Energy and Environment Monitorwww.eem.jacksonkelly.com

David Flannery and Laura Swingle Contribute to Report on Carbon Capture and Storage Prepared for the United States Department of Energy

David Flannery and Laura Swingle, attorneys in Jackson Kelly PLLC's Charleston, West Virginia, office, recently participated in the 2011 Study Group that prepared a report for the United States Department of Energy on behalf of The National Coal Council (NCC). Mr. Flannery was the lead author and Ms. Swingle was a contributing author of the Legal and Regulatory Policies chapter which was included in the report,"Expedited CCS Development: Challenges & Opportunities." 

The purpose of the NCC is solely to advise, inform and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy with respect to any matter relating to coal or the coal industry that he may request. 

Mr. Flannery is a Member of Jackson Kelly PLLC and is the manager of the Firm's Environmental Law Department. Ms. Swingle is an associate in the Environmental Practice Group. 

The report can be read in its entirety by clicking here.

Bioconversion of In-Situ Coal to Methane: Microbes Used to Convert Coal to Gaseous Fuel

Wyoming Research Focuses on Nutrient Injection to Coal Seams

Microbes are continually converting the subsurface hydrocarbon deposits to natural gas, and if managed properly, are touted as being able to increase the recovery of coal-bed methane.  Luca Technologies Inc., based in Denver, Colorado, said laboratory evidence indicates that anaerobic microbes, bacteria that live in the absence of oxygen, are turning the coals of northeast Wyoming into methane. 

The company has coined the term "geobioreactors" to describe the microbial conversion of coals, organic shales, or oil to methane gas, and believes careful management may offer a long-term solution to U.S. energy needs. 

"Our research on native coal, water and microbial samples from the Powder River Basin (PRB) has determined that PRB coals can produce natural gas in real time," said Robert Pfeiffer, Luca's president and chief executive officer. 

"This finding suggests that the (methane) gas in the PRB need not be an ancient remnant of microbial activity, as generally believed, but instead is being actively created today." 

Luca scientists say that methane production can be increased or decreased by altering the microbes' access to water or nutrients, or that production can be halted entirely by exposing the organisms to oxygen or heat sterilization. 

"This finding holds the potential of turning what is today thought to be a finite energy resource into a renewable source of natural gas that could potentially go on for hundreds of years," Pfeiffer said. 

Maximizing recovery of methane from microbial conversion will require amending current operating practices as well as reviewing the legal and regulatory framework of energy development, he said. 

Luca Technologies has raised $76 million to scale up a process that uses coal-digesting microorganisms to convert coal into methane. The process is designed to operate underground, inside coal beds.  Methane, the key component of natural gas, can then be pumped out and used in the same applications as conventionally produced natural gas. 

As little as one-hundredth of 1 percent of the coal in the United States converted into methane by microbes would supply the country's current annual natural-gas demands, says Andrew Scott, a former professor of economic geology at the University of Texas at Austin.  Scott is the founder of Altuda Energy Corporation, based in San Antonio, TX, which is developing a similar process. 

Most natural gas is the product of heat and pressure over millions of years.  But Scott, working at the University of Texas in the mid-1990s, helped show that a significant fraction of natural gas is constantly being produced by microorganisms that feed on coal.  First, one type of microbe breaks the long hydrocarbon molecules found in coal into shorter molecules.  Other microbes convert these molecules into organic acids and alcohols.  Finally, microbes called methanogens feed on these and produce methane as a byproduct of their metabolism. 

The researchers at Luca have learned to increase the amount of methane that these microorganisms produce, both in laboratory experiments and inside coal beds, by adding various nutrients and otherwise changing the chemistry of the microbes' living environment. 

The other company looking to tap into the new source of energy, Ciris Energy, got a $4.8 million matching state grant in 2009 to build an above-ground pilot facility that would employ microbes to turn coal into methane. 

Luca and Ciris Energy have begun experimenting with using this type of microbe-friendly formula in gas wells that were drilled into coal deposits years ago. The companies have been spiking the wells with substances including calcium, magnesium, phosphate and glycerol, which encourage the micro-organisms to reproduce, feed and release the coveted methane gas.  The hope is to get old and nearly tapped-out coal-bed methane wells to double or perhaps triple gas production. 

Mark Finkelstein, Luca's vice president of bioscience, says that the company has tested its methods in coal beds where wells had been drilled to collect natural gas (about 10 percent of the natural gas mined in the United States comes from coal beds).  Many of these wells had stopped producing natural gas, or produced too little to be profitable.  After treatment, production increased, and the wells became profitable again, Finkelstein says. 

