DOCSLIB.ORG

February 23, 2021 INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
February 23, 2021 INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY d/b/a CENTERPOINT ENERGY INDIANA SOUTH (CENTERPOINT) IURC CAUSE NO. 45501 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW A. RICE DIRECTOR OF INDIANA ELECTRIC REGULATORY AND RATES ON INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN, NECESSITY OF THE SOLAR PROJECTS AND RATEMAKING ISSUES SPONSORING PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT NO. 4 (PUBLIC) ATTACHMENTS MAR-1 THROUGH MAR-5 IURC Cause No. 45501 Petitioner’s Exhibit No.4 (Public) CenterPoint Page 2 of 30 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW A. RICE 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 3 Please state your name and business address. 4 A. My name is Matthew Rice. My business address is 211 NW Riverside Drive, Evansville, 5 Indiana 47708. 6 7 Q. On whose behalf are you submitting this direct testimony? 8 I am submitting testimony on behalf of Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a 9 CenterPoint Energy Indiana South (“CenterPoint”, “Petitioner”, or “Company”), which is an 10 indirect subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. 11 12 Q. What is your role with respect to Petitioner? 13 I am Director of Indiana Electric Regulatory and Rates. 14 15 Please describe your educational background. 16 A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of 17 Southern Indiana in 1999. I also received a Master of Business Administration from the 18 University of Southern Indiana in 2008. 19 20 Please describe your professional experience. 21 A. Prior to working for CenterPoint, I worked as a Market Research Analyst for American 22 General Finance for six years working primarily on customer segmentation, demographic 23 analysis, and site location analysis. In 2007, I joined the Company as a Market Research 24 Analyst, and have held various positions of increasing responsibility, including Senior 25 Analyst, Manager of Market Research, and Director of Research and Energy 26 Technologies. Since 2009, I have been responsible for long-term energy forecasting for 27 the Company’s IRPs, helping to manage the Company’s 2011, 2014, 2016, and 28 2019/2020 IRPs. I have also managed its IRP stakeholder process since 2014. My duties 29 have included conducting economic analysis, primary and secondary customer research 30 (including surveying, focus groups, segmentation, and demographic analysis), customer 31 satisfaction research, housing market research, and monitored industry research. In IURC Cause No. 45501 Petitioner’s Exhibit No.4 (Public) CenterPoint Page 3 of 30 1 February 2019, I became Manager of Resource Planning with responsibility for internal 2 and external generation analysis and reporting. I was named to my current position of 3 Director of Indiana Electric Regulatory and Rates in October 2020. 4 5 What are your present duties and responsibilities as Director of Indiana Electric 6 Regulatory and Rates? 7 A. I am responsible for electric regulatory and rate matters for CenterPoint in regulated 8 proceedings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“Commission”). I also have 9 responsibility for resource planning and reporting for CenterPoint, including the IRP. 10 11 Q. Have you previously testified before the Commission? 12 A. Yes. I testified before the Commission in support of CenterPoint’s Certificate of Public 13 Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) in Cause No. 45052, and Petitioner’s request for 14 approval of a tariff rate for Excess Distributed Generation in Cause No. 45378. 15 Additionally, I recently provided written testimony in Cause No. 44910-TDSIC-8 and in 16 Cause No. 44909-CECA 3. 17 18 19 II. PURPOSE & SCOPE OF TESTIMONY 20 21 What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding? 22 A. My testimony describes the analysis and results of CenterPoint’s 2019/2020 Integrated 23 Resource Plan (“2019/2020 IRP”) process. In addition, I describe and support 24 CenterPoint’s request for a CPCN to purchase and acquire the Posey County Solar 25 Project through a Build Transfer Agreement (“BTA”) pursuant to Ind. Code ch. 8-1-8.5. I 26 also describe and support CenterPoint’s proposal to enter into a Power Purchase 27 Agreement (“PPA”) with Clenera LLC’s affiliate, Rustic Hills Solar II LLC, (“Clenera”) to 28 purchase energy and capacity from a 100 megawatts alternating current (“MWac”) solar 29 project in Warrick County, Indiana (the “Warrick County Solar Project”), over a 25-year 30 term and finding the terms