PNM EXHIBIT Rt~D-8. Consisting of 7 pages

Similar documents
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-JSM Document 9 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

FederalR eg ister Environm entald o cu m en ts

NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR; SIERRA CLUB, INC., v. E.P.A.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

RULE 2520 FEDERALLY MANDATED OPERATING PERMITS (Adopted June 15, 1995, Amended June 21, 2001)

The Department shall administer the air quality program of the State. (1973, c. 821, s. 6; c. 1262, s. 23; 1977, c. 771, s. 4; 1987, c. 827, s. 204.

Case 1:11-cv CMA-MEH Document 66 Filed 09/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 26

ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL and ECOLOGY COMMISSION REGULATION NO. 26 REGULATIONS OF THE ARKANSAS OPERATING AIR PERMIT PROGRAM

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD DECEMBER 10, 2013 DECIDED APRIL 15, 2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In the Supreme Court of the United States

State s Legal Authority to Adopt and Implement the Plan

A. Clean Air Act. 1. California ex rel. Imperial County Pollution Control Dist. v. U.S. Dep t of the Interior, 751 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir.

Table of Contents. Both petitioners and EPA are supported by numerous amici curiae (friends of the court).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)

Climate Policy Update

Case 3:16-cv JD Document 46 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 27

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, on August 10, 2011, Plaintiffs Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians filed

WRAP Charter. Approved July 2014

42 USC NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WHEREAS, Portland General Electric Company ( PGE ) is an Oregon corporation;

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct (2011). Talasi Brooks ABSTRACT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Cooperative Federalism In the Trump Administration. LaJuana S. Wilcher English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, LLP Bowling Green, KY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 06/04/2018 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

Case3:13-cv SI Document162 Filed03/02/15 Page1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 03/24/2017 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) )

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COMPLAINT

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

Case 3:17-cv WWE Document 52 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases: Congressional Responses and Options

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY OVER EPA RULEMAKING UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

NOTE USING ALASKA V. EPA TO UNMASK THE CLEAN AIR ACT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Michigan v. EPA: Money Matters When Deciding Whether to Regulate Power Plants

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

CALL TO ORDER (Charlie Carter)

Case3:14-cv Document1 Filed09/03/14 Page1 of 8

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 40 CFR Part 52. [EPA-R05-OAR ; FRL Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Volatile Organic Compounds

Air quality standards and classifications. NC General Statutes - Chapter 143 Article 21B 1

RULE 217 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS Adopted INDEX

PNM EXHIBIT GT0-1. Consisting of 6 pages

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Draft Agenda Meeting of the Environmental Improvement Board

EPA Final Brief in West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No , Doc. # (filed April 22, 2016), at 61.

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CI-640 DIVISION II ***************************************

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WYOMING

Case 1:07-cv MCA-LFG Document 15 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 23 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Use of Credible Evidence to Prove Clean Air Act Violations

40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401. Definition of Waters of the United States Amendment of Effective Date of 2015 Clean

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:08CV318

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

INTRODUCTION. WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Renewal Application Update 10206

MS4 Remand Rule. Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE TO KEY OBAMA ENVIRONMENTAL RULES BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT. October 6, 2017

NO\/ In re: Deseret Power Electric Cooperative. PSD Appeal No PSD Permit No. PSD-OU [Decided November 13, 2008]

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CLEAN AIR ACT PSD PERMIT PROGRAM VIOLATIONS

LCB File No. R PROPOSED REGULATION OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 40 CFR Part 52. [EPA-R05-OAR ; FRL Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Volatile Organic Compounds

Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010) Page 1 of 12

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No (and consolidated cases)

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 3228 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

had held that only specified reference test data could be used to prove violations of applicable emissions limits.

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5. ) Docket No. CAA )

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.: Administrative and Procedural Tools in Environmental Law. by Ryan Petersen *

The Death of the Clean Air Act's PSD Provision: The Practical Implications of Circuit Courts' Failure to Properly Apply Chevron Deference

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: March 5, NO. S-1-SC NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, INC.