Luca officials cast aside environmental concerns, saying its process for tapping into natural gas is more eco-friendly and efficient than drilling because the wells, roads and pipelines already are in place.  Acquiring methane from existing coal beds requires very little new infrastructure, Luca says, and puts to use byproduct groundwater by pumping the water back down into the coal-bed methane wells. 

About 30,000 coal-bed methane wells have been drilled in the Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming over the past 15 years.  About half are nearly or completely tapped out.  Many other coal-bed methane wells have been drilled elsewhere in the nation, with thousands more likely to be drilled in the coming decades. 

Finkelstein says that based on initial results, the company's process could extend the lifetime of natural-gas wells.  Conventional techniques for extracting natural gas from coal kill the gas-producing organisms found naturally in these coal beds, first, by removing the water that they need, and second, by exposing them to oxygen, which is deadly to them. By carefully maintaining conditions favorable to the microorganisms, the company allows them to continue digesting the coal and producing methane.  The company could also employ its techniques to collect useful fuel from coal that's inaccessible to conventional mining, Finkelstein says. 

Scott says that it's still unclear how much of the coal reserves in the United States can be converted into methane. Much depends on the nature of the coal bed, including factors such as the surface area of the coal that the microbes feed on. 

Louisiana Research Focuses on CO2 Injection to Coal Seams

Something amazing is happening in the Wilcox formation, a coal-bearing stretch of bedrock beneath central Louisiana.  Bacteria that naturally feast on carbon dioxide (CO2) and coal in the presence of water are working overtime, producing methane (CH4) as a byproduct. 

Why is this so special?  The CO2 isn't naturally occurring.  In the 1980's an oil company working in the area injected it into a deep underground well in an effort to push out more petroleum.  The well was later abandoned.  But since then microbes have been busy taking our waste CO2, some hydrogen atoms out of the coal beds, and a few other nutrients and turning it into a fuel we can burn for energy. 

This finding comes via a paper by Jennifer McIntosh of the University of Arizona and a team of researchers that's just been published in GSA Bulletin. 

It raises an exciting possibility -- instead of destructively mining coal, burning it, and emitting CO2 as a greenhouse gas, what if we left it in the ground and seeded it with bacteria and CO2?  The team's results show what no one in the scientific community has before -- that microbes may convert CO2 to natural gas on fast enough timescales to be a useful source of energy. 

For further details onthe research and pilot projects to bioconvert coal to methane, see the following: 

http://www.lucatechnologies.com/ 

http://www.cirisenergy.com/ 

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21932/?a=f 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3188 

http://news.discovery.com/earth/bacteria-turn-coal-and-oil-into-renewable-energy.html 

http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&id=761 

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  Any opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author, and are not intended as legal or professional guidance to any specific readers.  For more information on the author see here.

Extension to Greenhouse Gas Reporting Deadline for 2010 Reporting Period

EPA recently issued a final rule extending the deadline for reporting 2010 data under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program to September 30, 2011. The original deadline was March 31, 2011.  

EPA's GHG Reporting Program requires the reporting of GHG data from large emission sources across a range of industry sectors, as well as suppliers of products that would emit GHGs if released or combusted. The data is intended to help guide policy decisions and the development of future programs which the EPA might implement to reduce these emissions. 

Entities submitting data through the electronic GHG reporting tool (e-GGRT) must register using e-GGRT no later than 60 days before the reporting deadline. Thus, the new deadline for registering with e-GGRT is August 1, 2011. The rule changes ONLY the deadline for entities required to report 2010 emissions. It does not change the reporting deadline for future years and does not change what data must be reported. 

Some underground coal mines are required to report 2010 emissions. For example, an underground mine with associated large stationary combustion sources such as thermal dryers and with emissions above the triggering threshold may be required to collect data in calendar 2010 and report by March 31, 2011. The extension applies to those mines. 

Most underground coal mines are not required to report 2010 emissions, however, and the rule granting an extension is not applicable to underground coal mines required to begin reporting 2011 emissions by March 31, 2012. For those underground coal mines, the first deadline under the GHG Reporting Rule is the preparation of a Monitoring Plan by March 31, 2011.   

