Public Citizen Comments on Proposed Air Quality Permit for Wolf Hollow II Generating Station

Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105 TCEQ
PO Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087

Via online comment portal and by hand delivery.

September 9, 2024

Re: Public Citizen Comments on Proposed Air Quality Permit No. 175173, PSDTX1636, and GHGPSDTX238

Public Citizen appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our recommendations further. Please contact Adrian Shelley at ashelley@citizen.org, 512-477-1155.

The PM2.5 increment consumed suggests PM nonattainment is likely and the permit should not be granted.

The notice for the public meeting gives the following projection of PM2.5 increment, that is, the amount of additional fine particulate matter pollution that the region can bear without falling into nonattainment status:

The 24-hour PM2.5 primary NAAQS is 35 μg/m³ and the annual is 9.0 μg/m³. The allowable increments of 9 μg/m³ for the 24-hour standard and 4 μg/m³ for the annual standard suggest background PM2.5 pollution of up to 26 μg/m³ for the 24-hour standard and 5 μg/m³ for the annual standard.

The closest PM2.5 monitors that deliver validated data to the EPA are in Dallas. They are the Convention Center (481130050) and Dallas Hinton (481130069). Data retrieved from EPA.gov¹ for 2021-2023 shows that, while the 98th percentile value for these monitors is below 26 μg/m³, the weighted annual mean is well above 5 μg/m³.

2023:

2022:

2021:

2020:

The design value is calculated by averaging three years of weighted annual means.

At the Dallas Hinton (481130069) site, we have three monitors with data sufficient to calculate design values for the period 2021-2023. They are:

• Monitor 1: 8.5 μg/m³
• Monitor 2: 8.6 μg/m³
• Monitor 4: 10.3 μg/m³

At the Convention Center (481130050) site, the most recent calculable design value is at monitor no. 5 for the period 2020-2022, which has a design value of 9.2 μg/m³. Monitor No. 3 has been in operation for only two years and has a two-year average of 10.4 μg/m³.

Granted, these monitors are in metropolitan Dallas approximately 50 miles from Granbury. But there are no closer PM2.5 monitors. Note also that some of this data (marked with an asterisk in the tables above) did not meet EPA’s data completeness requirements. This affects their use for regulatory purposes, but they can still serve our purpose of using the best available data to inform us about the potential design value in Granbury.

We admit the paucity of nearby data, but this only increases the burden on the permit applicant to demonstrate the validity of their available increment calculation. The permit application must show why the available increment is so much lower than that of the closest available data. To reiterate, an available increment of 4.0 μg/m³ for the annual NAAQS suggests background of no more than 5.0 μg/m³. The closest monitors show significantly more pollution.

The existence of other polluting facilities suggests this community should not face additional pollution.

Granbury is already home to the Wolf Hollow gas-fired power plant and the Marathon Digital bitcoin mine. The mine especially has been the subject of national attention due to severe health and quality of life impacts to neighbors.²

Residents are quite concerned that this proposal could be a back door to more electricity availability for the neighboring Marathon Digital bitcoin mine. Right now Marathon Digital has a behind-the-meter power purchase agreement with Wolf Hollow. Although the proposal is for a “peaker plant” that will only operate when demand is high, residents believe this could change. Once the plant is built, the financial incentive could become for it to run more hours of the year. This incentive might be stronger with a neighboring source of demand, the bitcoin mine, that is also a lessor of land from the company operating the power plant. The bitcoin mine in turn might have an incentive to expand due to the availability of additional power.

We have repeatedly suggested that individual permit applications cannot be considered in a vacuum. The Commission claims that because it “does not do siting” that it cannot consider local community context when issuing a permit.³ But the policy and purpose of the Texas Clean Air Act plainly states that:

The policy of this state and the purpose of this chapter are to safeguard the state’s air resources from pollution by controlling or abating air pollution and emissions of air contaminants, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property, including the esthetic enjoyment of air resources by the public and the maintenance of adequate visibility.

Health and Safety Code § 382.002(a). It seems plain from this intent that the Commissioners have authority to reject a permit that contravenes the intent of the Act. We believe this is one such permit and we urge the Commissioners to reject it on those grounds.

A new peaker plant must stay under 40% capacity factor if it is not going to comply with the new EPA rule to limit greenhouse gas pollution from new gas plants.

The new EPA rule for Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants will not apply to a peaker plant that operates under a 40% capacity factor.⁴ We are concerned that, once this plant is built and operating, it will have an incentive to extend its hours of operation. If this happens, the plant could go above the 40% capacity factor and have to comply with the new greenhouse gas pollution limits for gas plants.

It is unclear to us who will monitor this facility to determine whether and when it goes above that 40% capacity factor. This should be done at the local, state, and national level in order to ensure that this plant never operates improperly without the required greenhouse gas pollution limits.

Demographic and pollution data shows a vulnerable community that should not face additional pollution.

Using the EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening Tool, EJSCREEN, we see a demographic profile of a potentially vulnerable community.⁵ Within one mile of the existing footprint of Wolf Hollow, we see:

• 691 people in 189 households.
• 13% low income.
• 46% Hispanic.
• 32% with less than a high school education.
• $31,776 per capita income.
• 42% aged 18 or less.

The EJ Indices for this community put it at the 50th percentile nationwide for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution and 58th percentile nationwide for ozone pollution. This is a community that is already bearing more than its fair share of air pollution.

Alarmingly, the community is in the 81st state percentile and 83rd nationwide percentile for drinking water noncompliance. Whatever the cause of this, the additional water demand of a new gas plant may be more than this community can endure.

There are serious questions about whether physical posting of notice occurred at the proposed location.

Although this is hearsay on our part, we have heard serious questions raised about whether adequate notice signage was placed at the physical location of the proposed facility. Physical notice posting is an essential element of the public notice procedures.

Unless the applicant can demonstrate to the public and the TCEQ’s satisfaction that notice was timely posted at the physical location, then the process should restart with proper notice posting.

Conclusion

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you wish to discuss the issues raised, please contact Adrian Shelley at ashelley@citizen.org, 512-477-1155.

Respectfully,

Adrian Shelley
Texas Director, Public Citizen