Good morning. I am Barbara Berney of the Environmental League of Massachusetts. The Environmental League The Environmental League is a citizen-based education and advocacy organization that works to bring about strong and responsible environmental policies in Massachusetts, a mission we have pursued for more than 100 years.

The proposed regulations on emissions standards for power plants are directed at the 6 coal fired power plants in the state, the dirtiest plants in the state. These power plants were built before the passage of the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and were grandfathered under those amendments allowing them to pollute at much higher rates than new plants. It is generally understood that these plants were not required to comply with the CAA emissions standards for new plants because they were believed to have short remaining useful lives, that is, that they would be decommissioned. It is now 22 years later, and they are still here and still polluting. Whatever was believed at the time, there is no reason to treat these plants as if they or their pollution were a short-term problem that is going to go away. It is now the 21^st century, and it is past time for these plants to come into compliance with last century’s standards. The median age of power plants in the Northeast is 35 years. The old plants do not appear to be going away as anticipated. Regulations must deal with this reality.

The plants covered by the proposed regulations are a threat to the environment and public health in Massachusetts. Together they emit 48 percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions in the state and 99 percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in Massachusetts. On average they each emit more than one thousand (1000) times as much sulfur dioxide per MWh as new power plants in Massachusetts. Sulfur dioxide contributes to acid rain which in turn causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to damage of trees at high elevations as DEP reports in its background document.

These six facilities are also responsible for more than half of the NO_x emissions in the state and 82 percent of NO_x emissions from power plants. They emit more than 30 times as much NO_x per MWh as do new plants. Nitrogen oxides are an important ingredient in smog, or ground level ozone, which damages both human health and the natural environment. As DEP reports, "ground-level ozone interferes with the ability of all plants to produce and store food, compromises growth, reproduction and overall plant health, makes plants more susceptible to disease, pests and environmental stresses, and reduces agricultural yields." Nitrogen emitted by power plants and from other sources accumulates in our state’s water bodies. Embayments and near shore waters, such as Narraganset Bay, Buzzards Bay and Salem Sound, are particularly sensitive to increased levels of nitrogen which adversely affect water quality and degrade habitat in these exquisitely diverse ecosystems which are important not only from an environmental standpoint but for their recreational and other economic value. Increased nitrogen can damage shellfish beds and turn near-shore areas from scenic spots into smelly algae-filled pools where neither fish nor people nor other plants and animals can get what they need. The National Academy of Sciences has recently called for reduction in emissions from the burning of fossil fuels to prevent further eutrophication of coastal waters due to excess deposition of nitrogen.

DEP also reports that these six plants produce 87 percent of the CO₂ emissions emitted by power plants in Massachusetts, emitting more than 2.5 times the CO₂ per MWh as newer plants. Carbon dioxide is the most significant global warming gas.

It is clear that these plants emit significant amounts of pollution. They emit more than their share of pollution considering the amount of power they produce, and they have emitted this pollution for much longer than was anticipated when they were not included in the CAA provisions covering new facilities. The pollution they emit is damaging our environment, affecting the ability of others in the state to make a living by damaging shellfish beds and agricultural crops, negatively affecting the breeding grounds of many species with economic as well as ecological significance, and damaging human health. Recent studies indicate that these power plants increase the incidence of premature death, asthma attacks and other respiratory problems, especially in the young, the old and the sick. We have waited too long for these plants to be brought into compliance with the regulations affecting newer plants.

Allowing them to continue to pollute more than other facilities effectively gives them a subsidy for polluting. This subsidy is paid by children with asthma, older people with lung problems, people who make their living from the waters and mountains and lands of this state and the creatures living in them. The subsidy must end.

Nitrogen Oxides

We commend DEP for its approach of establishing a maximum output-based emissions rate combined with an annual emissions cap for each facility for each pollutant.

We also applaud DEP for establishing a 12-month emission rate of 1.5 lbs/MWh, the same standard already applied to newer plants, although this emission standard is not the maximum that could be achieved with available technology. However, the monthly cap of 3.0 lbs/MWh is not acceptable, especially during the summer months when smog is a problem. The 1.5 lbs/MWh rate should not be exceeded during the months of May through November.

Sulfur Dioxide

The proposed limits on emissions for sulfur dioxide are set to come down too slowly. Current technology would allow these plants to achieve 12 month emission rates of sulfur dioxide of 3 lbs/MWh by 2003. The proposed emission rate of 6 lbs/MWh is double the emission rate that must be met by newer plants. Today, retrofitting plants with the equipment needed to control sulfur dioxide is not prohibitively expensive. The equipment is not difficult to obtain and install. As stated earlier, we must end the pollution subsidy for old plants. They must comply with emissions rates needed to protect the environment and human health. Being old is not an excuse for causing ecological damage, illness and death.