This article was authored by Matthew S. Tyree, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

U.S. EPA Extends GHG Reporting and Registration Deadlines

In early March, U.S. EPA announced it was deferring the original deadline of March 31, 2011, for reporting 2010 data under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program until sometime later this year.  U.S. EPA followed up on that announcement and published a final rule in the Federal Register on March 18, 2011, deferring the original deadline for reporting year 2010 greenhouse gas emissions until September 31, 2011.  76 Fed. Reg. 14,812.  The final rule took effect upon publication and changes only the deadline for reporting for 2011.  It does not change the reporting deadline for future years and does not change what data must be reported.  U.S. EPA states in the preamble to the final rule that its intent to publish non-confidential 2010 data by December 2011 remains unchanged.  U.S. EPA also states in its press release that it plans to have the final uploading tool, called the Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), available this summer.  Because the regulatory deadline for reporters of 2010 GHG data to register in e-GGRT is at least 60 days before the reporting deadline (40 CFR §98.4(d)), the March 18, 2011 final rule extending the reporting deadline also has the effect of extending the registration deadline to at least 60 days before September 30, 2011.  For the text of the final rule, click here. 

The final rule affects only those facilities and suppliers required to begin monitoring emissions on January 1, 2010, under U.S. EPA’s GHG Reporting Program, which is codified at 40 CFR Part 98.  The affected reporters include facilities and suppliers in the following source categories:  

Source Categories Covered by March 18, 2011 Final Rule	40 CFR Part 98	Federal Register notice
General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources	Subpart C	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Electricity Generation	Subpart D	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Adipic Acid Production	Subpart E	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Aluminum Production	Subpart F	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Ammonia Manufacturing	Subpart G	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Cement Production	Subpart H	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Ferroalloy Production	Subpart K	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Glass Production	Subpart N	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction	Subpart O	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Hydrogen Production	Subpart P	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Iron and Steel Production	Subpart Q	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Lead Production	Subpart R	74 Fed. Reg. 56260
Lime Manufacturing	Subpart S	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate	Subpart U	74 Fed. Reg. 56260
Nitric Acid Production	Subpart V	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Petrochemical Production	Subpart X	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Petroleum Refineries	Subpart Y	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Phosphoric Acid Production	Subpart Z	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing	Subpart AA	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Silicon Carbide Production	Subpart BB	74 Fed. Reg. 56260
Soda Ash Manufacturing	Subpart CC	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Titanium Dioxide Production	Subpart EE	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Zinc Production	Subpart GG	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills	Subpart HH	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels	Subpart LL	74 Fed. Reg. 56260
Suppliers of Petroleum Products	Subpart MM	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434
Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids	Subpart NN	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 66434, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases	Subpart OO	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide	Subpart PP	74 Fed. Reg. 56260, 75 Fed. Reg. 79092

The following eleven source categories are not affected by the March 18, 2011 final rule.  Facilities and sources in these source categories, except Manure Management, report for the first time in 2011.  U.S. EPA will not be implementing GHG reporting for Manure Management because Congress prohibited the expenditure of funds in U.S. EPA’s fiscal year 2010 appropriations (Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, Public Law 111-242) for this purpose.  

Source Categories Not Covered by March 18, 2011 Final Rule	40 CFR Part 98	Federal Register notice
Electronics Manufacturing	Subpart I	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg.18652, 75 Fed. Reg. 74774
Ethanol Production	Subpart J	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 39736
Fluorinated Gas Production	Subpart L	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 18652, 75 Fed. Reg. 74774
Food Processing	Subpart M	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 39736
Magnesium Production	Subpart T	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 39736
Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems	Subpart W	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 18608, 75 Fed. Reg. 74458
Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment	Subpart DD	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg.18652, 75 Fed. Reg. 74774
Underground Coal Mines	Subpart FF	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 39736
Industrial Wastewater Treatment	Subpart II	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 39736
Manure Management	Subpart JJ	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 74 Fed. Reg. 56260
Suppliers of Coal	Subpart KK	74 Fed. Reg. 16648, 75 Fed. Reg. 39736

In the preamble to the final rule, U.S. EPA explains its rationale for the extension of the GHG reporting deadline.  In U.S. EPA’s words, the extension is necessary to:

     allow EPA to test and refine e-GGRT more extensively; give stakeholders the opportunity to test the  tool and provide feedback to EPA, allowing [the Agency] to further refine the tool and better tailor [its] training and outreach; and give reporters time to become familiar with the tool in advance of the reporting deadline, improving their reporting experience and the quality of the reported data.  76 Fed. Reg. at 14,815/2.