of the PPA reasonable and necessary. I also describe why the 31 Posey County Solar Project qualifies as a “Clean Energy Project” under Ind. Code ch. 8- 32 1-8.8. In addition, I will explain how the Levelized Rate for the Posey County Solar Project 33 will be incorporated within CenterPoint’s Clean Energy Cost Adjustment (“CECA”), which IURC Cause No. 45501 Petitioner’s Exhibit No.4 (Public) CenterPoint Page 4 of 30 1 the Commission approved on August 16, 2017, in Cause No. 44909. I describe how the 2 cost of the Warrick County Solar Project will be recovered through the fuel adjustment 3 clause (“FAC”) mechanism, including recovery of debt equivalency described in Witness 4 Brett A. Jerasa’s testimony. Finally, I describe how customer rates will be impacted by 5 the two projects. 6 7 Are you sponsoring any attachments to your direct testimony in this proceeding? 8 A. Yes. I am sponsoring the following attachments: 9 Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 4, Attachment MAR-1: CenterPoint’s 2019/2020 10 Integrated Resource Plan Volume 1 of 2; 11 Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 4, Attachment MAR-2: 44909 CECA-3 Tariff Sheet1; 12 Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 4, Attachment MAR-3 (CONFIDENTIAL): Posey County 13 Solar Project Residential Rate Impact; 14 Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 4, Attachment MAR-4 (CONFIDENTIAL): Warrick County 15 Solar Project Residential Rate Impact; and 16 Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 4, Attachment MAR-5 (CONFIDENTIAL): Estimated Net 17 Monthly Rate Impact by Customer Class. 18 19 Q. Were these attachments prepared by you or under your direction? 20 A. Yes, they were. The Company’s 2019/2020 IRP process was managed under my direction 21 or supervision, although it is important to recognize that other Company employees and 22 consultants with specific areas of expertise engaged by the Company were involved in the 23 process of developing the 2019/2020 IRP. 24 25 26 III. CENTERPOINT’S 2019/2020 IRP PROCESS 27 28 Please describe how CenterPoint approached the 2019/2020 IRP. 29 A. The 2019/2020 IRP was CenterPoint’s most detailed resource planning analysis process. 30 The Company worked with several industry experts to conduct the technical analysis: Itron 31 provided the long term energy and demand forecast; 1898 and Company, a Burns and 1 Currently pending before the Commission in CECA 3. IURC Cause No. 45501 Petitioner’s Exhibit No.4 (Public) CenterPoint Page 5 of 30 1 McDonnell company (“Burns and McDonnell”), worked with CenterPoint to conduct an All- 2 Source Request For Proposals (“All-Source RFP”) and provide modeling inputs for various 3 generating resources; Black and Veatch assisted with several studies utilized to evaluate 4 numerous alternatives for existing resources; GDS provided Energy Efficiency modeling 5 inputs; and Siemens PTI, formerly Pace Global Energy Services (“Siemens PTI”) provided 6 scenario development, deterministic modeling, probabilistic modeling, and provided 7 assistance with the risk analysis. A copy of Petitioner’s 2019/2020 IRP is attached to my 8 testimony as Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 4, Attachment MAR-1 (Confidential). 9 10 Q. What process did Petitioner use in developing the 2019/2020 IRP? 11 A. Petitioner began the process by reviewing stakeholder comments from the 2016 IRP, 12 including the Director’s Report, and by carefully reviewing the Commission Orders issued 13 in connection with Petitioner’s requests for CPCNs in Cause Nos. 45052 (F.B. Culley 3 14 upgrades and CCGT) and 45086 (50 MW Troy solar). This feedback was used to formulate 15 twelve continuous improvement commitments that were shared with CenterPoint IRP 16 stakeholders in our first public stakeholder meeting on August 15, 2019, and fulfilled on 17 June 30, 2020, with the submission of the 2019/2020 IRP. In the first stakeholder meeting, 18 CenterPoint presented the analysis plan and laid out all topics to be discussed with 19 stakeholders for each of CenterPoint’s public stakeholder meetings. Figure 3.1 20 “2019/2020 Stakeholder Meetings” on page 108 of the IRP details the topics discussed in 21 each meeting, which are summarized in Figure 1 below. 