Environmental Permit Documents and Concerns
The Renovo Energy Center would be a Title V facility — a major source of air pollution that requires a federal operating permit with additional monitoring requirements. The plant would be a major source for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, total particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. It would also be the fourth largest polluter of greenhouse gases in Pennsylvania.
Air Permits and Related Materials
-
Renovo Energy Center Response to Modeling Comments (3-16-21) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Plan Approval Issuance Memo (4-29-21) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Plan Approval 18-00033B Issuance Letter with Response to EPA (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Plan Approval 18-00033B Issuance Letter with Response to REC Comments (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Proposed Plan Approval Review Memo (10-02-2020) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Proposed Plan Approval (10-02-2020) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Deficiency Correspondence (05-06-2020) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Plan Approval Application (12-27-2019) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Extension Request June_28_2022_REV (6-28-2022) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Plan Approval Extension Letter 18-00033B (10-27-2022) (PDF)
-
Renovo Energy Center Plan Approval Extension Review Memo 18-00033B (PDF)
Water Permits and Related Materials
Concerns with the Renovo Energy Center Air Permit
Unresolved Issues with Renovo Power Plant Permit:
-
The DEP did not follow its own policies for outreach to the public about the permitting process and has denied residents their right to voice their concerns through the required enhanced public participation process.
-
The power plant would exceed the highest pollution thresholds required to be considered a minor source of air pollution for permitting purposes.
-
The air pollution permit sets unlawfully high limits for some types of pollutants from some types of equipment at the power plant.
-
The DEP's selection of air pollution control technologies falls short of what the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution Control Act require. Where control technology has been demonstrated to reduce air pollution more at other similar facilities, it should not be considered "infeasible" just because the facility is not exactly the same. Better emissions controls are possible for this power plant.
-
DEP did not adequately consider greenhouse gas emissions in the choice of equipment for the power plant. The plant, if constructed, should use technology that emits the least amount of greenhouse gases.
-
The DEP's alternatives analysis was flawed because it essentially says that wind and solar energy are not viable technologies to generate electricity for the PJM grid. However, this assessment of the facts is incorrect. Solar is the biggest single new contributor to power for the PJM grid in 2020.