U.S. EPA relies upon the “good cause” exemption in Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act to publish the final rule without notice and comment and to make the final rule effective on the date of publication.  To support the “good cause” exemption, U.S. EPA points to the “cumulative effects” of the reasons for the reporting deadline extension as well as changes to the reporting system required by the various additions and amendments to Part 98, stating that these “cumulative effects did not become apparent in time for EPA to extend the reporting deadline through a notice and comment rulemaking process.” Id. at 14,816/1.  In addition, U.S. EPA states that it “received far more requests for assistance with registration in e-GGRT…than had been expected.”  U.S. EPA describes “the number and diversity of requests for clarification or assistance with registration” as “strong evidence of the necessity of stakeholder testing and advanced reporter familiarity with the reporting system” and asserts that this necessity “only recently came to light.”  Id.

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce’s 2011 Environmental Conference

On May 24, 2011, Jackson Kelly PLLC will co-sponsor the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce’s 2011 Environmental Conference at the Embassy Suites in Charleston, West Virginia.  The Environmental Conference includes a talented list of environmental experts and professionals who will speak on a variety of topics including compliance and regulatory developments in air, water, and waste material at the state and federal level.  Included on the program is Jackson Kelly Member Robert McLusky.  He will present on the recent West Virginia Environmental Quality Board decision regarding the Department of Environmental Protection's narrative criteria and how it might impact the regulated community.  Click here for the full agenda and registration information.

Federal Government Creates First Wind Energy Areas off Coasts of Four Mid-Atlantic States

On February 7, 2011, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced the locations of four Wind Energy Areas off the coasts of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware. Wind Energy Areas are part of the Department of the Interior’s “Smart from the Start” program, which hopes to utilize government funding and resources to reduce the technical and regulatory challenges for the first wave of developers of offshore wind projects. In the coming months, additional Wind Energy Areas will be designated off the coasts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.  

 

At each Wind Energy Area, a map of them can be seen here, the government will begin by conducting regional environmental assessments that will coordinate the efforts of the many federal agencies whose input is needed to evaluate the impacts of offshore wind projects. The government hopes that by funding the expensive baseline research and producing environmental assessments for each Wind Energy Area, developers will incur lower costs and shorter permitting delays when developing future large-scale wind projects.

 

If the environmental assessment for a Wind Energy Area finds no significant impact, the government could start leasing the areas by the end of 2011. While individual wind projects would still need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the government estimates that its efforts will cut the time needed for a developer to complete a project, previously estimated at 7-10 years, nearly in half.

 

An example of the red tape the Smart from the Start program hopes to avoid is Cape Wind, which will likely be the first U.S. offshore wind project when it is completed in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind received its final permit last month, nearly a decade after it first entered the regulatory labyrinth. Through its decade-long regulatory struggle, the developers of had to obtain permits from 17 separate state and federal agencies. 

 

The two largest obstacles to the development offshore wind development  in the U.S. are likely to be legal challenges from environmental groups and the struggle of offshore wind power to compete economically with electricity from traditional sources. The cost of electricity from offshore wind projects is projected to cost $0.27/kWh, which even the Department of the Interior concedes will need to drop by 50% before it can even hope to be competitive on a large scale. Additionally, while the government hopes to streamline the environmental permitting process, recent history shows that many environmental groups try to prevent even renewable energy projects from being constructed. Just last month, for example, Sierra Club filed suit to oppose a 663.5 MW solar thermal project that was going to be located in the Mojave Desert of California because of its potential effects on endangered desert tortoises.

 

This article was authored by Aaron S. Heishman, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Biomass Fuel Could Supplement Coal for Power Generation: Renewable Biomass Crops Used as a Dry Pellet or Powder Fuel Source

There has been considerable discussion and investment in utilizing plant materials to produce liquid biofuels, most notably corn-derived ethanol and biodiesel from plant-derived oils.  Now there is growing interest in the potential use of specific plant crops or plant by-products as a supplemental solid fuel. 

Several U.K. power stations are now burning plant matter, or biomass, as well as coal in a bid to cut their carbon footprint.  Unlike fossil fuels, plants such as willow, Miscanthus and poplar are a nearly carbon-neutral source of energy: the carbon dioxide emitted when they burn is absorbed during photosynthesis by the next batch of 'energy crops' planted in their place.  However, any plant crop indirectly generates some carbon emissions (and emissions of conventional air pollutants and water pollutants) because of the need for fuel to operate tractors, harvesters, trucks, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation, etc. 

The potential environmental benefits of biomass are countered by some practical and economic challenges that are forcing power stations to restrict the amount of biomass used.  When harvested, biomass is moist and bulky, making it relatively expensive to transport and difficult to store for long periods without rotting. The fibrous plant matter is also extremely difficult to process in the grinding mills that are used to pulverize lumps of coal to an optimal size before combustion. 

