.jpg)
NEW YORK STATE--New York State Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Phillips issued a number of rulings last week in regard to the ongoing legal process involving Greenidge Generation on Seneca Lake.
Greenidge Generation is a fossil-fueled power plant that has evolved to house a Bitcoin digital mine operation onsite that uses power from behind-the-meter. The company has maintained from the beginning they are in compliance with all permits regarding their operation, while several environmental groups have opposed the facility on a number of grounds including greenhouse gas emissions, lake water usage, noise, etc.
Greenidge holds permits for both the emissions the plant produces as well as the water it withdraws from Seneca Lake and a discharge permit. While renewals were filed in a timely fashion by the company, the permits expired Sept. 6, 2021 and Sept. 30, 2022. On June 30, 2022, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Notice of Denial of the air permit renewal. “The denial was based on the determination that the facility’s continued operation would be inconsistent with or would interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits established in article 75 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act [CLCPA]) and reflected in 6 NYCRR part 496.”
Greenidge appealed the ruling and is allowed to continue operating with the expired permits while the legal process is underway.
In the legal document dated Sept. 22, 2023, Judge Phillips found in summary:
• I conclude that the CLCPA authorized the department to deny Greenidge’s application to renew its Title V air permit.
• I conclude that CP-49, Climate Change and DEC Action, and DAR-21, The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act and Air Permit Applications were not used as the basis of the department’s decision to deny Greenidge’s renewal application. They may be relevant to show whether the department’s approach to this permit is similar to its overall implementation of the CLCPA and may be considered in this adjudication.
• I conclude that the provisions of CLCPA are applicable to the instant permit renewal application. Greenidge must demonstrate that the facility will be in compliance and would not disproportionately burden a disadvantaged community. Accordingly, the issue of whether renewal of the Title V air permit will disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities as prohibited by CLCPA will be adjudicated, and the final DAC maps are relevant to that inquiry.
• I conclude that the primary purpose of the facility was not relevant to the determination of whether the decision to renew Greenidge’s Title V air permit is inconsistent with the CLCPA’s GHG emissions limits. I further conclude that department staff was correct in finding that renewal of Greenidge’s Title V air permit would be inconsistent with the CLCPA’s GHG emissions limits under the CLCPA.
• I conclude the purpose of the facility is relevant to whether a decision that is inconsistent with the GHG emissions limits of the CLCPA is justified. I further conclude DEC staff did not err in relying on publicly available NYISO reports to determine if renewal of the project could be justified, in the absence of any submission by Greenidge to justify a permit renewal inconsistent with the CLCPA GHG emissions goals.
• I conclude that the Department staff did not err in treating Greenidge’s application as a new application under the CLCPA, which is applicable to all permitting decisions, including renewals. I further conclude that department regulations regarding Title V air permits expressly require that a renewal application be treated as a new application for a permit.
• I conclude that department staff did not err in finding the permit renewal inconsistent with the CLCPA GHG emissions limits notwithstanding Greenidge’s proposal to use cessation of operations to comply with the CLCPA’s zero emissions by 2040 requirement for the electricity generation sector.
• Department staff did not err in finding the primary purpose of the facility had changed from a peaker facility to a facility primarily providing power to cryptocurrency mining behind the meter. The finding was reasonable and was based on the information Greenidge provided. This is not a factual issue for adjudication.
• Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 621.14, department staff was authorized to require Greenidge to provide the current generating capacity and utilization rates of the facility, the planned future capacity and utilization rates of the facility, and the portion of the facility’s output that will be used for each mode of operation (e.g., electricity generation to the grid vs. on-site consumption for Blockchain operations) now and in the future. Department staff did not err in applying the limited information that Greenidge provided in the application process. This issue will not be adjudicated.
• The petition for full party status filed by Seneca Lake Guardian, The Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes, Fossil-Free Tompkins, and the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club, is granted.
• The motion for summary judgment is denied.