22 IURC Cause No. 45501 Petitioner’s Exhibit No.4 (Public) CenterPoint Page 6 of 30 Figure 1: 2019/2020 Stakeholder Meetings October 10, December 13, August 15, 2019 June 15, 2020 2019 2019 • 2019/2020 IRP • RFP Update • Draft Portfolios • Final Reference Process • Draft Resource • Draft Reference Case and • Objectives and Costs Case Modeling Scenario Measures • Sales and Results Modeling • All-Source RFP Demand • All-Source RFP Results • Environmental Forecast Results and • Probabilistic Update • DSM MPS/ Final Modeling Modeling Results • Draft Reference Modeling Inputs Inputs Case Market • Scenario • Scenario • Risk Analysis Inputs & Modeling Inputs Testing and Results Scenarios • Portfolio Probabilistic • Preview the Development Modeling Preferred Approach and Portfolio Assumptions 1 The general process involved presenting information and gathering feedback from 2 stakeholders on key topics, including but not limited to the following: objectives, scorecard 3 development, forecasts, modeling inputs, scenario development, portfolio development, 4 technical modeling, and results. At the beginning of each stakeholder meeting, 5 CenterPoint made a point to follow up with stakeholders on input provided in the prior 6 meeting. Often stakeholder feedback was utilized, but in instances where it was not, 7 CenterPoint discussed why it was not used. The planning analysis began with an All- 8 Source RFP, which was conducted simultaneously with the IRP and was utilized as an 9 input into modeling for resource selection/portfolio development.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inspectors Special Assignment Sources [PDF]
    INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Last Updated 11/17/2020 Inspectors' Specialty Assignment Sources Plant ID County Plant Name City Specialty Inspector 003-00013 Allen Rea Magnet Wire Co, Inc Fort Wayne Patrick Burton 003-00036 Allen General Motors LLC Fort Wayne Assembly Roanoke Patrick Burton 003-00269 Allen Essex Group LLC Fort Wayne Patrick Burton 005-00015 Bartholomew Cummins Engine Plant Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00040 Bartholomew Toyota Material Handling Incorporated Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00047 Bartholomew Cummins Engine Co - Midrange Engine Plant Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00066 Bartholomew NTN Driveshaft, Inc Columbus Vaughn Ison 017-00005 Cass Lehigh Cement Company LLC Logansport Patrick Austin 017-00027 Cass A. Raymond Tinnerman Automotive Incorporated Logansport Rebecca Hayes 019-00008 Clark Lehigh Cement Company LLC Speed Patrick Austin 027-00046 Davieess Grain Processing Corporation Washington Tammy Haug 033-00023 DeKalb Rieke Packaging Systems Auburn Ling Tapp 033-00043 DeKalb Steel Dynamics, Inc - Flat Roll Group - Butler Division Butler Kurt Graham 033-00076 DeKalb Steel Dynamics, Inc - Iron Dynamics Division Butler Kurt Graham 035-00028 Delaware Exide Technologies Muncie Christopher Cissell 039-00115 Elkhart Manchester Tank & Equipment Elkhart Paul Karkiewicz 043-00004 Floyd Duke Energy Indiana, LLC - Gallagher Generating Station New Albany Patrick Austin 045-00011 Fountain MasterGuard Corporation Veedersburg Rebecca Hayes 049-00023 Fulton CamCar, LLC Rochester Rick Reynolds 051-00013 Gibson Duke Energy Indiana,
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar US Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Power From the Valley: Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar U.S. Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Megan Lenore Chew, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Steven Conn, Advisor Randolph Roth David Steigerwald Copyright by Megan Lenore Chew 2014 Abstract In the years after World War II, small towns, villages, and cities in the Ohio River Valley region of Ohio and Indiana experienced a high level of industrialization not seen since the region’s commercial peak in the mid-19th century. The development of industries related to nuclear and coal technologies—including nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, and coal-fired energy—changed the social and physical environments of the Ohio Valley at the time. This industrial growth was part of a movement to decentralize industry from major cities after World War II, involved the efforts of private corporations to sell “free enterprise” in the 1950s, was in some cases related to U.S. national defense in the Cold War, and brought some of the largest industrial complexes in the U.S. to sparsely populated places in the Ohio Valley. In these small cities and villages— including Madison, Indiana, Cheshire, Ohio, Piketon, Ohio, and Waverly, Ohio—the changes brought by nuclear and coal meant modern, enormous industry was taking the place of farms and cornfields. These places had been left behind by the growth seen in major metropolitan areas, and they saw the potential for economic growth in these power plants and related industries.
