HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.a.4) (Handout) General Manager Additional Written AnnouncementsBoard Meeting of August 15, 2013 /ya/fQIQ
Additional Written Announcement:
Treatment Plant
f) Update on Recent Court Ruling About Environmental Protection
Agency's Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
At the July 25, 2013 Board meeting, Member Williams informed the Board and staff about
a recent federal court decision that vacated the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
three -year deferral of mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting of emissions from
biogenic sources. Biogenic emissions come from non - fossil fuel sources such as
decomposition of landfill waste, wastewater treatment, manure management, ethanol
production, and combustion of wastewater biosolids and landfill gas. This decision was
announced at the recent summer conference of the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies (NACWA) in Cincinnati.
Staff has reviewed the ruling and determined that it will have minimal impact on the
District. The District must comply with both state and federal GHG rules. The EPA does
not have a cap and trade program like the state, so the only effect may be that the District
will have to submit an additional annual inventory of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
to the EPA, which in turn could trigger larger wastewater treatment plants to apply for a
Title V Permit. However, as the District already has a Title V Permit, there would be no
effect on the District.
The federal court ruling does not affect the California GHG rules, including the cap and
trade threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The state
GHG rules currently do not include biogenic emissions in the cap and trade threshold,
only anthropogenic emissions (which are mostly from fossil fuel sources).
Additional information about the court ruling and its effects are discussed in the attached
memo from Senior Engineer Randy Schmidt.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
August 6, 2013
TO: CURT SWANSON, PROVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER
VIA: ALAN WEER, PLANT OPERATIONS DIVISION MANAGERJRPJ
FROM: RANDY SCHMIDT, SENIOR ENGINEERVQ
SUBJECT: COURT DECISION TO VACATE USEPA DEFERRAL OF MANDATORY
GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING BASED ON BIOGENIC EMISSIONS
The United States Court of Appeal's July 12, 2013, decision to vacate the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Deferral of Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Reporting Based on Biogenic Emissions applies only to mandatory GHG
reporting to the USEPA. The USEPA currently does not have a Cap and Trade
Program, and the deferral decision does not affect the California Cap and Trade
Program threshold of 25,000 metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Therefore,
the current impact to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District ( CCCSD) regarding this
ruling is minimal. Depending on future findings (see Attachment A and B), CCCSD
would be required to submit one additional GHG emission inventory to the USEPA.
CCCSD currently reports annual GHG emission inventories only to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and not the USEPA.
The real impact of this court ruling is on Publicly Owned Treatment Works without
Title V Permits. This Federal mandatory reporting trigger based on biogenic emissions
would also trigger requirements for a Title V Permit for larger facilities. Since CCCSD
already has a Title V Permit, this would not be a concern for the District. The Court did
not foreclose the possibility of a future exemption for biogenic sources. There was no
clear indication of how the USEPA will regulate biogenic sources in the future.
RS:amt
Attachments
Cc: R. Chang
B. Dobey
D. Robbins
R. Hess
D. Parker
NVOSUP\Greenhouse GaM2013 \Vacated Deferred GHG Reporting Rule 07- 2013.docx
On May 13, 2010, the USEPA published its final Tailoring Rule. The Tailoring Rule lays
out Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Major Source permitting
requirements for greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Federal Clean Air Act. It is
called the Tailoring Rule because it "tailors" the thresholds from the usual 100 or 250
tons/year thresholds used in the Clean Air Act for criteria pollutants to higher thresholds
that are more implementable for GHGs.
Though the rule does not distinguish between anthropogenic emissions (e.g., GHGs
from fossil fuel combustion) and biogenic emissions (e.g., GHGs from combustion of
biomass fuels such as landfill or digester gas), on July 1, 2011, the EPA issued the
"Deferral Rule" deferring the permitting requirements for biogenic sources of carbon
dioxide (CO2), including wastewater treatment plants and combustion of biogas, for a
period of three years (through July 1, 2014). As part of the Deferral Rule, the EPA
established a panel of experts serving on a Scientific Advisory Board to study the issue
of how best to address biogenic emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The Deferral Rule was a very positive development for the wastewater community and
consistent with comments that the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
and the California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) submitted in response
to the original Tailoring Rule. Unfortunately, on July 12, 2013, the US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia vacated the Deferral Rule on the grounds that the EPA failed
to adequately justify the need for it. The ruling calls into question whether the EPA will
now begin to regulate biogenic sources of CO2, or whether (and how) CO2 emissions
from composting and anaerobic digestion activities are to be regulated going forward.
Potential near -term impacts may include regulation of all sources of CO2 emissions from
processes regulated under the EPA's Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR), and larger
facilities may be in danger of triggering the PSD.
Fortunately, the court did not foreclose the possibility of a future exemption for biogenic
sources. The court specifically noted that it "leaves for another day the question
whether the agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to permanently exempt
biogenic CO2 emission sources from the PSD permitting program." It is possible that
additional information regarding a potential permanent exemption will be forthcoming in
early 2014.
NAPOSUMGreenhouse Gas\2013fteated Deferred GHG Reporting Rule 07- 2013.doc x
ATTACHMENT B
NACWA SUMMARY OF DEFERRAL RULE COURT DECISION
On July 12, a Federal court ruled : in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA that
the EPA failed to provide legal justification to support its deferral of greenhouse gas
(GHG) permitting requirements for biogenic emissions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) vacated the EPA's three -year Deferral Rule
resulting in uncertainty over the permitting requirements for biogenic sources, which
include emissions from wastewater treatment processes and the combustion of biogas
and biosolids, as well as the combustion of other biomass, such as agricultural and
forest products. The court did not close the door on the EPA's authority to finalize its
rulemaking, but emphasized the need and urgency for the Agency to expedite that
process in order to provide clarity and consistency.
In June 2010, the EPA released its GHG Tailoring Rule applying permitting regulations
to large stationary sources of carbon dioxide (CO2). The Agency did not exclude
biogenic emissions, which occur as a result of combustion or decomposition of
biological materials and are considered part of the natural carbon cycle. Without an
exclusion, the CO2 emissions from the wastewater treatment process, as well as
combustion of biosolids and biogas, will be subject to Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs. The National
Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and other industries impacted by the
rule, objected to the inclusion of biogenic emissions, emphasizing the carbon neutrality
of these emissions. This led the EPA, in January 2011, to institute the three -year
deferral while it conducted scientific analysis and developed a rulemaking to specifically
address these emissions. When environmental groups filed a legal challenge to the
deferral, NACWA filed an amicus brief in the case explaining why biogenic emissions
from clean water agencies are different in nature, noting the short carbon cycle
associated with human waste and the unavoidable nature of the emissions. The brief
also emphasized the hardship that would occur if clean water agencies were forced to
comply with the permitting requirements.
NACWA, as a member of the Biogenic CO2 Coalition, is involved in drafting a technical
report and petition for rulemaking to exclude short cycle CO2 emissions from CAA
permitting programs. Because the July 12 ruling does not foreclose a statutory
exclusion of biogenic emissions, the work of the Coalition is now even more critical.
The Association will continue to work with the Coalition to accelerate the advocacy
strategy in light of the July 12 ruling.
NAPOSUP\Greenhouse Gas12013 \Vacated Deferred GHG Reporting Rule 07- 2013.docx