tartar standing that there are approximately six plants to which this rule applies these are very large coal fired power plants that employ selective catalytic reduction this pollution seventeen counties home to eight million people in our communities suffer from increased alerts to revisit hospital admissions asthma attacks and compromised immune systems because because of ex loophole is also not supported by evidence in the record and rd the record keeping requirement which hinges on temperature does not require reporting a temperature and therefore is also arbitrary i like to start with the initial way the reasonable available control technology standard on terms requires the adoption of the lowest and toughest emission r that qualification e p a has said that economic pizza delivery is based on evidence that other sources in fact have applied that control d technology in question so if you look at that economic  has looked at historical average emissions for these plants and that's a chart i mentioned a few minutes ago at three hundred and twenty nine dollars plants and and the problem with an average is so the data that the court asked about about cherry picking we have submitted data for broad range of these plants for the five operating plants and a one hundred and fifty different engaged very directly in the briefs is what temperature as a question of temperature and you talk about temperature and then we'll talk about record keeping that the closest that the state and the e p a come to justifying is has to do with a your response is well if that's a very short term thing to open a burn off overnight i don't really see a lot of detail on this one way or the other in the record what would you say about why ammonia slip is really not that great a justification lupul because above six hundred degrees one level applies one level of emission control flies and we have an argument about whether that level emission controls fission but then below six hundred d technology is selective catalytic reduction still achieve in seventy or seventy five percent reduction remember these are the biggest most high emitting plants in the commonwealth these these plants are information that will allow the court to find that it's not arbitrary to list to reduce such a emission control requirement below six hundred degrees ok so what's your response to the closest i took the e p a and pennsylvania to be responded to this is when they picked the point twelve standard they threw out all the points that were needing more than point and they did that on  understanding that there are already a bunch of plants that were meeting point three hundred because they were turning off the catalytic converters when they were burning at too low d a temperature so  big industry practices that they had to do that because otherwise they were going to be poisoning the catalytic converters is that not correct if that's not in fact the way it works in the industry that they just have to buy a cut or a lot of converters  it's operating but the chart i think that that qualifying word really says a lot because we really ought to only be looking at how well these plans do well and if you are an operation all the time or almost all the devolved benefitting from point twelve and their excluding all of this higher emission is happening at night i think what i'd like to focus on for this chart are two things the two words i mentioned average and presumably if if the and two cited in our brief and and the problem here is the department's rule does not require recording reporting of temperature and why don't why don't the state  requirements do that don't the state requirements require them to report to the state all the things required by the plane and the temperature is one of those things and so why isn't that sufficient it's not might require reporting none of those things services based through this rule making and they should be considered by the court but i looked at them again and even if you do consider them none of them specifically require temperature now if you are on whether you're in violation they won't know unless they also know where you are and that's exactly the problem here you know if you know the emission rate if you don't know the temperature you don't know which side of this temperature loophole you fall on if you fall on the more stringent or less stringent side so without an explicit requirement to report temperature there's no way for d p e p a or my clients to look at these issues aspect of compliance with this rule is accorded to d p so our clients can get ahold of that data can you get this by foyer pennsylvania for help requests well how they're here that because it will require the operators to maintain data and calculations to demonstrate compliance it would be impossible for an operator to demonstrate compliance with a particular l without having that in my temperature data you heard from the public my own and that they've been essential aspect of the rule we agree in fact it would be impossible for an operator to prove compliance without that data variable operation and pennsylvania solution for regulating the source in light of those that were to adapt a temperature threshold when the units are operating in such a way that in light temperature is these plants are going to miss to substantially more because of the the exemption overnight every night so how is the point twelve minute reasonable given that you're also tech ing that that further away on top of it thank you threshold they're still complying with the rattler they need to comply with rad level controls pennsylvania that put it we're going to require additional control reductions because the specific unit are already installed on their dock strains because they already have the technology installed we're going to require that they use the technology when they're in my temperatures  it's true that the limit that would apply outside of that threshold are more forgiving but there are also rack level limits that are considered and with the evidence in this record what other states they've done and they're not being challenged here ok well let's talk about i want to hear about is what about these references in the record to ammonia flap and having to reject ammonia ammonia by sulfate and if that sticky and with that burn off over ninety there's a little bit in the record but there's not very much th about why you can't just require the limits that would be achievable by using catalin converters all the time or using kettle of converters over a different place and your own evidence said three hundred and fifteen degrees or bordered  why push it all the way up to six hundred instead of saying for easier five hundred thank you that's actually an important piece of clarification that in hearing the discussion tonight on the i want to clarify e p a approval of the  the reader for that is because max reduction efficiency we kids a measure of how much pollution can be refute from you've got strain it largely dictated by the temperature in the catalyst chamber that because  that because certain sources within that state would be required to modify their operations in upgrade their at c r systems in order to meet the more stringent limit for them that opted i'm happy to take any credit questions from the pan storm rule making to reduce pollution from coal fired power plants i want to make two points for the court the st point is that pennsylvania's rule is consistent with the clean air act and the back and pointed at pennsylvania's record keeping requirements ensure compliance of the temperature data and so sometimes it'll be there and from two hundred well that that's correct your honor and i would also note on that point that the operating permit convention actually do we need a temperature threshold or big temperature pressure old thank you to the question your honor the department made a engineering judgment evaluating the at market so what that means and that the coal fired power plants don't have the discretion to operate they do not operate the temperature is not determined arbitrarily determined by the power plants on a whim and  charge the temperature depends on how much coal is being burned and that is clearly beyond the plants control they don't manipulate the market or the amount of coal burning so that what's got up to address the long haul argument and i want to they would run at a lower temperature it would basically it would cause operational problems powering heating it would lead on planned shutdowns to increase maintenance and that had been the grac rate in the i just want to make two points with reference to the st it confirms that there is an operating range of selected khalili production below six hundred degrees and in fact at the very bottom of the rd column in j for the other in terms of one of the judges asked a question about operating a fiar below six hundred degrees being not feasible but