## APPENDIX G EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ; PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NEVADA’S RESPONSES

## (This page left intentionally blank.)901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001 • Carson City, Nevada 89701 • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • ndep.nv.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD BEGINNING FEBRUARY 1 , 201 3 AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 6 , 2013 , IF REQUESTED Conducted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection , Bureau of Air Quality Planning Pursuant to the public hearing requirements in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 section 102, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) is issuing the following notice and is taking comment on a proposa l to certify that the existing Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) is adequate for implementation of the 2008 8

- hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

. On March 27, 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) re vised the 8

- hour primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (73 FR 16436). When US EPA promulgates a new standard or revises an existing standard, Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(1) requires each state to submit a pla n showing it has the authority and programs needed to implement, maintain, and enforce the standard, regardless of designation status; section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that must be addressed in the plan. Because m any of the section 110(a)(2) elements r elate to the general information and authorities that constitute the infrastructure of a state’s air quality management program, the 110(a) plans are generally referred to as “infrastructure SIPs.” Nevada’s 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP is a compila tion of Nevada’s existing authorities and programs to demonstrate that Nevada has a plan in place to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Nevada’s ozone infrastructure SIP will be submitted to US EPA in April 2013. The NDEP is responsible for developing and impl ementing state plans in the 15 rural counties of Nevada. Clark County and Washoe County have their own air quality agencies, which are responsible for their respective counties. The NDEP’s portion of the Nevada ozone infrastructure SIP and related m ateri als are available on the NDEP website at http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/public.htm , click on “Air Quality Planning.” Access to the draft document may also be obtained by contacting Adele Malone at NDEP, 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001, Carson City, NV 89701; (775) 687

- 9356; or e

- mail to amalone@ndep.nv.gov

. Persons wishing to comment on the draft plan or to request a public hearing should submit their comments or request in writing either in person or by mail or fax to Adele Malone at the above address or by fax at (775) 687

- 6396. A request for a hearing mus t be received by February 26, 2013. Written comments will be received by the NDEP until 5:00 PM PST, March 6, 2013 and will be retained and considered. Upon receipt of a valid written request, the NDEP will hold a public hearing in Carson City on: March 6, 2013 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Great Basin Conference Room, 4 th Floor 901 South Stewart Street Carson City, Nevada An agenda will be posted on the NDEP web site at least 3 working days before the hearing. Oral comments will be received at the Hearing. If no request for a public hearing is received by February 26, 2013, the hearing will be cancelled. Persons may chec k on the status of the hearing on the NDEP web site at http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/public.htm , click on “Air Quality Planning,” or you may call the NDEP Bureau of Air Quality Planning at (775) 687

- 9349. Thi s notice has been published in the Las Vegas Review

- Journal and the Reno Gaz ette Journal newspapers. It has been posted at the NDEP offices in Carson City and Las Vegas, at the State Library in Carson City and at County libraries throughout Nevada. Membe rs of the public who are disabled and require special accommodations or assistance at the hearing are requested to notify Adele Malone or Cathy Douglas (775

- 687

- 9349) no later than 3 working days before the hearing. 01 /2 9 /2013NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON March 6 , 2013
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality Planning

Pursuant to the public hearing provisions in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 section 102, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) is cancelling the following public hearing because no request for a hearing was received:

March 6 , 2013 10: 0 0 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Great Basin Conference Room, 4 th Floor 901 South Stewart Street Carson City, Nevada

The NDEP’s draft Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) and related m aterials are available on the NDEP website at http://ndep.nv.gov/admin/public.htm , click on “Air Quality Planning.” Persons may also check on the status of Nevada’s Ozone Infrastructure SIP revision by telephone at (775) 687

- 9356

.

## Public Comments and Nevada’s Responses (Only one comment was received)March 6, 2013 VIA FAX TO (775) 687
- 6369 AND E
- MAIL TO AMALONE@NDEP.NV.GOV Adele Malone Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 901 South Stewart Street Suite 4001 Carson City, Nevada 89701 RE: The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Por tion of the Nevada Infrastructure State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAA Q S Dear Ms. Malone: On behalf of the Sierra Club and its thousands of members who are adversely impacted by Nevada sources of ozone pollution, we submit the following comme nts on the proposed rule on the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”): Demonstration of Adequacy, (“SIP Proposal”)

. As explai ned in detailed below, Nevada must revise its SIP Proposal in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). As the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“ EPA ”) recognizes, breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function a nd increase respiratory symptoms, including aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions. Ozone may also contribute to premature death, especially in people with heart and lung disease. Moreover, ozone damages vegetation and trees, including fores ts, parks, and crops. EPA estimates that the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS has the potential to avoid 260

- 2,000 premature deaths annually as of 2020. All of these benefits in ozone reduction are estimated to save $3 to $17 billion per year. 1 In fact, 2011 and 2012 ozone ambient monitoring data indicate that these estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure by EPA may have been low.

1 EPA, F ACT S HEET : F INAL R EVISIONS TO THE N ATIONAL A MBIENT A IR Q UALITY S TANDARDS FOR O ZON E , 1

- 3 (2008), http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/2008_03_factsheet.pdf.M s . Malone Page 2 of 9 March 6 , 2013

I. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE EMISSION LIMITS TO ENSURE ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NAAQ S IN COUNTIES, WHICH CURRENTLY VIOLATE THE NAAQS. Clark County has design values above the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 0.075 parts per million (“ppm”), according to EPA’s Air Quality System (“AQS”) data, yet this county is currently designated attainment. Nevada fails to address the increasing ozone levels in Clark County that EPA has determined are unhealthy and potentially deadly in its SIP Proposal. If attainment areas are violating the NAAQS, it logically follows that the SIP lacks adequate emission limits t o attain and maintain the NAAQS. In particular, Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each SIP must “include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means, or techniques... as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.” In other words, the Nevada’s SIP Proposal fails the most basic Clean Air Act requirement, to ensure that air pollution levels meet or are below the NAAQS. In particular, Cl ark County, which has a population of close to two million people, is curre ntly violating the 2008 8

- hour o zone standard based on 2010

- 2012 design values as evidenced by the data in EPA’s Air Monitor Reports. 2 Nevada has not specified how it plans to add ress this violating county, which is designated attainment, and specifically has not proposed additional enforceable emission limits to be added to its SIP to address the se violations. The 2008 8

- hour o zone monitor values are listed below for the violating county from 2010 to 2012.