Case: 3:11-cv bbc Document #: 122 Filed: 03/02/12 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between: 1) Sierra Club; and 2)

In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

January 23, Mr. Pruitt s Lawsuits to Overturn EPA s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Remaining Requirements for Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Electronic Reporting Requirements

WIPP s Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Renewal Application 9101

Transcription:

PNM EXHIBIT Rt~D-8 Consisting of 7 pages

STATE OF 1\'"EW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLA..~ FOR THE SAN JUA.~ GENERATING STATION BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION No. EIB 13-02(R) ORDER AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ADOPTION OF SIP REVISIONS This matter comes before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board ("Board") upon a petition filed by the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED" or "Department"), proposing amendments to New Mexico's State Implementation Plan ("SIP") for regional haze, in order to adopt a determination of the Best Available Retrofit Technology ("BART'') and associated emission limits for the San Juan Generating Station ("SJGS"), operated by Public Service Company of New Mexico ("PNM"). A public hearing was held in Farmington, New Mexico on September 5, 2013, with a quorum of the Board present during the hearing. The Board heard technical testimony from the Department and other parties and admitted exhibits into the record. On September 5, 2013, the Board deliberated and voted to adopt the proposed amendments for the reasons that follow: I. STATEMENT OF REASONS 1. The federal Clean Air Act ("CAA'') requires states to submit State Implementation Plans ("SIPs") to address visibility impairment caused by regional haze at certain National Parks and Wilderness Areas ("mandatory federal Class I areas"), in accordance with Em No. 13 02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 1 of7

regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). CAA 169A & 169B (42 U.S.C. 7491 & 7492 ). 2. The EPA regulations governing SIP submittals under CAA Sections 169A and 169B are codified at 40 C.F.R. 51.308-51.309 ("Regional Haze Rule Sections 308 and 309"). 3. In December 2003 the Board approved a SIP developed by NMED to comply with the Requirements of Regional Haze Rule Section 309 with respect to mandatory federal Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau. The Department has implemented this.. Section 309 SIP" continuously since that time. 4. In June 2011 the Board approved certain revisions to the 2003 regional haze SIP and adopted additional SIP provisions pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.309(g), which extended the scope of the regional haze SIP to all mandatory federal Class I areas within the State. 5. The 2011 SIP contained source-specific BART determinations pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.308(e) for the SJGS for particulate matter ("PM") and nitrogen oxides ("NOx"), and determined that no other sources in New Mexico were subject to BART requirements. The BART provisions of the SIP were contained in Chapter 10 and the documentation of the SJGS BART determination was contained in Appendix D of the SIP. 6. The Board continues to believe that the SIP adopted by the Board in 2011 was adequate and sufficient to comply with the CAA. 7. In August, 2011, the EPA promulgated a federal implementation plan ("FIP") containing a different NOx BART determination for the SJGS. 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011). EIB No. 13-02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 2 of7

8. Petitions filed by New Mexico, PNM, and WildEarth Guardians challenging different aspects of the FIP are currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 9. In November, 2012, the EPA approved all elements of New Mexico's 2011 regional haze SIP, except for the NOx BART determination for the SJGS, on which EPA took no action. 77 Fed. Reg. 70,693 (Nov. 27, 2012). 10. Pursuant to 20.1.300.A NMAC, any person may petition the Board for amendment of regulations within the jurisdiction of the Board. 11. On May 21,2013 NMED filed a petition with the Board for a public hearing in this matter. The petition proposed revised versions Chapter 10 and Appendix D of the regional haze SIP. The purpose of the revisions is to make a new BART determination for the SJGS based on a scenario referred to as the "State Alternative," which is contained in a tentative agreement between NMED, EPA, and PNM known as the ''Term Sheet" (attached hereto). The Term Sheet is intended to address pollution control requirements for the SJGS with respect to regional haze and interstate transport for visibility. 12. On June 15, 2013, at a meeting conducted in compliance with the Open Meetings Act and other applicable requirements, the Board granted the Department's request for a hearing and scheduled the hearing for September 5, 2013. The Board appointed member John Volkerding as the Hearing Officer. 13. On June 28, 2013, public notice of the hearing was published in the New Mexico Register, in the Farmington Daily Times (in English and Spanish), and in the Albuquerque Journal (in English and Spanish). The notice stated that the Board may Em No. 13-02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 3 of7