    [Show full text]
  • DRR Source List June 23, 2016
    DRR Source List June 23, 2016 State Facility Name County/Parish Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority- Colbert Fossil Plant Colbert Alabama Alabama Power - Gadsden Electric Generating Plant Etowah Alabama Alabama Power - Greene County Electric Generating Plant Greene Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority - Widows Creek Fossil Plant Jackson Alabama Alabama Power - William Crawford Gorgas Electric Generating Plant Walker Alabama International Paper Company - Prattville Mill Autauga Alabama Escambia Operating Company Big Escambia Creek Plant Escambia Alabama Azko Nobel Functional Chemicals - LeMoyne Site Mobile Alabama Alabama Power Company- James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant Mobile Alabama Ascend Performance Materials -Decatur Plant Morgan Alabama Sanders Lead Company Pike Alabama Continental Carbon Company- Phenix City Plant Russell Alabama Alabama Power Company - Ernest C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant Shelby Alabama Lhoist North America of Alabama - Montevallo Plant Shelby Alabama PowerSouth Energy Cooperative - Charles R. Lowman Power Plant Washington Arizona Tucson Electric Power Company - Springerville Generating Station Apache Arizona Arizona Electric Power Cooperative - Apache Generating Station Cochise Arizona Arizona Public Service Electric Company - Cholla Navajo Arkansas Flint Creek Power Plant (SWEPCO) Benton Arkansas Entergy Arkansas - Independence Independence Arkansas Futurefuel Chemical Company Independence Arkansas Entergy Arkansas - White Bluff Jefferson Arkansas Plum Point Energy Station Mississippi California Shell Martinez Refinery (Part of cluster) Contra Costa California Solvay USA Incorporated (Part of cluster) Contra Costa California Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Part of cluster) Contra Costa Colorado Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) - Cherokee Power Plant Adams Colorado Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) - Martin Drake Power Plant El Paso Colorado CSU - Ray D Nixon El Paso Colorado Colorado Energy Nations Company (CENC) - Golden Jefferson Colorado Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Filed Planned Savings
    SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY D/B/A VECTREN ENERGY DELIVERY OF INDIANA, INC. CAUSE NO. 45052 VERIFIED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW A. RICE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES SPONSORING PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT NO. 5, ATTACHMENT MAR-1 (CONFIDENTIAL) Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 5 VERIFIED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW A. RICE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES 1 Q. Please state your name and business address. 2 A. My name is Matthew Rice, and my business address is One Vectren Square, Evansville, 3 Indiana 47708. 4 Q. By whom are you employed and in what capacity? 5 A. I am employed by Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. (“VUHI”), the immediate parent company 6 of Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of 7 Indiana, Inc. (“Vectren South” or “Company”), Indiana Gas Company, Inc. d/b/a Vectren 8 Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. (“Vectren North”) and Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, 9 Inc. (“VEDO”). I am the Director of Research and Energy Technologies for VUHI. 10 Q. What is your educational background? 11 A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University 12 of Southern Indiana in 1999. I also received a Master of Business Administration from 13 the University of Southern Indiana in 2008. 14 Q. What is your business experience? 15 A. Prior to working for VUHI, I worked as a Market Research Analyst for American General 16 Finance for six years working primarily on customer segmentation, demographic 17 analysis, and site location analysis. I was hired by VUHI in 2007 as a Market Research 18 Analyst, and have been promoted to Senior Analyst, Manager of Market Research, and 19 most recently Director of Research and Energy Technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Laying the Groundwork