2 See EPA, N EVADA M ONITOR V ALUES R EPORTS FOR O ZONE FOR 2010

- 2012 , http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html (last visited Mar. 2 , 2013), attached hereto as Exhibit 1.M s . Malone Page 3 of 9 March 6 , 2013
Fourth Highest Monitor Values from Clark County and Three
- Year Averages from 2010 to 2012 over 0.075 ppm

County (Monitor) 2010 2011 2012 Average

Clark (# 320030043 ) 0.07 0.078 0.077 0.075 Clark (# 320030071 ) 0.073 0.0 77 0.078 0.076 Clark (# 320030073 ) 0.071 0.077 0.078 0.075 Clark (# 320030075 ) 0.074 0.077 0.079 0.076 Clark (# 320031019) 0.074 0.074 0.077 0.075 Clark (# 320037771 ) 0.079 0.079 0.085 0.081

3 Nevada cannot avoid its obligation to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS by claiming the 2012 data are not technically final. First, these numbers will become final no later than May 1, which is less than two months away. Because of this short time period, it is not likely that Nevada will submit its Infrastructure SIP to EPA until after the data are final. In addition, it will certainly be after May 1, 2013 by the time EPA takes final action on Nevada’s SIP Proposal. Therefore, Nevada and EPA will not be able to rationally hide behind the May 1, 2013 date for certi fication of annual ambient monitoring data for 2012

. Second , because it is clear from EPA data that Clark County will be violating the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, Nevada should co mplete its quality assurance/quality control (“QA/QC”) work on the 2012 data n ow, to the extent it has not done so, and submit its findings as a response to these comments. Nevada should not try to “game the system” by choosing to wait to perform QA/QC analysis until after it takes final action on this Infrastructure SIP, especiall y when such a game can result in the death of vulnerable Nevadans. Third , the 2012 values used above are from the first three quarters of 2012. The form of the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the fourth highest 8

- hour daily maximum, not an annual average or a per centage. Thus, if a fourth highest value occurs in the first three quarters of a year to push the design value over the NAAQS, the monitoring values in the fourth quarter cannot change that. That is the situation here. Clark County has 2010

– 2012 design v alues above the 2008 NAAQS using data from the first three quarters of 2012. The first three quarters of 2012 have

3 Id

.M s . Malone Page 4 of 9 March 6 , 2013 final data. It is only annual averages which may not become final until May 1, 2013. Thus, Nevada has no justification to allow the people in Clark County with 2010

– 2012 design values above the NAAQS to continue to be exposed to dangerous air pollution with no hope of regulatory action. I mportantly, Nevada could cost effectively alleviate these harmful levels of ozone, thereby preventing da mage to human health and the environment , by requiring pollution control devices and placing limits on electric generating units “(EGUs”) . Nitrogen Oxides (“NO x ”), a precursor to ozone, can be reduced cost

effectively through installation of selective cata lytic reduction (“SCR”) technology at EGUs that do not already have SCR technology and by imposing short

- term stringent emission limits on all EGUs. In fact, a ll EGUs should have emission limits of 0.03 p ound per MBtu based on an eight

- hour averaging time that applies at all times, including during startup and shut down. This limit is based on actual emission rates that at least two coal

- fired EGUs, the Ghent and Trimble power plants , have achieved when the operators chose to achieve these low emission rat es. This would be especially useful in Clark County , which is suffering from dangerously high ozone limits

. An e mission limit of 0.03 pounds per MBtu could be placed on Reid Gardner Generating Station, resulting in significant NO x reductions in Clark Cou nty

. II. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP FAILS TO PREVENT NEVADA FROM SIGNIFCANTLY CONTRIBUTING TO NONATTAINEMENT, AND INTERFERING WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE 2008 OZONE NAAQS IN OTHER STATES. Nevada fails to sufficiently address how it plans to prevent its emissio ns from significantly contributing to nonattainment, and from interfering wi th the maintenance of the 2008 o zone NAAQS in other s tates. This requirement is commonly known as the Good Neighbor Provision and is found in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the C AA

. Nevada’s Infrastructure SIP must prohibit any source or other type of emission activity in one s tate from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another s tate. 4 Nevada does not provide an adequate anal ysis that it is not contributing to other states ’ ozone emission levels and that its emission reduction prog rams are adequate to redress any significant contribution to other states. Nevada’s SIP Proposal is inadequate and must be revised to satisfy its re quirement u nder Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

. More specifically, Nevada incorrectly holds that EPA must inform the state of its pollution contribution to downwind states before it must take any action. Nevada relies upon a m emo randum by Gina McCarthy re g arding the

4 See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).M s . Malone Page 5 of 9 March 6 , 2013

D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA (“ Homer City ”)

. 5 On August 21, 2012, the D.C. C ircuit vacated the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (“CSPAR”)

. 6 In response, Ms. McCarthy wrote while EPA considers the decision wrongl y decided and petition ed for rehearing, EPA will not be making findings that states failed to meet their requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 7 EP A’s proposed reliance, and thereby Nevada’s reliance, on Homer City is misplaced for several reasons

. First, t his rulemaking only impacts sources of pollution in Nevada. Therefore, any final action on this rulemaking should be appealable to the Ninth Circuit, not the D.C. Circuit. EPA should not engage in “forum shopping” by sending a rule that only impacts polluters in Nevada to the D.C. Circuit rather than the Ninth Circuit. Thus, Nevada should not voluntarily follow Homer City, which EPA has said was incorrectly decided. Indeed, Homer City was incorrectly decided. The majority opinion in Hom er City reached a conclusion that was inconsistent with previous D.C. Circuit decisions and ignored the plain language of the statute. Therefore, it is not binding , nor persuasive with regard to Nevada’s SIP Proposal

. The D.C. Circuit wro ngly held that EPA cannot promulgate a F ederal I mplementation P lan (“FIP”) to address the requirements of the Good Neighbor Provisions until sometime after EPA has quantified emissions for all states that must be prohibited under the provision. 8 The Home r City opinion conflicts with th e D.C. Circuit’s decision in North Carolina which held that upwind s tates’ obligations under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) must be harmonized with the NAAQS attainment deadlines for downwind s tates. 9 The North Carolina c ourt requi red EPA to “decide what date, whether 2015 or earlier, is as expeditious as practicable for states to eliminate their significant contributions to downwind nonattainment.” 10 And in the c ourt’s subsequent remand decision, it made clear that it did “not inten d to grant an indefinite stay” for EPA to correct Clean Air Interstate Rule’s (“CAIR”) flaws. 11 In response to North Carolina ’s mandate, EPA incorporated a FIP into the Transport

5 See SIP P ROPOSAL at 5; Homer City , 696 F.3d 7, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 6 Homer City , F.3d at 11

. 7 See Gina McCarthy, Memo to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1

- 10, Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Request State Implementation Pl an Actions Affected by Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule , 2

- 3 (Nov. 19 2012), http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/CSAPR_Memo_to_Regions.pdf , [ hereinafter McCarthy Memorandum]. Sierra Club is currently challenging the McCarthy M emorandum in court

. 8 Homer City, 696 F.3d at 28. 9 See North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896, 9 12, on rehearing , 550 F.3d 1176 (2008). 10 Id . at 930. 11 See North Carolina , 550 F.3d at 1178.M s . Malone Page 6 of 9 March 6 , 2013 Rule pursuant to Section 110(c). 12 In disallowing this approach, the panel’s de cision and EPA’s action here would conflict with the text of the Act 13 and North Carolina

