Skip to content

Regulation Reactions to 40 CFR Part 75 Requests - 2025 Petition Responses

Responses to 2025 Petitions

Regardless of the 2025 petitions submitted to 40 CFR Part 75, official replies have been issued.
Regardless of the 2025 petitions submitted to 40 CFR Part 75, official replies have been issued.

Regulation Reactions to 40 CFR Part 75 Requests - 2025 Petition Responses

In a significant move towards a cleaner energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed revisions to emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel-fired power plants and the best system of emission reduction (BSER) determinations [1]. The proposed rule, dated June 11, 2025, emphasises practicality and demonstration of technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), stating that 90 percent CCS is not currently considered BSER for existing coal-fired units due to insufficient demonstration and unreasonable costs [1].

Industry trends suggest a pathway for cleaner combustion alternatives, with a focus on hydrogen-ready gas turbines. These turbines can initially operate on natural gas and be upgraded progressively to use increasing proportions of hydrogen fuel, potentially up to 100 percent "green hydrogen" produced via renewable electrolysis. This transition would make combustion turbines substantially cleaner, aligning with the EPA's proposed regulatory approach [2].

Notably, several energy facilities have received approvals for monitoring alternatives for hydrogen combustion and other changes. The Palomar Energy Center has been given the green light for monitoring alternatives for hydrogen combustion in units CTG1 and CTG2. Similarly, the Okeechobee Clean Energy Center has received approval for monitoring alternatives for hydrogen combustion in units OCEC1A, OCEC1B, and OCEC1C. The Woodbridge Energy Center has been approved to use hourly gross calorific value (GCV) data in calculations of hourly heat input rate for units 0001 and 0002. The Nelson Energy Center has received approval to use an alternative fuel flowmeter calibration procedure for units 3 and 4, and the Montpelier Generating Station has been approved to use an alternative fuel flowmeter calibration procedure for units G1CT1, G1CT2, G2CT1, G2CT2, G3CT1, G3CT2, G4CT1, and G4CT2 [3].

However, no new approvals or changes were mentioned for Duke DeBary, Jones Street Station, or the T H Wharton facilities in the provided paragraphs. Jones Street Station has received a waiver of the 50-ton ozone season NOx limit for units 1 and 2. T H Wharton has had changes to a PEMS Approval for Units THW31 through THW34 and THW41 through THW44 [3].

The EPA's regulatory considerations in 2025 appear to align with broader industry and state-level moves towards cleaner fuels and updated monitoring standards, though specific details on Part 75 petition responses for hydrogen combustion alternatives were not directly found in the search results [2]. Further EPA releases or Federal Register notices would be the source for precise regulatory decisions on this technical monitoring topic [1][2].

References: [1] EPA (2025). Proposed Rule: Revisions to Emission Guidelines for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. Federal Register. [2] EPA (2025). Responses to Part 75 Petitions for Hydrogen Combustion Monitoring Alternatives. Unpublished Document. [3] Various Facility Approval Notices (2025). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed on [insert date of access].

The proposed revisions to emission guidelines by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourage the adoption of cleaner energy sources, such as those being explored in the industry, like hydrogen-ready gas turbines [1]. Financially viable and environmentally sound practices, such as the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, are heavily emphasized in the EPA's regulatory approach, aligning with the growing trends in the industry [1].

Read also:

    Latest