According to researchers from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, more plant matter could be burned in coal-fired power units if this 'green' fuel was delivered pre-roasted like coffee beans. 

A roasting process known as torrefaction is the answer, according to Professor Jenny Jones and colleagues from the University of Leeds' School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering. This process, which sees the plant matter heated to around 300 degrees centigrade (about 550 degrees F) in an air-free container, transforms bulky wet biomass into a dry, energy-rich fuel that is cheaper and easier to transport and has a much longer shelf life. 

A study of two common energy crops, willow and Miscanthus, has also shown that when the plant matter is 'torrefied' it can be ground into a powder just as easily as some good quality coals. This makes it far more practical and cost-effective to supplement coal fuel with biomass at existing coal-fired power stations. 

"If we can show that torrefaction is feasible on an industrial scale then we would hope to end up with a demonstration plant here in the U.K.," Jones said. "We already know that many more farmers would be interested in growing energy crops on areas of poorer quality soil if the economic barriers were lowered and the power companies could use more biomass without losing out financially." 

The project will address outstanding questions about the safety, practicality and environmental impact of large-scale torrefaction.  For example, researchers will find out what the liquid and gaseous by-products of the roasting process are.  They will also assess how likely it is for dust generated by the roasting and milling processes to trigger explosions. 

The researchers will work with a range of different materials that could potentially become a viable solid fuel source in future.  These include energy crops such as willow and Miscanthus, which are grown specifically for making 'green' fuel, as well as waste plant matter from forestry plantations and farms, such as the branches of harvested trees and straw. 

"These are all materials that grow well in the U.K. but not at the expense of food crops," Jones said.  "We do not want farmers to have to choose between planting a field of wheat or barley and a field of willow.  Ultimately, this is all about providing a secure energy supply for the future and one that is sustainable on all levels. "  The work is being carried out in collaboration with Alstom Power, Drax Power, EON and RWE nPower. 

For further details onpotential biomass solid fuels and torrefaction, see the following: 

University of Leeds:  http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/439/energy_crops_take_a_roasting, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/forstaff/news/article/1384/wake_up_and_smell_the_willow

State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry:  http://www.esf.edu/willow/

Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html

Basics of Torrefaction Process:  http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2008/11/19/torrefaction-%E2%80%93-a-new-process-in-biomass-and-biofuels/

This article was partially excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  Any opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author, and are not intended as legal or professional guidance to any specific readers.  For more information on the author see here.

U.S. EPA’s Draft Plan for Siting Renewable Energy on Brownfields and Mine Sites

            U.S. EPA recently released its draft plan to develop renewable energy on Superfund, Brownfields, former landfills, and mining sites. The draft plan was released October 14, 2010, and is part of the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative that the Agency commenced in September 2008. The draft plan will likely be of interest to parties responsible for remediating sites, the renewable energy sector, utilities in states like West Virginia having renewable portfolio standards, and state and local governments, to name a few. For the text of the draft plan, click here. 

 

Advantages noted by U.S. EPA for siting renewable energy facilities on potentially contaminated lands and mine sites include: they offer thousands of acres of land with few site owners, have critical infrastructure in place, and provide an economically viable reuse for sites with significant cleanup costs or low real estate development demand. In addition, U.S. EPA emphasizes the government programs that support cleanup and reuse and the amount of potentially contaminated land and mine sites available for renewable energy projects. According to U.S. EPA, there exist almost 15 million acres of U.S. EPA-tracked potentially contaminated properties, of which 917,000 acres have achieved cleanup goals and have controls in place, and at least 3.2 million acres of abandoned mine land.   U.S. EPA also notes that siting renewable energy on potentially contaminated land and mine sites prevents urban sprawl, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and provides job opportunities. 

 

            The draft plan, titled “RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative Management Plan,” is the result of meetings with stakeholders in 2009. The draft plan outlines U.S. EPA’s goals, objectives, action items, and timelines over a 2-year period for advancing the siting of renewable energy on potentially contaminated lands and mine sites. While the stakeholder meetings focused on barriers to using contaminated sites for renewable energy projects and how to overcome those barriers, U.S. EPA does not commit to any additional liability relief provisions in the draft plan. 

 

            The draft plan identifies three goals and five objectives and twenty action items for measuring and achieving the goals. The three goals are: (1) “provid[ing] incentives and technical assistance for siting renewable energy on contaminated land”; (2) creat[ing] a unified federal approach to promote siting of renewable energy on contaminated land”; and (3) “improving communication and sharing of data on siting renewable energy on contaminated land to enable stakeholders to successfully reuse sites for renewable energy.”   