. 14 If EPA finalized its proposal, it would be “granting an indefinite stay” of the three

- year deadline in CAA Section 110(a)(1) and the two

- year deadline in Section 110 (c)(1). Not only is this illegal, but it leaves the ozone transport issue unresolved, which will result in millions of people being subject to dangerous and unhealthy ozone levels, which can cause health problems, death, economic harm, and environmental d amage. Homer City also concluded that EPA violated the C AA by not calculating the required emissions reductions on a propor tional basis as between upwind s tates. 15 This conclusion is contrary to North Carolina ’s holding that EPA need not determine each s ta te’s individualized air quality impact on downwind s tates “relative to other upwind states.” 16 Second, Nevada claims that regardless of the Homer City decision and the McCarthy M emorandum, Nevada’s current SIP does prevent significant contributions to non attainment and interference with maintenance in downwind states. Nevada’s analysis in support of this claim is flawed. Nevada’s reliance on CAIR is m is placed and does not satisfy its obligations under the Good Neighbor provision. CAIR was meant to a dd ress the less stringent 1997 o zone NAAQS. When Nevada revises its Good Neighbor obligations, Nevada cannot rely upon CAIR. CAIR does not address the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 o zone NAAQS. It was not intended to ad dress the 2008 o zone NAAQS but instead was intended to address the less stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS. Thus, Nevada’s Proposed SIP is inadequate, because it cannot rely on CAIR for emission reductions to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 17

12 See 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1) (requiring EPA to promulgate a FIP “at an y time” within 2 years after a s tate fails to meet its SIP obligations). 13 Homer City, 696 F.3d at 45 (Rogers, J. dissenting). 14 The court ’s erroneous ruling that s tates’ obligations to avoid significant contributions to nonattainment in other s t ates must await the end of EPA rulemaking is wrong for reasons the dissent set out, and is especially harmful to the statutory program for ensuring timely attainment of air quality standards. As North Carolina recognized, but the panel overlooked, Congress recognized that time is of the essence when essential public health protections are at stake. 15 Homer City, 696 F.3d at 26

- 27 16 North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 908. See also Michigan v. EPA , 213 F.3d 663, 679 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (permitting use of uniform cost t hresholds and the “ineluctabl[e]” result that small and large contributors could have the same amount of emissions reductions); Homer City, 696 F.3d at 59 (Rogers, J. dissenting). 17 See Proposed Rule on Kentucky’s 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requireme nts for the 2008 8

- hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)M s . Malone Page 7 of 9 March 6 , 2013

Furthermore, in 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated CAIR, because it failed to require sufficient and timely reductions to meet the needs of neighboring downwind states. 18 The D.C. Circuit has allowed CAIR to remain only until a repla cement is created, because the c ourt reasoned CAIR h ad clear benefits for public health and the environment that the c ourt did not want to sacrifice. 19 However, the D.C. Circuit clearly hel d that CAIR does not satisfy a s tate’s obligations under the Good Neighbor Provisions. 20 Nevada cannot rely on any reduct ions from CAIR for any pollutant. Therefore, Nevada must correct this error before submitting its Infrastructure SIP to EPA. Third, Nevada ’s cursory analysis of whether its pollution affects other s tates is not sufficient to satisfy CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) . Nevada only perform ed a qualitative analysis. It should have performed a more substantive, quantitative analysis, using photochemical modeling, to demonstrate that it does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another s tate . Throughout its perfunctory analysis, Nevada fail ed to assess whether it is contributing to pollution in other s tates. One obvious problem in Nevada’s analysis is its reliance on “prevailing winds” to determine if Nevada’s air pollution is affecting other s tates’ pollution levels. 21 Relying on prevailing winds present s two problems for determining whether a state contributes to another state’s downwind pollution. The p revailing winds method reflect s only what typically occurs and not variations . How ever, minor variations in wind patterns will affect the 8

- hour o zone standard because a design value is made up of only 32 hours a year, i.e., 0.3% of the hours per year. Thus, even if the prevailing winds blew in one direction 99.7% of the time, they sti ll would not demonstrate that Nevada is not significantly contributing to another state’s emission levels . Additionally, prevailing winds are recorded at very high altitudes, much higher than the typical stacks heights where the majority of ozone precurso rs are emitted. This means that Nevada’s analysis fails to consider where the pollution is being emitted and wh ere the wind is blowing at these lower height s . These omissions in Nevada’s analysis render it arbitrary and thus not legally approvable by EPA.

“Infrastructure” State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) , 78 Fed. Reg. 3867 (Jan. 17, 2013) (disapproving in part Kentucky’s Infrastructure SIP for reliance on CAIR to satisfy requireme nts for the 2008 ozone NAAQS)

. 18 See North Carolina , 531 F.3d at 906 (stating CAIR had “more than several fatal flaws”)

. 19 See North Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1777

- 8. 20 Id. 21 P ROPOSED SIP at 6.III. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST PR OTECT VISIBILITY IN OTHER STATES. In order for Nevada to meet its obligations under “Prong 4” of the Good Neighbor Provision, Nevada must protect visibility in other states. 22 However Nevada fails to do so, because Nevada inappro priately relies on a F IP Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) emission limits for NO x at the Reid Gardner Generating Station (“Reid Gardener’s FIP”) to help satisfy this requirement. This FIP is legally insufficient. T he technology chosen for Reid Gardner Generating Station in the FIP was a vastly inferior technology and does not meet the standard of BART. Because it does not meet the required standard, Nevada’s reliance on Reid Gardener’s FIP to help protect visibility in other states is misplace d. We incorporate all arguments made on this matter in Brief of Petitioners, Moapa Band of Paiute Indians v. EPA , No. 12

- 73388 (9th Cir. filed Feb. 28, 2013) which fully explains why the Reid Gardener’s FIP is inadequate. 23 For these same reasons, Nevada’ s reliance on Reid Gardener’s FIP in support of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)( i ) (II) is also inappropriate. IV. THE INFRASTRUCTURE SIP MUST CONTAIN THE 2008 OZONE NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQ S imposed a new 8

- hour primary ozone standard of 0.075 ppm and a new secondary 8

- hour standard to the level of .075 ppm based on the 3

- year average of the annual 4th

- highest daily maximum. Despite these new NAAQS, Nevada ’s SIP approved regulations do not reflect the new standards

.

