|
|
Enron Mail |
as promised :)
-----Original Message----- From: =09Imai, Rika =20 Sent:=09Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:52 PM To:=09Benchluch, Moises; Benjelloun, Hicham; Cline, Kevin; Gim, Steve; Gual= y, Jaime; Kaniss, Jason; Mack, Iris; Makkai, Peter; Oh, Seung-Taek; Santucc= i, Anna; Schiavone, Paul; Soykok, Gulay; Thomas, Paul D.; Wagner, Joseph; W= illis, Cory; Dickerson, Lloyd; Giron, Gustavo; Gulmeden, Utku; Ha, Amie; He= mani, Sanjay; Jenkins IV, Daniel; Kendall, Heath; Lowell, Thomas; Marquez, = Mauricio; Moore, Castlen; Ochsner, Preston; Pan, Steve; Philippov, Maxim; R= aque, Michele; Schneider, Bryce; Williams, Ryan; Young, Julia Subject:=09FW: Court Decision on NOx - EPA Section 126 Rule Importance:=09High -----Original Message----- From: =09Keeler, Jeff =20 Sent:=09Monday, August 27, 2001 4:16 PM To:=09Affelt, Scott; Ahmed, Naveed; Allen, Phillip K.; Baughman, Edward D.;= Benson, Robert; Bolton, Stacey; Boyd, Hap; Bradley, Rob; Churbock, Scott; = Davis, Mark Dana; Dillingham, Gavin; Dobler, Mark; Eghneim, Gus; Gilbert-sm= ith, Doug; Guerrero, Janel; Howley, Elizabeth; Huson, Margaret; Imai, Rika;= Jacobson, Lisa; Jacoby, Ben; Jenkins IV, Daniel; Jensen, Ruth; Kaniss, Jas= on; Kellermeyer, Dave; Kendrick, William; Kroll, Heather; Landwehr, Susan M= .; Llodra, John; Mainzer, Elliot; Malcolm, Rodney; Meyer, Vance; Middleton,= Vince; Migden, Janine; Mitchell, Heather; Montovano, Steve; Moore, John; M= oss, Alison; Murray, Julia; Neal, Scott; Nutt, David; Phillips, Marc; Prest= o, Kevin M.; Roberts, Dave; Robertson, Linda; Robinson, Mitch; Salhotra, Ra= jneesh; Schmidt, Ann M.; Schoen, Mary; Schroeder, Mark; Shafer, John; Shapi= ro, Richard; Shortridge, Pat; Soldano, Louis; Steffes, James D.; Stram, Bru= ce; Sturm, Fletcher J.; Terraso, Michael; Tingleaf, Drew; Van, Henry; Walsh= , Kristin; Watson, Scott; Will, Lloyd; Worthen, Susan Cc:=09Keeler, Jeff Subject:=09Court Decision on NOx - EPA Section 126 Rule Importance:=09High The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, issued a ruling today on the= EPA Section 126 Rule. (As brief background, the 126 Rule would have requi= red compliance with more stringent summer-season NOx caps starting in May 2= 003 in several northeast and Midwest states) The Order states: =20 "It is Ordered that EPA's Section 126 Rule is remanded as to all cogenerato= rs, but vacated only as to those cogenerators classified as electric genera= ting units ("EGUs") under the rule that supply equal to or less than one th= ird of their potential capacity or equal to or less than 25 MW to the grid = for sale per year." Translation: This part of the order appears to "vaca= te" or completely throw out the 126 rule for small cogen units (under 25 MW= ) or cogen units selling less than 1/3 into the grid. For all other cogen= erators, the court remands the rule to EPA for re-working, consistent with = some of the court's earlier objections about EPA's handling of cogens. Im= pact: EPA will need to go back and formulate rules for cogens altogether, = so there is currently no NOx compliance schedule in place for cogen units. = EPA will need to start from scratch for smaller cogens. "It is Further ordered that as of May 15, 2001, the date of this court's de= cision, the three-year compliance period for emissions limitations applicab= le to EGUs under the Section 126 Rule is tolled, pending EPA's resolution o= f the remand of EGU growth factors ordered by this court." Translation: T= his more significant part of the order "tolls" -- or puts on hold -- compli= ance with the 126 Rule for ALL ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS (EGUs) until EPA r= esolves EGU growth factor issues that the court identified in its May 15, 2= 001 ruling. =20 Impact: The practical effect of this part of the order will be to delay im= plementation of the Section 126 Rule until May 2004, when the EPA's NOx SIP= Call regulation is scheduled to go into effect. The EPA will not be able= to re-issue its Section 126 rules in a time frame that would require compl= iance before May 2004. The NOx SIP Call would have supplanted the Section = 126 Rule in May 2004 anyway -- what this ruling does is take away some of t= he uncertainty that existed for the May to September 2003 period (original = effective date of the Section 126). This means that generators in states = not covered already by existing NOx trading programs (OTR NOx program) will= have another year to comply. I will forward any more detailed legal analysis as I receive it, but this i= s the latest news. Please call if you have any questions. Jeff Keeler Director, Environmental Strategies Enron Corp (203) 245-0828 office (203) 464-1541 cell
|