Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

In re La Paloma Energy Center, LLC

03/14/2014

Case Number:CAA Appeal No. 13-10
ELR Citation:44 ELR 41369

Sierra Club petitions the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) to review a greenhouse gas (“GHG”) prevention of significant deterioration permit that Region 6 (“Region”) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued to the La Paloma Energy Center, LLC (“LPEC”) pursuant to Clean Air Act §165, 42 U.S.C. §7475. The permit authorizes LPEC to construct and operate a 637- to 735-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Harlingen, Texas. Sierra Club challenges the permit’s emission limits for greenhouse gases on two grounds, claiming that the Region clearly erred or abused its discretion (1) by failing to base the permitted GHG emission limits for the combined cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines that will be used at this facility on the energy efficiency of the most efficient of the three turbine models that LPEC identified for potential use at this facility, and (2) by declining to require LPEC to consider adding a solar thermal energy component to the proposed facility in order to further reduce GHG emissions because the Region incorrectly concluded that solar technology would “redefine the source.”

Held: The Board denies the petition for review of the Region’s final permit decision.

1) Issue Concerning the Permit’s GHG Emission Limits for the Combustion Turbines
Sierra Club has failed to demonstrate that the Region clearly erred or abused its discretion in establishing the GHG permit limits for the combustion turbines at the proposed LPEC facility. The Board finds no support in EPA’s BACT guidance for Sierra Club’s position that the three specific turbine models proposed by LPEC must be identified as separate control technologies throughout the Region’s five-step analysis. The Region had a rational basis for its determinations that all three of the permitted turbine models are comparably efficient on a performance basis, that the assigned BACT limits are substantially equivalent except for  marginal differences attributable to capacity, and that the GHG emission limits for all three turbine models represent BACT for highly efficient combined cycle combustion turbines.

(2) Issue Concerning Region’s Conclusion That Solar Technology Would “Redefine the Source”
Sierra Club has failed to demonstrate that the Region abused its discretion in concluding that adding solar technology to this facility would “redefine the source.” Under the circumstances of this case, the business purposes and site-specific constraints described in the administrative record support the Region’s conclusion that the addition of supplemental solar power to this facility would constitute redesign of the source.

(
1)
I
ssu
e Co
n
cern
in
g
th
e P
erm
it’s G
HG
Em
issio
n
L
im
its f
o
r th
e
Co
m
b
u
stio
n
T
u
rb
in
es
Sierra
C
lu
b
h
as
f
ailed
to
d
em
o
n
s
trate
th
at
th
e
Reg
io
n
clearly
erred
o
r
a
b
u
sed
its
d
iscretio
n
in
estab
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
th
e
G
HG
p
erm
it
lim
its
f
o
r
th
e
c
o
m
b
u
s
tio
n
tu
rb
in
es
at
th
e
p
ro
p
o
sed
L
P
EC
f
a
cility
.
T
h
e
Bo
ard
f
in
d
s
no
su
p
p
o
rt
in
EP
A
’s
BA
CT
g
uid
an
c
e
f
o
r
Sierra
Clu
b
’s
po
sitio
n
th
at
t
h
e
th
r
ee
sp
ecif
ic
tu
rb
in
e
m
o
d
els
p
ro
p
o
sed
b
y
L
P
EC
mu
st
b
e
id
en
tif
ied
as
sep
arate
co
n
tro
l
tech
n
o
lo
g
ies
th
ro
u
g
h
ou
t
th
e
R
eg
io
n
’s
f
iv
e-step
an
aly
sis.
T
h
e
Reg
io
n
h
a
d
a
ratio
n
al
b
asis
f
o
r
its
determ
in
a
t
i
on
s
th
at
all
th
ree
o
f
th
e
perm
itted
tu
r
bin
e
m
o
d
els
are
c
o
m
p
arab
ly
e
f
f
icien
t
o
n
a
p
erf
orm
an
c
e
b
asis
,
t
h
a
t
th
e
assig
n
ed
BA
CT
l
im
its
are
su
b
s
tan
tially
eq
u
iv
alen
t
ex
cep
t
f
o
r
m
arg
in
al
d
if
f
eren
ce
s
a
ttrib
u
tab
le
to
cap
acity
,
an
d
th
at
th
e
G
HG
em
is
s
i
o
n
l
i
mits
f
o
r
all
th
ree
tu
rb
in
e
m
o
d
els
rep
resen
t
BA
CT
f
o
r
h
ig
h
ly
e
f
f
icien
t
co
m
b
in
ed
c
y
cle co
m
b
u
stio
n
tu
rb
in

es