22 See 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 23 A ttached hereto as Exhibit 2.M s . Malone Page 9 of 9 March 6 , 2013

V. CONCLUSION For the reasons described above, the N evada SIP is currently inadequate to achieve and mai ntain compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Nevada must correct these faults in order to be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. If you have any questions, we would be happy to discuss them with you. Thank you for considering these comments. We look forward to working with you to improve the air quality of Nevada. Respectfully Submitted, /s Robert Ukeiley Robert Ukeiley Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 507 Center Street Berea, KY 40403 859

- 986

- 5402 ruk eiley@igc.org Counsel for Sierra Club Elizabeth Toba Pearlman Consultant for Sierra Club 1523 27th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 643

- 4068 Etplaw@gmail.com

# Exhibit 1Page 4 of 7 Generated: March 6, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2010 Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Page 4 of 7 Generated: March 6, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2010 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4950 0.064 0.063 0.062 0.062 0 0.00 214 206 96 0 None 1 320010002 280 South Russell Street Fallon Churchill NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 6044 0.074 0.068 0.067 0.067 0 0.00 365 249 68 0 None 1 320030020 4701 Mitchell Street North Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 6175 0.074 0.073 0.069 0.068 0 0.00 365 257 70 0 None 1 320030022 Ne Of City-12101 Hwy 93/I15 Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 6249 0.067 0.066 0.065 0.063 0 0.00 365 258 71 0 None 1 320030023 465 E. Old Mill Road, Mesquite, Nv Mesquite Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8730 0.073 0.071 0.07 0.07 0 0.00 365 364 100 0 None 1 320030043 4525 New Forest Drive Spring Valley Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8567 0.077 0.074 0.073 0.073 1 1.00 365 355 97 0 Included 1 320030071 7701 Ducharme Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 2760 0.07 0.069 0.066 0.061 0 0.00 365 114 31 0 None 1 320030072 3525 N Valadez Street Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8677 0.074 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0.00 365 360 99 0 None 1 320030073 333 Pavilion Center Drive Las Vegas Clark NV 09Page 5 of 7 Generated: March 6, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2010 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8657 0.082 0.075 0.074 0.074 1 1.00 365 360 99 0 Included 1 320030075 6651 W. Azure Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8721 0.073 0.071 0.069 0.068 0 0.00 365 363 99 0 None 2 320030538 5483 Clubhouse Dr-Winterwood, Las Vegas Sunrise Manor Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 6292 0.074 0.072 0.07 0.069 0 0.00 365 259 71 0 None 1 320030601 1005 Industrial Road Boulder City Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8694 0.075 0.074 0.074 0.074 0 0.00 365 361 99 0 None 1 320031019 T25s R59e S10 Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 2681 0.068 0.067 0.064 0.06 0 0.00 365 112 31 0 None 1 320031021 1562 Katie Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8710 0.076 0.069 0.069 0.068 1 1.00 365 363 99 0 Included 1 320032002 1301b East Tonopah North Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3071 0.084 0.083 0.081 0.079 9 25.70 365 128 35 0 None 1 320037771 Ries Rd, Spring Mountain Youth Camp, Mt. Charleston Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3062 0.075 0.073 0.071 0.068 0 0.00 365 127 35 0 None 1 320037772 668 Gretta Ln, Indian Springs Not in a city Clark NV 09Page 6 of 7 Generated: March 6, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2010 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 2692 0.08 0.074 0.074 0.073 1 3.30 365 112 31 0 None 1 320037773 11357 N. Decatur Blvd., Las Vegas Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 2013 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.072 0 0.00 365 83 23 0 None 1 320037775 11480 Mt. Potosi Canyon Rd., Las Vegas Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 1974 0.071 0.07 0.07 0.069 0 0.00 365 81 22 0 None 2 320037775 11480 Mt. Potosi Canyon Rd., Las Vegas Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4610 0.071 0.065 0.063 0.063 0 0.00 214 189 88 0 None 1 320190006 320 Hardie Lane Fernley Lyon NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8492 0.071 0.069 0.067 0.067 0 0.00 365 353 97 0 None 1 320310016 301 A State Street, Reno, Nv 89502 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8680 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.067 0 0.00 365 361 99 0 None 1 320310020 4110 De Lucci Lane, Reno Nv 89502 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8662 0.077 0.074 0.07 0.07 1 1.00 365 359 98 0 None 1 320310025 684a State Route 341, Reno Nv 89521 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8730 0.073 0.069 0.069 0.068 0 0.00 365 365 100 0 None 1 320311005 750 4th St, Sparks, Nv 89431 Sparks Washoe NV 09Page 7 of 7 Generated: March 6, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2010 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8743 0.067 0.063 0.062 0.062 0 0.00 365 365 100 0 None 1 320312002 855 Alder Drive, Incline Village, Nv 89451 Incline Village-Crystal Bay Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8718 0.073 0.07 0.069 0.068 0 0.00 365 363 99 0 None 1 320312009 325 Patrician Dr, Lemmon Valley, Nv 89506 Lemmon Valley-Golden Valley Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8263 0.077 0.069 0.069 0.069 1 1.10 365 338 93 0 None 1 320330101 Great Basin National Park Lehman Caves National Monument White Pine NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4552 0.067 0.066 0.065 0.064 0 0.00 214 187 87 0 None 2 325100002 3300 East Fifth St (City Yard) Carson City Carson City NV 09Page 4 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2011 Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Page 4 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2011 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 5019 0.063 0.056 0.054 0.054 0 0.00 214 209 98 0 None 1 320010002 280 South Russell Street Fallon Churchill NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 2997 0.078 0.074 0.071 0.07 1 2.90 365 125 34 0 Included 1 320030022 Ne Of City-12101 Hwy 93/I15 Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3342 0.067 0.061 0.059 0.059 0 0.00 365 139 38 0 None 1 320030023 465 E. Old Mill Road, Mesquite, Nv Mesquite Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8687 0.09 0.082 0.079 0.078 6 6.10 365 361 99 0 Included 1 320030043 4525 New Forest Drive Spring Valley Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8695 0.089 0.079 0.079 0.077 6 6.00 365 362 99 0 Included 1 320030071 7701 Ducharme Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8720 0.088 0.081 0.08 0.077 4 4.00 365 361 99 0 Included 1 320030073 333 Pavilion Center Drive Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8533 0.079 0.079 0.077 0.077 8 8.30 365 353 97 0 Included 1 320030075 6651 W. Azure Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8630 0.076 0.075 0.073 0.073 1 1.00 365 357 98 0 Included 2 320030538 5483 Clubhouse Dr-Winterwood, Las Vegas Sunrise Manor Clark NV 09Page 5 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2011 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8377 0.075 0.075 0.074 0.073 0 0.00 365 345 95 0 None 1 320030540 4250 Karen Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8635 0.081 0.071 0.07 0.07 1 1.00 365 358 98 0 Included 1 320030601 1005 Industrial Road Boulder City Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8715 0.083 0.08 0.079 0.074 3 3.00 365 362 99 0 Included 1 320031019 T25s R59e S10 Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8632 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.072 0 0.00 365 358 98 0 None 1 320032002 1301b East Tonopah North Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 5858 0.084 0.083 0.082 0.079 10 15.00 365 244 67 0 None 4 320037771 Ries Rd, Spring Mountain Youth Camp, Mt. Charleston Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3008 0.082 0.082 0.08 0.08 8 23.40 365 125 34 0 None 4 320037776 Mt. Pass, State Hwy 160 Way To Pahrump Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3238 0.072 0.07 0.066 0.066 0 0.00 365 135 37 0 None 4 320037777 650 Quartz Sandy Valley Clark NV 09Page 6 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2011 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3036 0.086 0.084 0.083 0.083 18 52.10 365 126 35 0 None 4 320037778 Southeast Of Las Vegas, Near Comm Towers In Henderson, Nv Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4743 0.08 0.079 0.074 0.072 2 2.20 214 194 91 0 None 1 320190006 320 Hardie Lane Fernley Lyon NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8703 0.073 0.069 0.063 0.062 0 0.00 365 362 99 0 None 1 320310016 301 A State Street, Reno, Nv 89502 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8734 0.073 0.07 0.067 0.066 0 0.00 365 365 100 0 None 1 320310020 4110 De Lucci Lane, Reno Nv 89502 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8750 0.072 0.069 0.066 0.064 0 0.00 365 365 100 0 None 1 320310025 684a State Route 341, Reno Nv 89521 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8755 0.081 0.076 0.068 0.067 2 2.00 365 365 100 0 None 1 320311005 750 4th St, Sparks, Nv 89431 Sparks Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8731 0.068 0.064 0.062 0.059 0 0.00 365 362 99 0 None 1 320312002 855 Alder Drive, Incline Village, Nv 89451 Incline Village-Crystal Bay Washoe NV 09Page 7 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2011 Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8703 0.075 0.072 0.068 0.066 0 0.00 365 362 99 0 None 1 320312009 325 Patrician Dr, Lemmon Valley, Nv 89506 Lemmon Valley-Golden Valley Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8634 0.075 0.075 0.073 0.072 0 0.00 365 357 98 0 None 1 320330101 Great Basin National Park Lehman Caves National Monument White Pine NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4888 0.069 0.069 0.065 0.064 0 0.00 214 195 91 0 None 2 325100002 3300 East Fifth St (City Yard) Carson City Carson City NV 09Page 4 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2012 (Annual statistics for 2012 are not final until May 1, 2013) Exceptional Events: Included (if any)

