North Dakota Regional Haze 

Docket EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406 

North Dakota Power Plant CEO Call/Meeting with Assistant Administrator 

October 31, 2011 

Meeting Notes 

Attendees: 

EPA

Lea Anderson, Gail Fallon, Phil Lorang, Janet McCabe, Gina McCarthy, Monica Morales 

Power Plants

Ron Harper – Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC) 

Mac McLennan – Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota) 

David Saggau – Great River Energy (GRE) 

Elizabeth Gore – Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS), LLP Policy Director 

Meeting Notes: 

Gore 

The EPA plan will have a huge impact on ND coops. She wants the EPA to accept the ND plan. 

Harper 

BEPC services 2.4 million consumers. Harper showed a map of member state territories. BEPC 

has two power plants in ND. It also owns Great Plains Synfuels Plant. BEPC supports the ND 

SIP for low NOx burners and scrubbers. Harper discussed BEPC’s diversified portfolio. He 

requested EPA put its plan on hold to allow them to resolve issues with vendor guarantees and 

commercialization (for selective catalytic reduction technology). The costs for BEPC are $260 

million apart comparing EPA’s estimates/plan and ND’s. 

McLennan

McLennan discussed Minnkota’s territory and diversified portfolio. He noted that $475 million 

in environmental controls were just completed on ND plants. He discussed rate increases 

already realized to cover pollution controls and renewable. He expressed concern about how to 

go back to customers with another rate increase without guaranteed results. McLennan noted 

that for Minnkota the cost is $500 million apart comparing EPA’s estimates/plan and ND’s. 

Saggau

Saggau stated that all the power generated by GRE goes to MN. They serve 1.7 million 

consumers in MN. Coal Creek Station is the largest plant in ND. Coal Creek uses dry fine 

technology which involved a $270 million investment. He discussed various environmental 

benefits of this technology. He noted that EPA and State endorsed a 0.17 lb/MMBtu emission 

limit. The 0.12 limit EPA is asking the plant to do is not possible without selective non-catalytic 

reduction technology. Since they are member-owned, all costs are passed on via straight rate 
2 

increases to members. There will be no noticeable benefit at less than half of what EPA has 

designated as discernible. Coal Creek will already achieve visibility improvement by going to 

the 0.17 limit. This program is not about health, only visibility. GRE serves economically 

challenged communities. It has seen (rate) increases over the past three or four years largely due 

to environmental controls. They were surprised about EPA’s proposal with the requirement for 

Coal Creek to get down to a 0.12 emission rate. 

Gore 

Gore emphasized that the ND plan is not status quo plan. It requires real reductions. They all 

had to agree to ND SIP. Companies have already invested a lot of money. 

McCarthy 

McCarthy asked if the main concern was the increase in retail price. 

McLennan 

McLennan said, yes. He talked about technical infeasibility of SCR and the real costs of $50 

million per year in operating costs and more costs with reheat of gas. He noted there is no option 

to do something else and that you cannot walk away from the investment. 

Harper 

Harper noted that BEPC plants in 2030 – 2040 are scheduled to go off-line. Their costs, thus, are 

increased due to plant life. 

McCarthy

McCarthy noted that there has been a difference of opinion on technical feasibility and cost. She 

asked what they see as the path forward versus someone giving in. 

The sentiment was noted by several parties that they were not there to negotiate on behalf of the 

State or EPA. All want a solution 

McCarthy

McCarthy said EPA has tried to give States a lot of latitude in the regional haze process. She 

noted that Jim (Martin) has tried to work this out and has struggled with this. 

McCabe

McCabe said there has been some talk about a pilot study. She asked where they stood with that. 

McLennan 

McLennan said he was open to ideas of what a study might look like. He said that ND said 

remove the FIP and they will discuss a pilot study. Minnkota has been supportive of ND to date. 

He discussed the difference between field test (= 3 months) versus a pilot test (18-24 months). 

He said he was not opposed to discussing, but did not want to go against ND. 
3 

Harper

Harper discussed experience at Synfuels and that the need to change catalyst every 3 years cost 

millions. There needs to be adequate and effective testing. He asked what the game plan is to 

get there. 

McLennan

McLennan discussed the conditions under which SCR would work. Putting it at the end of the 

process adds costs for reheat. A 13-mile pipeline with a boiler is needed to get the flue gas 

heated to make it work. 

McCarthy

McCarthy noted that Jim (Martin) struggled to find a way that we could get the study done to 

break through the barriers. Bringing new information to the table helps EPA. 

McLennan and McCarthy

Discussed flexibility of when testing would have to happen – 2008 SIP, 2013 look-back, and 

2018 SIP. If not done for this SIP is the opportunity gone forever? Is there flexibility about 

when it can happen? 

McCarthy

McCarthy noted that EPA is pretty boxed in. Others from EPA agreed. 

CEO’s

If the decision was made that testing would be required, when would it have to be done by. 

Would pilot testing be added to the 5 year time line for compliance? They are looking at 4 years 

for testing and construction. Discussion continued regarding which plants might be involved in 

the testing. 

McCarthy

McCarthy provided two issues for further consideration that require agreement from all. These 

related to: 1) defining a clear scope for testing; and 2) determining the length of time for 

adequate testing. She said she would talk to Jim (Martin) and get back to them reiterating that 

EPA does want to work with them and ND. 

Saggau

Saggau reiterated that GRE was surprised that Coal Creek “got called out” of SIP. They 

invested $270 million to accomplish the 0.17 emission limit. Modeling the comparison between 

the 0.17 emission limit down to the 0.12 limit shows results less than half of EPA’s visibility 

threshold. He asked McCarthy to review this.