Appeals to the ruling are due at 5 p.m., Oct. 25.
Greenidge Generation is a fossil-fueled power plant that has evolved to house a Bitcoin digital mine operation onsite that uses power from behind-the-meter. The company has maintained from the beginning they are in compliance with all permits regarding their operation, while several environmental groups have opposed the facility on a number of grounds including greenhouse gas emissions, lake water usage, noise, etc.
Greenidge holds permits for both the emissions the plant produces as well as the water it withdraws from Seneca Lake and a discharge permit. While renewals were filed in a timely fashion by the company, the permits expired Sept. 6, 2021 and Sept. 30, 2022. On June 30, 2022, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Notice of Denial of the air permit renewal. “The denial was based on the determination that the facility’s continued operation would be inconsistent with or would interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits established in article 75 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act [CLCPA]) and reflected in 6 NYCRR part 496.”
Greenidge appealed the ruling and is allowed to continue operating with the expired permits while the legal process is underway.
In the legal document dated Sept. 22, 2023, Judge Phillips found in summary:
• I conclude that the CLCPA authorized the department to deny Greenidge’s application to renew its Title V air permit.
• I conclude that CP-49, Climate Change and DEC Action, and DAR-21, The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act and Air Permit Applications were not used as the basis of the department’s decision to deny Greenidge’s renewal application. They may be relevant to show whether the department’s approach to this permit is similar to its overall implementation of the CLCPA and may be considered in this adjudication.
• I conclude that the provisions of CLCPA are applicable to the instant permit renewal application. Greenidge must demonstrate that the facility will be in compliance and would not disproportionately burden a disadvantaged community. Accordingly, the issue of whether renewal of the Title V air permit will disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities as prohibited by CLCPA will be adjudicated, and the final DAC maps are relevant to that inquiry.
• I conclude that the primary purpose of the facility was not relevant to the determination of whether the decision to renew Greenidge’s Title V air permit is inconsistent with the CLCPA’s GHG emissions limits. I further conclude that department staff was correct in finding that renewal of Greenidge’s Title V air permit would be inconsistent with the CLCPA’s GHG emissions limits under the CLCPA.
• I conclude the purpose of the facility is relevant to whether a decision that is inconsistent with the GHG emissions limits of the CLCPA is justified. I further conclude DEC staff did not err in relying on publicly available NYISO reports to determine if renewal of the project could be justified, in the absence of any submission by Greenidge to justify a permit renewal inconsistent with the CLCPA GHG emissions goals.
• I conclude that the Department staff did not err in treating Greenidge’s application as a new application under the CLCPA, which is applicable to all permitting decisions, including renewals. I further conclude that department regulations regarding Title V air permits expressly require that a renewal application be treated as a new application for a permit.
• I conclude that department staff did not err in finding the permit renewal inconsistent with the CLCPA GHG emissions limits notwithstanding Greenidge’s proposal to use cessation of operations to comply with the CLCPA’s zero emissions by 2040 requirement for the electricity generation sector.
• Department staff did not err in finding the primary purpose of the facility had changed from a peaker facility to a facility primarily providing power to cryptocurrency mining behind the meter. The finding was reasonable and was based on the information Greenidge provided. This is not a factual issue for adjudication.
• Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 621.14, department staff was authorized to require Greenidge to provide the current generating capacity and utilization rates of the facility, the planned future capacity and utilization rates of the facility, and the portion of the facility’s output that will be used for each mode of operation (e.g., electricity generation to the grid vs. on-site consumption for Blockchain operations) now and in the future. Department staff did not err in applying the limited information that Greenidge provided in the application process. This issue will not be adjudicated.
• The petition for full party status filed by Seneca Lake Guardian, The Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes, Fossil-Free Tompkins, and the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club, is granted.
• The motion for summary judgment is denied.
Appeals to the ruling are due at 5 p.m., Oct. 25.