Page 4 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2012 (Annual statistics for 2012 are not final until May 1, 2013) Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4979 0.055 0.054 0.053 0.052 0 0.00 214 205 96 0 None 1 320010002 280 South Russell Street Fallon Churchill NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4372 0.081 0.08 0.076 0.076 5 10.00 366 183 50 0 Included 1 320030022 Ne Of City-12101 Hwy 93/I15 Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4358 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.069 0 0.00 366 181 49 0 None 1 320030023 465 E. Old Mill Road, Mesquite, Nv Mesquite Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8735 0.082 0.079 0.078 0.077 5 5.00 366 364 99 0 Included 1 320030043 4525 New Forest Drive Spring Valley Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8722 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.078 4 4.10 366 360 98 0 Included 1 320030071 7701 Ducharme Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8682 0.081 0.079 0.079 0.078 6 6.10 366 360 98 0 Included 1 320030073 333 Pavilion Center Drive Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8714 0.089 0.081 0.08 0.079 11 11.20 366 361 99 0 Included 1 320030075 6651 W. Azure Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8745 0.08 0.078 0.076 0.074 3 3.00 366 363 99 0 Included 2 320030538 5483 Clubhouse Dr-Winterwood, Las Vegas Sunrise Manor Clark NV 09Page 5 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2012 (Annual statistics for 2012 are not final until May 1, 2013) Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8730 0.078 0.077 0.076 0.073 3 3.00 366 363 99 0 Included 1 320030540 4250 Karen Ave Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8709 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.077 7 7.10 366 360 98 0 Included 1 320030601 1005 Industrial Road Boulder City Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8747 0.083 0.082 0.08 0.077 6 6.00 366 364 99 0 Included 1 320031019 T25s R59e S10 Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8730 0.079 0.079 0.077 0.076 4 4.00 366 363 99 0 Included 1 320032002 1301b East Tonopah North Las Vegas Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 6457 0.091 0.089 0.086 0.085 14 19.20 366 267 73 0 None 4 320037771 Ries Rd, Spring Mountain Youth Camp, Mt. Charleston Not in a city Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4413 0.072 0.069 0.068 0.067 0 0.00 366 184 50 0 None 4 320037774 Top Of Frenchman Mountain Comm Tower Sunrise Manor Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3668 0.081 0.08 0.079 0.076 7 16.70 366 153 42 0 None 4 320037778 Southeast Of Las Vegas, Near Comm Towers In Henderson, Nv Not in a city Clark NV 09Page 6 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2012 (Annual statistics for 2012 are not final until May 1, 2013) Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 3645 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.073 0 0.00 366 152 42 0 None 4 320037779 101 Laughlin Civic Drivelaughlin Laughlin Clark NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 5092 0.076 0.072 0.072 0.071 1 1.00 214 212 99 0 None 1 320190006 320 Hardie Lane Fernley Lyon NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 7263 0.075 0.073 0.073 0.072 0 0.00 366 301 82 0 None 1 320310016 301 A State Street, Reno, Nv 89502 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 7315 0.075 0.073 0.073 0.072 0 0.00 366 305 83 0 None 1 320310020 4110 De Lucci Lane, Reno Nv 89502 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 6020 0.072 0.068 0.067 0.067 0 0.00 366 249 68 0 None 1 320310025 684a State Route 341, Reno Nv 89521 Reno Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 7261 0.075 0.072 0.072 0.071 0 0.00 366 302 83 0 None 1 320311005 750 4th St, Sparks, Nv 89431 Sparks Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8035 0.071 0.066 0.066 0.065 0 0.00 366 335 92 0 None 1 320312002 855 Alder Drive, Incline Village, Nv 89451 Incline Village-Crystal Bay Washoe NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8027 0.077 0.077 0.073 0.071 2 2.20 366 334 91 0 None 1 320312009 325 Patrician Dr, Lemmon Valley, Nv 89506 Lemmon Valley-Golden Valley Washoe NV 09Page 7 of 7 Generated: March 2, 2013 Source: U.S. EPA AirData <http://www.epa.gov/airdata> This report is based on monitor-level summary statistics. Air quality standards for some pollutants (PM2.5 and Pb) allow for combining data from multiple monitors into a site-level summary statistic that can be compared to the standard. In those cases, the site-level statistics may differ from the monitor-level statistics upon which this report is based. Readers are cautioned not to rank order geographic areas based on AirData reports. Air pollution levels measured at a particular monitoring site are not necessarily representative of the air quality for an entire county or urban area. AirData reports are produced from a direct query of the AQS Data Mart. The data represent the best and most recent information available to EPA from state agencies. However, some values may be absent due to incomplete reporting, and some values may change due to quality assurance activities. The AQS database is updated daily by state, local, and tribal organizations who own and submit the data. Please contact the appropriate air quality monitoring agency to report any data problems. <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_contacts.html> Get detailed information about this report, including column descriptions, at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_about_reports.html#mon Monitor Values Report Geographic Area: Nevada Pollutant: Ozone Year: 2012 (Annual statistics for 2012 are not final until May 1, 2013) Exceptional Events: Included (if any) Duration Description=8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR
Duration Description Obs First Max Second Max Third Max Fourth Max Actual Exc Est Exc Required Days Valid Days Percent Days Missing Days Exc Events Monitor Number Site ID Address City County State EPA Region 8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 8289 0.08 0.078 0.077 0.076 4 4.30 366 339 93 0 None 1 320330101 Great Basin National Park Lehman Caves National Monument White Pine NV 09

