epa.gov



#  Federalism Contacts:

 James Covington, 202

- 566

- 1034, covington.james@epa.gov

 Andrew Hanson , 202

- 564

- 3664, hanson.andrew@epa.gov

13



# QUESTIONS?

# Appendix

14 

# POTENTIALLY AFFECTED



# STATE AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

### Name State Number of Plants

Central Valley Financing Authority CA 1

Kansas City Board of Public Utilities KS 2

Lower Colorado River Authority TX 3

Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company MA 1

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia GA 4

Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska NE 2

Nebraska Public Power District NE 3

North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency NC 2

Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority OK 1

Platte River Power Authority CO 1

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District AZ 8

Santee Cooper SC 4

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency MN 1

State of California, Department of Water Resources CA 1

Texas Municipal Power Agency TX 1

Utah Municipal Power Agency UT 2 

# STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO REGULATION

15 N o n

- S m a l l S t a t e / R e g i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t s

Preliminary list based on plants covered by survey

# STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS POTENTIALLY

SUBJECT TO REGULATION (CONT’D)

16 Name State Number of Plants

City of Corona CA 1

City of Glendale CA 1
City of Los Angeles, CA CA 2

City of Pasadena

- Department of Water and Power, Power Division CA 1

LADWP

- Power System CA 1
Colorado Springs Utilities CO 3
City of Gainesville,Gainesville Regional Utilities FL 2

City of Tallahassee FL 2

Dept. of Electric Utilities, City of Lakeland FL 1

JEA FL 3

Orlando Utilites Commission FL 1

Ames Municipal Electric Services IA 1
Springfield, Illinois

- Office of Public Utilities IL 1

Owensboro Municipal Utilities KY 1

City of Lafayette, LA LA 1

Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant MA 2

Lansing Board of Water and Light MI 2

Rochester Public Utilities MN 1

City of Columbia Missouri MO 1

City of Independence MO 2

City of Springfield, MO MO 2

Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville, NC NC 1

City of Lincoln, NE NE 2

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) NE 2

City of Vineland NJ 1

City of Hamilton Electric Department OH 1

Heartland Consumers Power District SD 1

Brownsville Public Utilities Board TX 3

City of Austin, TX TX 1
CPS Energy TX 3
Garland Power & Light TX 2

Clark Public Utilities WA 1 

### N o n

- S m a l l M u n i c i p a l G o v e r n m e n t s

Preliminary list based on plants covered by surveyTown/City/Municipality State Number of

Plants

City of Lamar CO 1

City of Dover DE 1

City of Dalton, GA GA 2

Crisp County Power Commission GA 1

Alta Municipal Utilities IA 1

Atlantic, IA IA 1

City of Algona, Iowa IA 1

City of Bancroft, IA IA 1

City of Elridge, IA IA 2

City of Harlan, IA IA 1

City of Milford, IA IA 1

City of Montezuma, IA IA 1

City of Pella, IA IA 1

City of Tipton, IA IA 1

Coon Rapids, IA IA 1

Graettinger, IA IA 1

Laurens, IA IA 1

Muscatine Power and Water IA 1

New Hampton, IA IA 1

Pella, City of IA 1

Spencer, IA IA 2

Sumner, IA IA 1

The Municipal Electric Utility of the City of Cedar Falls IA 3

Waverly, IA IA 2

Webster City, IA IA 1

West Bend, IA IA 1

City of Geneseo, IL IL 1

City of Jasper IN 1

Crawfordsville Electric Light & Power IN 1

Logansport Municipal Electric IN 1



## 17 

# STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS POTENTIALLY
SUBJECT TO REGULATION (CONT’D)

Town/City/Municipality State Number

of Plants

Peru Utilities IN 1

Richmond Power & Light IN 1

Hudson, MA MA 1

City of Escanaba MI 1

City of Grand Haven Board of Light and Power MI 1

City of Wyandotte, Department of Municipal Service MI 1

Holland BPW MI 1

Marquette Board of Light and Power MI 1

Austin Utilities MN 1

Hibbing Public Utilities MN 1

Hutchinson Utilities Comm MN 1

New Ulm Public Utilities MN 1

Northern Municipal Power Agency MN 1

Virginia Public Utilities MN 1

Willmar Municipal Utilities MN 1

City of New Madrid, MO MO 1

MMU MO 1

Sikeston BMU MO 1

Clarksdale Public Utilities MS 1

Greenwood Utilities Commission MS 1

City of Fremont, Nebraska NE 1

City of Grand Island NE 2

Hastings Utilities NE 1

City of Farmington Electric Utility System NM 1

Jamestown Board of Public Utilities NY 1

City of Dover

- Ohio OH 1

City of Orrville OH 1

City of Painesville OH 1

City of Shelby OH 1

Manitowoc Public Utilities WI 1



### Preliminary list based on plants covered by survey 

### S m a l l M u n i c i p a l G o v e r n m e n t s

## 18 

# STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS POTENTIALLY
SUBJECT TO REGULATION (CONT’D)

Name State Number of

Plants

PowerSouth Energy Cooperative AL 2

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation AR 2

Southern California Public Power Authority CA 1

Tri

- State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. CO 5
Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. FL 1

MEAG Power GA 1
Oglethorpe Power Corporation GA 3
Hoosier Energy REC, Inc IN 3

Indiana Municipal Power Agency IN 2

Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. IN 3
Big Rivers Electric Corporation KY 5
East Kentucky Power Co

- operative KY 3
Great River Energy MN 2

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. MO 3
Missouri River Energy Services MO 1

South Mississippi Electric Power Association MS 1

Basin Electric Power Cooperative ND 3

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. ND 1

Buckeye Power, Inc. OH 1

GRDA OK 1

WFEC OK 3

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative TX 1

Deseret Generation & Transmission Cooperative UT 2

Intermountain Power Agency UT 1

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems UT 1

Dairyland Power Cooperative WI 3

WPPI Energy WI 1 

### N o n

- S m a l l C o o p e r a t i v e s

Preliminary list based on plants covered by survey

## 19 

# STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS POTENTIALLY
SUBJECT TO REGULATION (CONT’D)

Name State Number of

Plants

Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. AK 1

Arizona Electric Power Coop, Inc. AZ 1

Kauai Island Utility Cooperative HI 1

Central Iowa Power Cooperative IA 3

Corn Belt Power Cooperative IA 3

Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative IA 1

Illinois Municipal Electric Agency IL 1

Prairie Power Inc IL 1

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative IL 1

Kansas Electric Power Cooperative KS 1

Mid

- Kansas Electric Company, LLC KS 1

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation KS 2

Louisiana Energy & Power Authority LA 2
Michigan South Central Power Agency MI 1

MMPA MN 1

Central Electric Power Cooperative MO 1

Square Butte Electric Cooperative ND 1

Power Resources Cooperative OR 1
San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc. TX 1

Wyoming Municipal Power Agency WY 1 

### S m a l l C o o p e r a t i v e s

Preliminary list based on plants covered by survey