Defense Council Points to Downside of Waste Incineration

August‭ 2, 2024‬

Aviva Aron-Dine, Acting Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy‬ ‭Department of Treasury‬
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW‬
Washington‭ DC, 20005‬

‭Re: REG-119283-23, Section 45Y Clean Electricity Production Credit and Section 48E Clean‬ ‭Electricity Investment Credit‬

Dear‭ Acting Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Aviva Aron-Dine,‬

‭The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national environmental and public-health‬ ‭organization, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS)‬ proposed‭ rules on the clean electricity production credit and the clean electricity investment‬ ‭credit as established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).‬

How‭ the IRS chooses to implement sections 45Y and 48E of the Internal Revenue Code‬ will‭ have significant consequences not only for greenhouse gas emissions associated‬ with the electric power production, but also for the health and well being of communities‬ around‭ the nation.‬

To‭ this end, NRDC urges the IRS to not allow any form of waste incineration to be eligible‬ for‭ clean electricity tax credits.‬

The‭ Department of the Treasury and the IRS have a statutory duty to accurately assess the‬ lifecycle‭ emissions of different forms of electricity production in determining eligibility for clean‬ ‭electricity tax credits. As detailed in comments submitted by Friends of the Earth, GAIA, and‬ ‭over 100 other environmental and community organizations from around the country, waste‬incineration‭ emits high levels of greenhouse gasses, as well as other toxic air contaminants.‬ ‭NRDC supports and underscores the following comments:‬

‭Incinerators are the dirtiest way to either manage waste or produce electricity. A recent‬ ‭metareview of electricity production externalities found that “waste-to-energy”‬ incineration‭ has the greatest quantified negative externalities.¹‬ The‭ smokestack pollutants‭ from incinerating solid waste can be the largest contributor of toxic air‬ ‭emissions in surrounding communities. For example, in Baltimore, a single incinerator‬ accounts‭ for over a third of the city's point source air pollution. Compared to coal plants,‬ ‭incinerators emit 150% more carbon dioxide per unit of energy, and significantly higher‬ levels‭ of co-pollutants, including heavy metals, mercury, dioxins, and other air toxics.‬ The‭ consequences of incinerator pollution predominantly harm environmental justice‬ ‭communities: 79% of all MSW incinerators in the U.S. are located in communities of‬ ‭color or low-income communities.^2‭‬‬

‭The Clean Air Act definition of lifecycle greenhouse emissions requires that the Treasury‬ ‭consider all direct emissions from incinerators, both the fossil and biogenic. This full‬ accounting‭ of emissions will clearly reveal that incinerators do not meet the requirements‬ of‭ 45Y and 48E. In fact, incinerators are significantly dirtier than the grid average — per‬ unit‭ of electricity generated, they emit 3.8 times as much GHG —1.9 times as much‬ ‭fossil carbon dioxide, 15 times as much nitrogen dioxide & methane, and 66 times as‬ much‭ biogenic carbon emissions.^3‭‬ This‭ disparity will only worsen as the electric grid‬ ‭decarbonizes.‬

Figure‭ 1. Generation-weighted mean national GHG emissions intensity by major fuel‬ type‭ for electricity. (“MSWI” is municipal solid waste incineration, “LFG” is landfill gas,‬ and‭ “Gas” is natural gas.)⁴‬

‭In addition to stack emissions, the CAA requires direct and indirect emissions from all‬ ‭stages related to the full fuel lifecycle to be counted, “from feedstock generation or‬ extraction‭ through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate‬ ‭consumer.” When municipal waste is the “fuel,” the upstream emissions impacts are‬ enormous‭. Burning these materials, rather than recovering them through reuse,‬ ‭recycling or composting, destroys most of their embedded energy. Recycling materials‬saves‭ three to five times more energy than burning them generates, while significantly‬ ‭reducing air pollution. The EPA estimates that at least 75% of the materials we put into‬ incinerators‭ and landfills can be reused, recycled, or composted, all of which would‬ ‭result in significant avoided emissions. Any net greenhouse gas emission analysis of‬ waste‭ incineration should use these solid waste management approaches (waste‬ ‭prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting) as the basis for comparison.

The‭ exclusion of waste incinerators from 45Y and 48E must also extend to other new emerging‭ thermal technologies, such as “chemical recycling,” pyrolysis and gasification of‭ plastics, and other solid wastes, which have similar or higher emissions profiles.⁵ These‭ technologies produce fuels that require further refining, and thus are even more‬ carbon‭ intensive than conventional incineration. The high lifecycle emissions of all forms‬ of‭ waste incineration should preclude these technologies from qualifying for 45Y and‬ ‭48E.‬

Furthermore,‭ NRDC notes that, in addition to considering and addressing greenhouse gasses,‬ any‭ rational and environmentally just policy must consider the other hazards posed by various‬ incineration‭ technologies, including toxic air pollutants and the generation of large amounts of‬ ‭hazardous waste.‬

NRDC‭ has documented the serious toxic hazards associated with pyrolysis and gasification‬ facilities,‭ two predominant technologies used to incinerate plastic waste. For example, NRDC‬ ‭documented in a 2022 report that a single pyrolysis facility in Oregon generated 484,690‬ pounds‭ of hazardous waste in 2019.⁶ We‭ also found that pyrolysis and gasification facilities‬ ‭release toxic air contaminants associated with cancer, reproductive harm, liver toxicity, and a range of other health effects.⁷‬ ‭Moreover, NRDC found that these incinerators are often sited in‬ ‭communities that are disproportionately low income, people of color, or both.⁸‬

‭The chemicals and pollutants released by incinerators enter the air, water and food supply and‬ ‭get into people's bodies when they breathe, drink, and eat contaminants. Importantly, studies‬ ‭find that proximity to waste incineration may increase risks of cancers, birth defects, and other‬ ‭adverse health impacts‬‭.⁹

In‭ summary, to comply with the requirements and intent of the IRA and to protect the health‭ of communities, we urge the Department of the Treasury to exclude all forms of‬ ‭waste incineration from the new tax credit, including pyrolysis and gasification.‬

Respectfully,‬‭

Daniel‭ Rosenberg‬
Senior‭ Attorney‬
Director of Federal Toxics Policy

Renee‭ Sharp‬
Senior‭ Scientist‬
Director of Plastics and Petrochemical Advocacy‬