    Laying the groundwork 2012 Annual Report and Form 10-K Financial and Operating Highlights Year ended December 31, In millions, except per share amounts 2012 2011 2010 Net income $ 159.0 $141.6 $133.7 Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) 10.6% 9.8% 9.4% Shares outstanding at year-end 82.2 81.9 81.7 Average shares outstanding for basic earnings 82.1 81.8 80.2 Per Common Share Basic earnings $ 1.94 $ 1.73 $ 1.65 Dividends paid $ 1.405 $ 1.385 $ 1.365 Annual dividend rate at year-end $ 1.42 $ 1.40 $ 1.38 Book value $ 18.57 $ 17.89 $ 17.61 Market price at year-end $ 29.40 $ 30.23 $ 25.38 Dividends Earnings Book Value Per Share Per Share Per Share $ 1.50 $ 2.00 $ 19.00 1.40 1.90 18.50 1.30 1.80 18.00 1.20 1.70 17.50 1.10 1.60 17.00 1.00 1.50 16.50 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 Table of Contents Letter to Shareholders ................................................... 1 5-Year Financial Review ............................................. 126 Vectren at a Glance ....................................................... 8 Performance Chart .................................................... 127 Form 10-K ..................................................................... 9 Shareholder Information ............................................ 128 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .................. 34 Financial Statements and Notes .............................. 67 Directors and Officers ................................................ IBC Letter to Shareholders 2012 secured the advancement of many of Vectren’s strategic initiatives and proved it was a year in which we focused on laying the groundwork – literally and figuratively – for our company’s continued success. The combination of accomplishments for the year and initiatives that are now beginning to bear fruit in our utility and nonutility companies demonstrate why our financial performance exceeded shareholder expectations and why investing in our company for the long term is a prudent decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Vectren Corporation 2015 Annual Report & Form 10-K
    VECTREN CORPORATION 2015 ANNUAL REPORT & FORM 10-K FINANCIAL AND OPERATING HIGHLIGHTS Year ended December 31, In millions, except per share amounts 2015 2014 2013 Net income1 $ 197.3 $ 188.0 $ 174.1 Return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) 1 12.0% 11.9% 11.3% Shares outstanding at year-end 82.8 82.6 82.4 Weighted average shares outstanding for basic earnings 82.7 82.5 82.3 Per Common Share Basic earnings1 $ 2.39 $ 2.28 $ 2.12 Dividends paid $ 1.54 $ 1.46 $ 1.425 Annual dividend rate at year-end $ 1.60 $ 1.52 $ 1.44 Book value $ 20.34 $ 19.45 $ 18.86 Market price at year-end $ 42.42 $ 46.23 $ 35.50 Earnings Annual Dividend Rate Book Value Per Share Per Share Per Share $ 2.40 $ 1.60 $ 20.50 2.20 1.50 20.00 2.00 1.40 19.50 1.80 1.30 19.00 1.60 1.20 18.50 1.40 1.10 18.00 1 1 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 1 Excludes a $21.1 million, or $0.26 per share, after-tax loss from Coal Mining in 2014, the year of disposition. Reported results for 2014 were net income of $166.9 million, or $2.02 per share. Based upon reported results, the return on average shareholders’ equity for 2014 was 10.6%. Excludes a $37.5 million, or $0.46 per share, after-tax loss from ProLiance in 2013, the year of disposition of its gas marketing assets.