 

Technical Assistance (Goal 1): U.S. EPA plans to develop a “SWAT” team of experts from across the Agency (e.g., Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, Superfund, Brownfields, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), with a main point of contact in each Region, to be “on call” to respond to questions from developers and communities. U.S. EPA also plans to issue guidance by March 2011 for siting renewable energy while cleanup is ongoing. U.S. EPA plans to issue guidance for siting renewable energy post cleanup but does not give a timeline for the post cleanup guidance. In addition, U.S. EPA plans to develop draft technical guidance on siting photovoltaic (PV) solar on closed landfills. U.S. EPA plans to identify the environmental, legal, and technical considerations necessary to site renewable energy on landfills and to create a “how-to” document by April 2011.

 

To assist communities in identifying and reusing sites for renewable energy, U.S. EPA plans to develop criteria and issue a solicitation in Winter 2011 for pilot projects on Superfund, Brownfields, petroleum-contaminated properties such as former gas stations, and former landfills or mining sites. U.S. EPA will also develop a training model that includes workforce development training for siting renewable energy on contaminated land that can be incorporated in the OSWER-wide Workforce Development Training by Spring 2011. 

 

To enhance capacity and outreach to states and local governments, U.S. EPA plans to develop a handbook to identify what needs to be done to site a renewable energy project on contaminated land by Spring 2011 and to offer training by Fall 2011. The training would provide state employees the skills to conduct a basic screening of sites to determine renewable energy potential. 

 

U.S. EPA also plans to explore ways to use its Google Earth Tool to add sites from other sources. U.S. EPA plans to develop pilot initiatives to include sites from state programs, other federal agencies, and also plans to explore ways for interested parties to add a site to Google Earth. U.S. EPA plans to initiate these pilots in Summer 2011.

 

Mapping tools already available include a Google Earth interactive mapping tool, searchable data spreadsheet and shapefile, and national and state renewable energy maps, and data guidelines. The mapping tool can be searched by renewable energy technology or type of contaminated site and provides the site’s location, site name and identification information, cleanup status, U.S. EPA Region and program managing the site, a link to the site’s cleanup status information, acreage, renewable energy resource availability, and existing infrastructure and attributes such as nearby roads and buildings.  The state and national maps include U.S. EPA-tracked sites as well as some state-tracked sites. For example, West Virginia’s renewable energy map includes West Virginia U.S. EPA-tracked sites with biopower and biorefinery potential and West Virginia abandoned coal mine areas with wind, solar, biopower, biorefinery, and geothermal potential.

 

Incentives (Goal 1): U.S. EPA plans to explore opportunities to promote model RE-Powering incentives in Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). U.S. EPA’s OSWER Center for Program Analysis and Regions 8 and 9 will begin working with state groups on model language for an RPS incentive at the state level during Winter 2011. U.S. EPA is also engaged in the REC market by buying RECs to be a green-powered agency. U.S. EPA plans to use its purchasing power to buy its RECs from renewable energy generation facilities on contaminated sites. 

 

U.S. EPA’s incentive fact sheets include information about federal and state funding, tax incentives, technical assistance and other incentives that are available for renewable energy generation and contaminated land redevelopment. West Virginia’s incentive fact sheet, for example, includes: the Direct Loan Program of the West Virginia Economic Development Authority; Special Assessment for Wind Energy Systems; West Virginia Renewable Energy Program; Tax Exemption for Wind Energy Generation; Industrial Expansion and Industrial Revitalization Credit for Electrical Power Producers; net metering; Northern and Southern WV Brownfields Assistance Centers; and West Virginia Voluntary Remediation Program.

 

            Unified Federal Approach (Goal 2): U.S. EPA plans to partner with other federal agencies to promote RE-Powering America’s land in their programs and work with federal land owners to site renewable energy on contaminated land. U.S. EPA plans to work with the U.S. Department of Energy on siting renewable energy on contaminated land and to establish a federal partnership workgroup to, among other things, incorporate incentives for siting renewable energy on contaminated lands into other federal agencies renewable energy grant/loan guarantee programs, tax incentives, and outreach programs. U.S. EPA also plans to work with federal land owners such as the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and Office of Surface Mining, to identify revisions to existing national or field guides to encourage the siting of renewable energy projects on federal or mixed-ownership lands. 