8-HR RUN AVG BEGIN HOUR 4988 0.074 0.073 0.073 0.072 0 0.00 214 205 96 0 None 2 325100002 3300 East Fifth St (City Yard) Carson City Carson City NV 09

# Exhibit 2No. 12- 73388 UNI T E D ST A T ES C O UR T O F APPE A LS F O R T H E NIN T H C IR C UI T

_____________________________________________________________ MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS, NATIONAL PARKS

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, AND SIERRA CLUB, P

e

t

i t

ion e r s

, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and LISA P. JACKSON, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, R

e

s

pond e

n

ts

, and NEVADA POWER COMPANY and STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, In t

e rv e

nor R e

s

pond e

n

ts

.

____________________________________________ %5,()2)3(7,7,21(5602$3$%$1'2)3$,87(,1',$16 1$7,21$/3$5.6&216(59$7,21$662&,$7,21$1'6,(55$ &/8%

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
( L IST O F C O UNSE L APPE A RS O N N E X T PA G E)Suma Peesapati (CA# 203701) EARTHJUSTICE 50 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 217-2000 Phone (415) 217-2040 Fax speesapati@earthjustice.org Matthew Gerhart (WA# 42787) EARTHJUSTICE 705 2nd Ave., Suite 203 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 343-7340 Phone (206) 343- 1526 Fax mgerhart@earthjustice.org Dan Galpern (OR# 06195) Law Firm of Charles M. Tebbutt P.C. 941 Lawrence Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 344-3505 Phone (541) 344-3516 Fax galpern@tebbuttlaw@gmail.com Coun s

e

l f or Environ m

e

n

t

al Coali t

ion Moapa Band o f Paiu t

e

Indian s

, Na t

ional Par k

s

Con s

e

rva t

ion A ss o

c

ia

t

ion and S i e rra Clubi &25325$7(',6&/2685(67$7(0(17 Petitioners National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club are nonprofit conservation organizations. The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians is a sovereign tribe. None of the petitioners has a parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns a 10-percent or greater ownership interest in any of the petitioning organizations.ii T A B L E O F C O N T E N TS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

.......................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

.................................................................................... iv GLOSSARY

.............................................................................................................. ix INTRODUCTION

..................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

.......................................................................... 3 I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

........................................................... 3 II. STANDING

..................................................................................................... 4 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

....................................................................................... 8 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

.................................................................................. 8 STATEMENT OF FACTS

...................................................................................... 10 I. 7+(&/($1$,5$&7¶6 REGIONAL HAZE PROGRAM

...................... 10 II. THE REID GARDNER GENERATING STATION

.................................... 15 III. (3$¶65(9,(:$1'),1$/$&7,21211(9$'$¶ S SIP SUBMISSION

............................................................................................... 16 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUM ENT

...................................................................... 25 ARGUMENT

........................................................................................................... 26 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

........................................................................... 26 II. BOTH NEVADA AND EPA ARBITRARILY UNDERESTIMATED THE VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT FROM SCR.

..................................... 27 A. EPA Ignored the Cumulative Benefit of SCR in Its Analysis.

........... 28 B. EPA Assumed an Unreasonably Low Pollution Control Performance for SCR.

......................................................................... 34iii III. (3$¶65(*,21$/+$=( DETERMINATION RESTS ON AN ARBITRARY ANALYSIS OF COSTS.

....................................................... 38 A. EPA Overestimated the Cost of SCR and Underestimated the Cost of SNCR

...................................................................................... 39 B. 7KH5HFRUG'RHV1RW6XSSRUW(3$¶V5HMHFWLRQRIWKH Most Effective Control..

............................................................................... 44 IV. EPA'S ANALYTICAL PROCESS DEFIES THE AGEN &<¶62:1 REGULATIONS AND PAST PRACTICE, AS WELL AS THE BAS ,&*2$/2)7+($&7¶6 REGIONAL HAZE PROGRA M.

............. 48 CONCLUSION

........................................................................................................ 55 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

....................................................................... 57 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

................................................................... 58iv 7$%/(2)$87+25,7,(6 Pag e ( s ) C ASES $UL]&DWWOH*URZHUV$VV¶QY86)LVK	:LOGOLIH , 273 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2001)

...................................................................... 26 , 44 $VV¶QRI3ULYDWH&ROO	8QLYY'X n c

an , 870 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012)

.............................................................. 27 , 45 Blu e

wa t

e r N e

t wor k

v

. EPA , 370 F. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

......................................................................... 37 , 38 Ch e

vron , U

. S

. A ., In c

. v

. Na t

ural R e

s

. D e

f

. Coun c

il

, In c

., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

............................................................................................ 30 &WUIRU%LRORJLFDO'LYHUVLW\Y1DW¶O+LJKZD\7UDIILF6DIHW\$GPLQ 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008)

................................................................ 27 , 40 , 44 C

t

r

. f or En e

rgy and E c

on

. D e

v

. v

. EPA , 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

.............................................................................. 7 E

c

ologi c

al Righ ts

Found

. v

. Pa c

. Lu m b

e

r Co

. , 230 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2000)

.............................................................................. 5 Fri e

nd s

o f t h

e

Ear t

h

, In c

. v

. Laidlaw Env t

l

. S e rv s

., In c

. , 528 U.S. 167 (2000)

.............................................................................................. 5 Hall v

. Nor t

on , 266 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2001)

................................................................................ 6 +XQWY:DVK6WDWH$SSOH$GYHUWLVLQJ&RPP¶Q , 432 U.S. 333 (1977)

.............................................................................................. 4 Ma ss

. v

. EPA , 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

.............................................................................................. 5 M c

Cla s

ke y v

. U

. S

. D e

p ' t o f En e

rgy , 720 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1983)

.............................................................................. 33 Mi c

h

. D e

p

t

. o f Env t

l

. Quali t y v

. Brown e r , 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000)

........................................................................ 43 , 48v Mon t

. S ulphur & Ch e

m

. Co

. v

. EPA , 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012)

................................................................ 26 , 43 , 48 Na t

ural R e

s

. D e

f

. Coun c

il v

. EPA , 507 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1974)

................................................................................ 6 Nor t

h Da k

o

t

a v

. EPA , No. 12-1844 (8th Cir. brief filed Dec. 10, 2012)