    [Show full text]
  • PPCO Twist System
    Announcing the next chapter. Lewis-Goetz, EVCO House of Hose, are now and Valley Rubber & Gasket Industrial Industrial Valves, Process Conveying Instrumentation and Seals and Gaskets and Hydraulic Systems HVAC Engineering Polymers Hose & Controls Contact your local service center for details: www.eriksna.com As of June 1st, 2018, we have combined the strengths of Lewis-Goetz and its subsidiaries, EVCO House of Hose and Valley Rubber & Gasket, to form a unified North American brand. This brand is aligned with our parent company, , and most importantly, expands our offering to our customers and simplifies how we go to market. Our goal is not only to come together under one name, but to also be able to operate as one company that is able to provide a full range of industrial products, services and engineered solutions to you. In addition to Conveyor Belts, Sealing and Gaskets, Industrial and Hydraulic Hose, in the upcoming years, we are going to be expanding our offering through our other ERIKS North America companies and will be your one-stop-shop for: ■ Industrial Valves ■ Process Controls & Measurement ■ HVAC Controls & Measurement ■ Filtration ■ Engineered Plastics Contact your local service center for details: www.eriksna.com BEATING INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR OVER 80 YEARS. MODEL CHDDR MODEL CDDR Since 1937, Fletcher has set itself apart, simply by listening. Fletcher design engineers listen to what the industry says, they hear what operators want from their investments, and then...they design systems and machines that provide solutions. Fletcher equipment is built custom to your mine condition, and with features such as pinpoint bolting, mast tilts, walk-thru chassis, and material handling systems, you can’t find any greater design flexibility than a Fletcher bolter.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Rising Cover
    A Clear the Air Report Mercury Rising New Data on Toxic Releases from Electric Power Plants, Including Mercury and Dioxin Prepared by National Environmental Trust 1200 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Credits Written by: Thomas E. Natan, Jr. Ph. D, Research Director and Mark Wenzler, Environmental Counsel, National Environmental Trust Acknowledgements Mercury Rising was prepared by the National Environmental Trust for Clear the Air. Martha Keating, Clean Air Task Force, and John Stanton, National Environmental Trust, and Angela Ledford and Jonathan Banks, Clear the Air provided editorial comments. This report was made possible with funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Copies of this report and tables are available at: http://www.cleartheair.org Executive Summary Newly released U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) information on toxic air emissions shows that electric utilities were the biggest air polluters in the U.S. in 2000. The 2000 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data constitute our nation’s premier database of information on how much toxic air, water, and land pollution is released each year by various industries. Coal- and oil-fired electric power plants first reported to TRI for 1998. The latest data also contain new information on persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, or PBTs. This report is the first in-depth analysis of the quantity and nature of coal- and oil- burning power plant toxic pollution brought to light in the 2000 TRI data. It demonstrates that electric utility emissions can and do in fact present serious public health concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • DRR) Pathway Notification Summary Per 40 CFR 51.1203(B
    Data Requirements Rule (DRR) pathway notification summary per 40 CFR 51.1203(b) See footnote for discussion of labels in last two columns March 2017 State Facility County/Parish DRR Pathway1 State Submittal12 Alabama International Paper Company - Prattville Mill Autauga Model Model Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority- Colbert Fossil Plant Colbert Limit Limit Alabama Escambia Operating Company Big Escambia Creek Plant Escambia Model Model Alabama Alabama Power - Gadsden Electric Generating Plant Etowah Limit Limit Alabama Alabama Power - Greene County Electric Generating Plant Greene Limit Limit Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority - Widows Creek Fossil Plant Jackson Limit Limit Alabama Alabama Power