make a decision on the proposed SIP revisions at the conclusion of the hearing, or may convene at a later date to consider action on the proposal. 14. NMED filed a Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony (NO I) on August 16, 2013, in accordance with the 20.1.1 NMAC. The following parties also filed entries of appearance: Public Service Company of New Mexico; and New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers (NMIEC). 15. The Board also considered public comment, including letters from the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service and NMED's and PNM's response to those comments, as well as letters, electronic submissions and in-person comments during the hearing from individuals and organizations, members of the local community. legislators, employees and fonner employees of the SanJuan Generating Statio~ the county commission and ratepayers. The public comment was almost unanimous in its support for the SIP proposed by NMED. 16. A hearing was in this matter was held in Fannington, New Mexico on September 5, 2013, at which a reasonable opportunity for all persons to be heard was provided. 17. The Board has the authority to adopt the proposed SIP revisions pursuant to N.M.S.A. 1978, 74-2-5.B & C. 18. Implementation of the State Alternative will abate air pollution. 19. CAA 169A(g)(2) requires that BART determinations shall take into consideration "[1] the costs of compliance, [2] the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, [3] any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, [4] the remaining useful life of the source, and [5] the degree of improvement which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology." The Board Effi No. 13-02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 4of7

determined that there was ample oral and written testimony that the SIP proposed by NMED meets these requirements. 20. In considering the proposed SIP revisions, the Board is required by the Air Quality Control Act, NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.E. to give weight it deems appropriate to all facts and circumstances, including but not limited to (1) character and degree of injury to or interference with health, welfare, visibility and property; (2) the public interest, including the social and economic value of the sources and subjects of air contaminants; and (3) technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating air contaminants from the sources involved and previous experience with equipment and methods available to control the air contaminants involved. The Board heard ample oral and written testimony and considered all these facts and circumstances regarding the NMED-proposed SIP in making its decision. 21. EPA has promulgated guidelines for States to use in making BART determinations, which are codified at 40 C.P.R. Part 51, Appendix Y. Pursuant to CAA 169A(b)(2), use of the guidelines is mandatory for BART determinations for fossil fuel fired power plants with total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. 22. NMED's determination that the State Alternative constitutes BART for NOx: for the SJGS complies with the guidelines at 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y and properly weighs the statutory factors of CAA 169A(g)(2). 23. The Board concludes that the BART guidelines at Appendix Y provide an appropriate methodology to consider to the factors specified by NMSA 1978, Section 74-2-5.E. The Department's application of Appendix Y to the BART determination for the State Alternative appropriately weighs the Section 74-2-5.E factors. EIB No. 13-02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 5 of7

24. In addition, in accordance with N.M.S.A, Section 74-2-5.E (2), the Board concludes that the public interest will be served by implementation of the State Alternative. Specifically, in addition to satisfying the NOx BART requirements of the CAA, implementation of the State Alternative will result in significant reductions in sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and mercury; significant reductions in coal ash generated and water consumed. 25. In accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 74-2-5(C)(l)(a), the proposed SIP revisions and regulations are no more stringent than but at least as stringent as required by the federal act and federal regulations pertaining to visibility protection in mandatory class I areas. 26. The notice and hearing requirements of NMSA 1978 Section 74-2-6 and 20.1.1 NMAC were satisfied in this rulemaking process. 27. The proposed amendments are adopted for any or all of the reasons stated above. II. ORDER By unanimous vote of a quorum of the Board members, the proposed revisions to New Mexico's regional haze SIP at Chapter 10 and Appendix D, as contained in NMED's June 27, 2013 public review drafts of those documents, were approved by the Board on September 5, 2013. The Department shall submit these SIP revisions, with any corrections necessary to address the errors identified in NMED Exhibit 16, as expeditiously as possible to the EPA for approval. To the extent that any provision within Chapter 10, Section 10.5 (Implementation of the State Alternative) is not self-executing, the Department shall take appropriate actions to implement that provision using its applicable powers and authorities, including but not limited to EIB No. 13-02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page6 of7

enforcement authority under N.M.S.A. 1978, 74-2-12 and permitting authority under N.M.S.A. 1978, 74-2-7, and implementing regulations. (j)g~~ Dated: September 5, 2013 On Behalf of the Board EIB No. 13-02 Statement of Reasons and Order Page 7 of7