.......................................... 14, 43 NRDC v

. S w

. Marin e

, In c

. , 236 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2000)

................................................................................ 7 Nw

. Coal

. f or Al ts

. t o P e

st i c

id e

s

v

. EPA , 544 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)

.......................................................... 26 , 44 , 45 , 48 2FHDQ$GYRFDWHVY86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJ¶UV , 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005)

................................................................................ 5 S

a

f

e

Air f or Ev e

ryon e

v

. EPA , 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007)

............................................................................ 55 S

e

l k

ir

k

Con s

e

rva t

ion Allian ce v

. For s

gr e

n

, 336 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2003)

.............................................................................. 51 S

i e

rra Club v

. EPA , 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012)

.............................................................................. 26 7ULSROL5RFNHWU\$VV¶QY%XUHDXRI$OFRKRO7REDFFR)LUHDUPVDQG Explo s

iv

e

s

, 437 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

.............................................................................. 38 7XFVRQ+HUSHWRORJLFDO6RF¶\Y6DOD]DU , 566 F.3d 870 (9 th Cir. 2009)

............................................................................... 37 W

. S t

a

t

e

s

P e

t

rol e

u

m

A ss ' n v

. EPA , )GWK&LU>KHUHLQDIWHU3 W S

PA  ́@

...................................... 30 , 33 Wa tt

v

. Ala s

k

a

, 451 U.S. 259 (1981)

............................................................................................ 54 WildEar t

h Guardian s

v

. EPA , No. 11-9552 (10th Cir. brief filed Sept. 25, 2012)

............................................. 52vi Wild e rn e

ss Wa t

c

h

, In c

. v

. U

. S

. Fi s

h & Wildli f

e S e

rv ., 629 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2010)

...................................................................... 27 , 43 S T A T U T ES 5 U.S.C. §§ 701

± 06

.................................................................................................. 26 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)

..................................................................................................... 26 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)

................................................................................................ . 11 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)

........................................................................................... 38, 48 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2)

............................................................................................. 38 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)

................................................................................................ . 11 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1)

....................................................................................... 29 , 46 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1), (b)(2)

................................................................................. 49 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(4)

............................................................................................. 12 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)

...................................................................................... passim 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A)

....................................................................................... 12 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2)

................................................................................. 13 , 38, 50 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)

....................................................................................... 3, 4 , 9 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)

............................................................................................. 26 Clean Air Act 169A(a)(1)

.................................................................................. 29 , 31 O T H E R A U T H O RI T I ES 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Y § IV(D)(4)(e)

................................................................... 19 40 C.F.R. § 51.301

....................................................................................... 12 , 49 , 50 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(b)

.............................................................................................. 16 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)

.......................................................................................... 13vii 40 C.F.R. §51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)

.................................................................................. 11 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(1)(ii)

................................................................ 13 64 Fed. Reg. 35,714 (July 1, 1999)

.......................................................................... 10 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104 (July 6, 2005)

.................................................................... 14, 34 70 Fed. Reg. 39,127 (July 6, 200 5)

.................................................................... 50 , 52 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010)

....................................................................... 10 75 Fed. Reg. 64,221 (Oct. 19 , 2010)

........................................................................ 53 76 Fed. Reg. 13,944 (Mar. 15, 2011)

................................................................ . 14 , 46 76 Fed. Reg. 34,608 (June 14, 2011)

....................................................................... 14 76 Fed. Reg. 36,450 (June 22, 2011)

................................................................ passim 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388 (Aug. 22, 2011)

................................................................ . 29 , 31 76 Fed. Reg. 81,728 (Dec. 28, 2011)

....................................................................... 31 77 Fed. Reg. 17,334 (Mar. 26, 2012)

................................................................... 9 , 18 77 Fed. Reg. 21,896 (Apr. 12, 2012)

................................................................ passim 77 Fed. Reg. 24,794 (Apr. 25, 2012)

....................................................................... 32 77 Fed. Reg. 28,825 (May 16, 2012)

....................................................................... 14 77 Fed. Reg. 40,15 0 (July 6, 2012)

.......................................................................... 32 77 Fed. Reg. 42,834 (July 20 , 2012)

.................................................................. 53, 54 77 Fed. Reg. 50,602 (Aug. 22, 2012)

....................................................................... 32 77 Fed. Reg. 50,936 (Aug. 23, 2012)

................................................................ passim 77 Fed. Reg. 51,620 (Aug. 24, 2012)

........................................................... 29, 31 , 33 77 Fed. Reg. 57,864 (Sept. 18, 2012)

...................................................................... 31 77 Fed. Reg. 72,512 (Dec. 5, 2012)

......................................................................... 32viii 77 Fed. Reg. 74,355 (Dec. 14, 2012)

....................................................................... 14 77 Fed. Reg. 75,704 (Dec. 21 , 2012)

................................................................ passim 78 Fed. Reg. 8,274 (Feb. 5, 2013)

............................................................... 11, 31 , 54ix */266$5< Act Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410 e t s e

q

. AFUDC allowance for funds used to during construction APA Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 e t s e

q

. BART best available retrofit technology CAA Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410 e t s e

q

. CCM Cost Control Manual EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FIP federal implementation plan lb/MMBtu pounds per million British thermal units
LNB low -nitrogen oxides burners
NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
NOx nitrogen oxides NPS National Park Service OFA over-fire air RGGS Reid Gardner Generating Station
SCR selective catalytic reduction SIP state implementation plan SNCR selective non-catalytic reduction URP uniform rate of progress1 ,1752'8&7,21 This case involves long-overdue air pollution controls for the aging Reid *DUGQHU*HQHUDWLQJ6WDWLRQ35HLG*DUGQHU ́DFRDO -fired power plant that impairs visibility in five national parks, including the Grand Canyon. Recognizing the widespread visibility problem in our national parks and ZLOGHUQHVVDUHDV&RQJUHVVHQDFWHGWKH&OHDQ$LU$FW¶V3$FW ́UHJLRQDOKD]H program, which mandates the restoration of natural visibility conditions in our QDWLRQDOSDUNVDQGRWKHUSULVWLQH3&ODVV, ́DUHDVE\7 he statute requires industrial polluters including Reid Gardner