Mercury

The proposed regulations inadequately control mercury emissions. Mercury is a known neurotoxin. More than 50 water bodies in Massachusetts are so polluted with mercury that people are warned not to eat the fish in them. Pregnant women and children are warned to eat fresh water fish infrequently if at all.

If DEP wants to know more about the feasibility and effectiveness of mercury controls, then it should require each plant to present a plan for a demonstration project for controlling mercury by December, 2000. The plan should be implemented and results prepared by June, 2002. Such demonstration projects are in place in New Jersey and elsewhere. Various technologies are available. They need to be tested now. We cannot wait 3 years for the Department to propose standards while our children are poisoned and the aquatic food chain continues to absorb this persistent bioaccumulative toxin. Demonstration projects requiring that plants spend 5 to 10 million dollars of their own money over the next several years will demonstrate good faith on the part of the covered power plants. Requirements for reductions should be included in the regulations, perhaps 50 percent by 2003 and virtual elimination by 2010.

Carbon Dioxide

DEP is to be commended for including a carbon dioxide emissions cap. However, offsite emissions reductions are not a substitute for reducing emissions by making plants cleaner and more efficient. Planting trees is not a substitute for pollution control or increased efficiency.

Emissions Cap

The emissions cap is a good idea, but requiring plants to reduce emissions by only 25 % when the intent is to reduce emissions by 50% is not reasonable. These caps should raised to at least 40 %.

Emissions Trading, Averaging and Credits

There is no reason why one company, PG&E, that owns two of the covered facilities should be given special privileges to pollute more at any one of its facilities. People breathe where they live and work. They cannot hold their breath and go to the cleaner plant. It is a simple matter of environmental justice that each plant must reduce emissions to the proposed levels. The Harvard Study indicated that pollution from these plants is killing people who live near them and inducing large numbers of asthma attacks and other effects. Why should people living near Brayton Point sicken and die to save PG&E money? The idea is outrageous on its face. Purchasing emission credits also does nothing to diminish local effects of emissions on the environment or people’s health. While it is admirable to require that 3 tons of allowances be retired for each ton needed to meet the proposed standard, purchased emission credits will not prevent the eutrophication of Massachusetts’ waters.

While it may be reasonable to encourage early compliance by providing credits for sulfur dioxide reductions below 6 lbs/MWh made before December 31, 2003, they should not be one for one. Reducing pollution by one ton now should not entitle a company to pollute an extra ton later. That is not an incentive, but an even trade. And we are trading against our health and environment. If there is evidence that incentives for early reduction of pollution work, then the incentive should be limited to no more than half the early reduction.

Timing

We object to allowing plants to postpone compliance until 2007. If permitting timetables are part of the reason for this distant deadline, shorten them. If you tell the utilities that they must meet the more stringent standards earlier or face shutdown, they will meet them. The health of our environment and our people are at stake.

Further, under the Alternative Emission Control Plans, it is entirely unclear what feasible means. How expensive would controls have to be before they were not feasible? What is "reasonable further progress"? Does DEP have some basis for trading the proposed fuel storage and handling emissions requirements and environmental management system against timely reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury?

Summary and Conclusion

As Massachusetts, together with other Northeast states, is petitioning EPA to set secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and fine particulates, both the state and the covered power plants must do their share to reduce the generation of these pollutants in the state as a show of good faith.

The pollutants proposed for control by DEP acidify rain and create haze that obscures vistas at our parks and other scenic places. Acid rain and excess nitrogen have made many of our lakes, streams and estuaries unsuitable for many of the fish and other animals and plants that have historically lived in them. Biodiversity, one of Secretary Durand’s top priorities, is threatened.

There is no question that cleaning up the power plants covered by these regulations will cost money. Some of these costs may be passed on to electricity users. But not cleaning up these plants also has associated costs, and these costs are higher, both in human and environmental terms, than the costs of clean-up. The costs should be placed where they belong, in cleaning up the power plants, not in poisoned aquatic life, algae blooms, reduced crop yields, and damaged forests. We do not want to pay for dirty energy in emergency room visits for asthma or special education.

We ask you to end the 25-year subsidies to dirty old power plants. We will not solve our pollution problems by focusing only on new sources. Make the Filthy Five meet the same standards as newer plants.

Thank you for your time.