Company- James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant Mobile Model Model Alabama Azko Nobel Functional Chemicals - LeMoyne Site Mobile Model2 Model Alabama Ascend Performance Materials -Decatur Plant Morgan Model Model Alabama Sanders Lead Company Pike Model Model Alabama Continental Carbon Company- Phenix City Plant Russell Model Model Alabama Alabama Power Company - Ernest C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant Shelby Model Model Alabama Lhoist North America of Alabama - Montevallo Plant Shelby Monitor Monitor Alabama Alabama Power - William Crawford Gorgas Electric Generating Plant Walker Model2 Model Alabama PowerSouth Energy Cooperative - Charles R. Lowman Power Plant Washington Model Model Arizona Tucson Electric Power Company - Springerville Generating Station Apache Model Model Arizona Arizona Electric Power Cooperative - Apache Generating Station
    [Show full text]
  • SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS
    Attachment 1 Indiana’s Preliminary Recommendations Concerning Round 3 Designations for the 2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) This page left intentionally blank. Source County Boundary/Area Recommendation Duke Energy Gallagher Floyd County Attainment U.S. Mineral Products (Isolatek) Huntington See Attachment 3 See Attachment 3 NIPSCO R.M. Schahfer Jasper (P) Kankakee Township Attainment ArcelorMittal USA, Coke Energy, Calumet Township and Lake (P) Attainment U.S. Steel Gary Works North Township SABIC Innovative Plastics Posey (P) Black Township Attainment Hoosier Energy Merom Sullivan (P) Gill Township Attainment Eugene Township Duke Energy Cayuga Vermillion (P) Attainment Vermillion Township Alcoa Warrick Power Plant, Attainment Warrick (P) Anderson Township Alcoa Warrick Operations Plant See Attachment 4 (P) denotes partial county recommendation The following sources, though identified by U.S. EPA as being subject to the Data Requirements Rule, were addressed under Round 2 designations and designated by U.S. EPA on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 45039). Area Name Source Area County Name Designation Gibson County, IN Duke Gibson Gibson Unclassifiable/Attainment Jefferson County, IN IKEC Clifty Creek Jefferson (P) Unclassifiable/Attainment LaPorte County, IN NIPSCO Michigan City LaPorte Unclassifiable/Attainment Posey County, IN Vectren A.B. Brown Posey (P) Unclassifiable/Attainment Spencer County, IN AEP Rockport Spencer (P) Unclassifiable/Attainment Page 1 of 1 This page left intentionally blank. Attachment 2 Indiana’s Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document Preliminary Designation Recommendations Data Requirements Rule (Round 3) 2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) January 2017 Table of Contents 1.0 1-Hour SO 2 NAAQS and Designation Process ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Source Characterization.Pdf
    Enclosure 1 Indiana’s Air Quality Modeling Protocol - Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Addressing the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) June 2016 This page left intentionally blank. Table of Contents 1.0 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard ………………….. 1 2.0 Data Requirements Rule (DRR) ….………………………………………………...... 2 3.0 Methodology for the DRR Air Quality Modeling …………………………………... 4 4.0 Model Selection for the DRR Air Quality Modeling ………………………………… 4 4.1 AERMOD .……………...………………………..…………...…………………… 4 4.2 AERMAP …………………………...…………..………………………………… 5 5.0 Receptor Grid and Modeling Domain ……...………………………………………….5 6.0 Meteorology …………………………………...…………………………………….….. 6 6.1 AERMET ……...………….……………………..…...…………………………… 6 6.2 AERMINUTE/AERSURFACE …………………..……………………………… 6 7.0 SO 2 Background Concentrations …...………….……………………………………... 7 8.0 Overview of SO 2 Emissions Sources to be Modeled ....………………………………. 8 8.1 DRR Sources ..….………….……………………..….……………………………..8 8.2 Inventory Sources …..………..……………………..….……………………...….. 8 8.3 Intermittent Sources …..………..…………………..….……………………...….. 9 9.0 Overview of Analysis of Modeling Results ….………...……………………………… 10 i Appendices Appendix A Indiana’s Data Requirement Rule Sources 1.0 Duke – Gallagher ………...…….……………………..….……………………………. A-1 2.0 NIPSCO – Schahfer …….……………………..….……………………………...……. A-5 3.0 ArcelorMittal – Indiana Harbor /Coke Energy / U.S. Steel …….……………..…… A-8 4.0 ArcelorMittal - Burns Harbor ….……………………..….…………………….…… A-14 5.0 SABIC Innovative Plastics
    [Show full text]