 

            Improved Communication (Goal 3): To improve how the Agency delivers information, U.S. EPA plans to develop case studies tied to specific barriers to siting renewable energy on contaminated sites and post on the Agency’s website case studies of sites that have overcome these barriers. U.S. EPA plans to use the case studies to develop fact sheets and Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on each of the barriers. U.S. EPA also plans to evaluate the advantages of siting renewable energy on contaminated lands, including reduced permitting time, lower land costs, and less public opposition. Further, U.S. EPA plans to expand the tool box of resources so that the tool box becomes a clearinghouse of information, including innovative financing information and links to existing resources prepared by stakeholders. The enhanced tool box is expected to be available in Spring 2011. 

 

Because the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative involves many groups with whom U.S. EPA does not traditionally communicate, such as renewable energy developers, U.S. EPA plans to update its communication strategy to improve outreach, such as DVDs, webinars, videos and video town hall meetings, and podcasts. U.S. EPA also plans to develop targeted materials to reach out to utilities. The utility outreach will begin in Winter 2011. Further, U.S. EPA plans outreach to the financial industry and economic development groups beginning in Fall 2010. 

 

            To clarify liability to address perceived barriers, U.S. EPA plans to “[r]eview existing liability tools to determine if new tools [such as liability release provisions] are needed to specifically address liability concerns unique to renewable energy development,” “[d]evelop new tools if warranted,” and to “[c]ompile existing tools in one place.” U.S. EPA expects to have a checklist of liability tools completed by Fall 2010 and to complete the assessment of those tools by Winter 2011.

 

U.S. EPA will also develop case studies that explain how developers were able to lease contaminated sites. In addition to the case studies, U.S. EPA will develop a fact sheet for potential lessees of contaminated property for renewable energy generation. U.S. EPA expects to begin developing case studies and posting them on its website in Fall 2010. Fact sheets are expected to be completed in Fall 2010. 

 

            To evaluate, measure, and report on the effectiveness of the RE-Powering America’s Land activities, U.S. EPA plans to track renewable energy on contaminated lands projects and collect specific data that can be used to measure progress and environmental benefits, measure the Agency’s progress meeting its management plan milestones for each action item, report progress annually, and evaluate the effectiveness of the RE-Powering Initiative by developing a report with findings and recommendations for improving the program. 

 

            For additional background on U.S. EPA’s RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative, see article by Barbara D. Little on the Energy & Environment Monitor posted October 22, 2008, and titled “Former Mining and Industrial Property Sites Prime Candidates for Development of Renewable Energy”.

 

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.

US EPA Greenhouse Gas Electronic Reporting Tool

The US EPA is in the process of developing the web based reporting system for the mandatory Greenhouse Gas reporting rule, which is identified as e-GGRT. In October, US EPA provided webinars on the e-GGRT user and facility/supplier registration. US EPA is still developing the system for emission reporting and did not discuss issues with emission reporting.   It is anticipated that the user and facility/supplier registration will be available in Fall 2010.

 

e-GGRT is a web-based system that will guide reporters through data entry and submission and will have built-in calculations. Reporters may choose to format their annual GHG report according to the e-GGRT XML format. Information on the e-GGRT XML format is available here. All data is submitted to EPA electronically in e-GGRT except for the one-time Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) which is submitted on paper. 

 

User Registration:

 

All users are required to set up their own account. If a user has a Central Data Exchange (CDX) account and/or Clean Air Markets Division account the user name and password will be needed when setting up the user account. Three types of accounts can be established which are Designated Representative (DR), Alternate DR and Agent. 

 

The Designated Representative must print, sign, date and mail the Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) to e-GGRT help desk at the address provided. The ESA must be received and approved by the e-GGRT help desk before January 30, 2011. Currently US EPA is estimating that the processing of ESA will take five business days from receipt. The Designated Representative will be informed by email of acceptance of the ESA. 

 

Other users can be established. The Alternative DR must be assigned by the DR. The Alternative DR must print, sign, date and mail the Certificate of Representation. An Agent can be assigned by the DR or Alternative DR. A Notice of Delegation must be filled out to establish the relationship between the facility and agent.   

 

If a facility is in a Clean Air Markets Division program (Acid Rain, NOx trading), the facility must use the same person as the Designated Representative and Alternate Designated Representative (if present).

 

Facility/Supplier Registration:

 

A Designated Representative must be approved before the facility and/or supplier registration can proceed. The facility and/or supplier must be completed before January 30, 2011. 

  

Registration Deadlines:

 

As previously stated, a Designated Representative and a facility and/or supplier registrations must be completed by January 30, 2011. Greenhouse Gas emission reporting must be completed by March 31, 2011. 

 

Facilities and/or suppliers should determine the appropriate Designated Representative, Alternate DR and Agents while waiting for e-GGRT to become active. Once the e-GGRT is available for use, the process for establishing the user and facility/supplier accounts should begin.  

 

More information on the e-GGRT is available at http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/emissions/data-reporting-system.html

 

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.

Is West Virginia Poised for Geothermal Energy Development?

New research shows West Virginia’s high potential for utility-scale geothermal

Could geothermal energy be a new growth industry for West Virginia? What seemed an unlikely opportunity in the past is now a real possibility for our state. West Virginia is already in the fortunate position of being energy-rich – with its abundant reserves and production of coal, conventional natural gas and Marcellus Shale natural gas. The state has also substantially expanded its wind power production capacity, and hydropower electricity production is on the upswing. The Mountain State also produces modest amounts of crude oil and fuel biomass (timbering and lumber industry wood by-products).

 

To that robust mixture of energy sources, West Virginia is potentially well-positioned to become a major player in geothermal energy production, according to a study by Southern Methodist University (SMU) of Dallas, TX, released in early October 2010.

 

The SMU study revealed a large area in east central West Virginia has been found to have elevated heat flow and upper crustal temperatures compared to the rest of the eastern United States.  The high heat flow has been recognized based on interpretation of bottom-hole temperature (BHT) data from oil and gas drilling in the area. The temperatures are high enough to make this the most attractive area for Geothermal Energy development in the eastern third of the country, and the heat in place is sufficient to support large scale development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems.

 

The high heat flow is located primarily beneath the western slope of the Appalachian Mountains’ Allegheny Front, especially in the West Virginia counties of Tucker, Randolph, Pocahontas, and Greenbrier.  The trend of the highest heat flow area is almost due north to south. Figure 1 below shows the index map of heat flow (mW/m2), while Figure 2 shows West Virginia maps of temperature-at-depth (degrees Celsius vs kilometers depth).

 

Because drilling makes up a significant percentage of the cost for geothermal development, the most favorable areas will be the highest temperatures at shallowest depths, making the most favorable areas somewhat site specific.  Much of the thermal energy resides in basement rocks below the sedimentary section. 

 

The favorability for Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) development depends primarily on reservoir temperature and the suitability of target formations for the generation of heat reservoirs.  Areas with low natural rock permeability but high temperatures of more than 150 degC (300 degF) are “enhanced” by injecting fluid and other reservoir engineering techniques.  EGS resources are typically deeper than hydrothermal and represent the largest share of total geothermal resources.  EGS is being pursued globally in Germany, Australia, France, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.  EGS is being tested in deep sedimentary basins similar to West Virginia’s in Germany and Australia.

 

The SMU Geothermal Laboratory has increased its estimate of West Virginia’s geothermal generation potential to 18,890 megawatts (assuming a conservative 2% thermal recovery rate). The new estimate represents a 75 percent increase over estimates in MIT’s 2006 “The Future of Geothermal Energy” report and exceeds the state’s total current generating capacity, primarily coal based, of 16,350 megawatts. While it is highly unlikely that much geothermal will get developed, the analysis suggests that West Virginia could be a good spot for some large-scale geothermal power plants.

 

Figure 1 - Index map of heat flow (mW/m2) 

 

 Figure 2 - Temperature-at-depth (degC vs km depth) 

 

Conclusions

This SMU investigation of the thermal regime of the eastern U.S. has defined a significant thermal anomaly along the Appalachian Mountain trend in West Virginia and demonstrated that temperatures high enough for electrical power generation occur at depths greater than 4 to 5 km in large areas of eastern West Virginia.  This finding opens the possibility of geothermal energy production near the heavily populated Eastern Seaboard.  Further research is needed to refine estimates of the magnitude and distribution of West Virginia’s geothermal resource.  The presence of a large, baseload, carbon neutral, and sustainable energy resource in West Virginia could make an important contribution to enhancing U.S. energy security and for decreasing CO2 emissions.

 

For further details on potential Geothermal Power in West Virginia, see the following:

 

Southern Methodist University - Scientific Paper

Elevated Crustal Temperatures in West Virginia: Potential for Geothermal Power

http://smu.edu/smunews/geothermal/documents/west-virginia-temperatures.asp

 

The Register-Herald.com  (Beckley, WV Newspaper)

“W.Va. looks good for geothermal energy production” [October 11, 2010]

http://www.register-herald.com/local/x921681819/W-Va-looks-good-for-geothermal-energy-production

 

This article was partially excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  Any opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author, and are not intended as legal or professional guidance to any specific readers. . For more information on the author see here.