2 the largest single visibility-impairing source in the State of Nevada 2WRLQVWDOOWKH3EHVWDYDLODEOHUHWURILWWHFKQRORJ\ ́RU 3%$57 ́8QGHUJRYHUQLQJUHJXODWLRQV%$57LVWKH3EHVWV\VWHPRI continuous HPLVVLRQFRQWURO ́FRQVLGHULQJDPRQJRWKHUIDFWRUVYLVLELOLW\LPSURYHPHQWDQG

cost. :KHQWKH86(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\3(3$ ́HYDOXDWHGZKDW constitutes BART for Reid Gardner, it correctly found that selective catalytic reduction, RU36&5 ́WHFKQRORJ\IDURXWSHUIRUPVLWVQH[WEHVWFRPSHWLWRUVHOHFWLYH

non - FDWDO\WLFUHGXFWLRQRU361&5 ́WHFKQRORJ\ZKLFKRQDYHUDJHLVRQO\KDOIDV effective at reducing nitrogen oxides pollution. EPA further found the superior SCR technology to be cost-effective, and otherwise viable in light of the remaining statutory regional haze factors.2 Despite these findings, EPA ultimately chose the inferior (SNCR) WHFKQRORJ\DVWKH3EHVWV\VWHPRIFRQWLQXRXVHPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQ ́IRU5HLG Gardner, asserting that the visibility benefits achievable with SCR are not sufficient to justify its incrementally higher costs. There is no basis in the record for this conclusion. Just the opposite; the record shows that EPA knowingly overestimated the costs of SCR and underestimated the visibility benefits it would SURYLGH6SHFLILFDOO\ZLWKUHVSHFWWRFRVWV(3$LQIODWHG6&5¶VH[SHQVHE\WR 40 percent at the same time it significantly underestimated the cost of the competing SNCR technology. With respect to visibility improvement, EPA failed to account for the full extent of emissions reductions that SCR can achieve and failed to consider the cumulative benefit of SCR across all five of the Class I areas WKDWDUHLPSDFWHGE\5HLG*DUGQHU¶VSROOXWLRQ,QVKRUW EPA exaggerated the costs of SCR and discounted its benefits and then concluded that the benefits of SCR could not possibly warrant the costs. Without a fair accounting of both costs and benefits, EPA could not reasonably reach this conclusion. What is a SSDUHQWIURP(3$¶VDUELWUDU\WUHDWPHQWRIFRVWVDQGEHQHILWVLV (3$¶VLPPRYDEOHFRPPLWPHQWWRWKHLQIHULRU61&5WHFKQRORJ\UHJDUGOHVVRI what any principled analysis of the statutory regional haze factors would show. To reach its predetermined outcome, EPA abandoned its customary methods of assessing best available retrofit technology and skewed its analysis to reject the3 best performing control. If this decision is allowed to stand, it will not only XQGHUPLQHDFKLHYHPHQWRIWKH&OHDQ$LU$FW¶VYLVLELOLW y goals at the Grand Canyon and other treasured public lands that are marred by pollution from Reid Gardner, it will give EPA a free pass to impose lax pollution control standards that will hobble efforts to restore visibility as Congress intended. For all of these reasons, Petitioners Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, National Parks Conservation $VVRFLDWLRQDQG6LHUUD&OXEFROOHFWLYHO\WKH3(QYLURQPHQWDO&RDOLWLRQ ́ respectfully request that this Court invalidate the challenged BART determination. -85,6',&7,21$/67$7(0(17 I

. SUBJE C T M A T T E R JURISDI C T I O N This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), which SURYLGHVWKDWSHWLWLRQVIRUMXGLFLDOUHYLHZRI(3$ILQDO3DFWLRQLQ approving or promulgating any implementation plan under section 7410 . . . which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriat HFLUFXLW ́9HQXHLVSURSHULQWKLV&LUFXLWEHFDXVHWKLVFDVHFRQFHUQV (3$¶VSDUWLDODSSURYDORIDVWDWHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQDQGSURPXOJDWLRQRID federal implementation plan, containing emission limits for the Reid Gardner Generating Station in Nevada. Petitioners filed their petition for review on October 19, 2012, which is within 60 days of August 23, 2012, the date of publication of the final rule. S ee 774 Fed. Reg. 50,936 (Aug. 23, 2012)

. Accordingly, the petition for review was timely filed. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) ( 3 Any petition for review under this subsection shall be filed within 60 days from the date notice of such promulgation, approval, RUDFWLRQDSSHDUVLQWKH)HGHUDO5HJLVWHU ́ II

. ST A NDIN G The organizations comprising the Environmental Coalition have standing to FKDOOHQJH(3$¶VDSSURYDORIWKHUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQIRU5HLG*DUGQHUZKLFK directly affects the health and aesthetic interests of their members. An organization has standing to bring an action on behalf of its members if: (1) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires its members to participate directly in the lawsuit; (2) it is seeking to protect interests that are germane to its purpose; and (3) its members would have standing to sue individually. S ee Hun t v

. Wa s

h

. 6WDWH$SSOH$GYHUWLVLQJ&RPP¶Q , 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Here, direct participation of the members of the Environmental Coaliti RQ¶V RUJDQL]DWLRQVLVXQQHFHVVDU\6HFRQGWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO&RDOLWLRQ¶VLQWHUHVWVLQ WKLVOLWLJDWLRQIDOOVTXDUHO\ZLWKLQHDFKRIWKHLURUJDQL]DWLRQ¶VPLVVLRQV S ee Declarations of William Anderson at ¶ 1; Jane Feldman at ¶ 4; Lynn Davis at ¶ 3. (all declarations are provided in $WWDFKPHQW$WR3HWLWLRQHUV¶DFFRPSDQ\LQJ Motion for Leave to File Standing Declarations). Third, these organizations each5 have members with standing to bring this suit individually. 1 To satisfy this final prong of the test, Petitioners must show that (1) at least one of its members has suffered an 3LQMXU\LQIDFW ́WKHLQMXU\LVIDLUO\WUDFHDEOHWR(3$¶VLOOHJDO conduct; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Fri e

nd s

o f t h

e

Ear t

h

, In c

. v

. Laidlaw Env t

l

. S

e rv s

., In c

. , 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). 3HWLWLRQHUV¶PHPEHUVVDWLVI\WKH3LQMXU\LQIDFW ́UHTXLUHPHQW$HVWKHWLF injury suffices to confer standing. Laidlaw , 528 U.S. at 183. To satisfy this UHTXLUHPHQWDSDUW\QHHGQRWVKRZDFWXDOKDUP3DQLQFUHDVHGULVNRIKDUPFDQ itself be injury in fact sufficient for VWDQGLQJ ́ E c

ologi c

al Righ ts

Found

. v

. Pa c

. Lu m b

e

r Co

. , 230 F.3d 1141, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000); s ee al s

o O ce an Advo c

a

t

e

s

v

. 86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJ¶UV , 402 F.3d 846, 860 (9th Cir. 2004) (injury in fact H[LVWHGZKHUHDJHQF\¶VLVVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWDXWKRUL]LQJDQRLOFRPSDQ\WREXLOGDQ addition to its oil refinery dock increased the risk of an oil spill, an event that ZRXOGKDUPSODLQWLIIV¶LQWHUHVWV 3HWLWLRQHUV¶PHPEHUVDOOHJHFRQFUHWHLQMXULHVEHFDXVHDVUHVLGHQWVRI FRPPXQLWLHVQHDU5HLG*DUGQHUDQGDVYLVLWRUVWRWKHUHJLRQ¶VQDWLRQDOSDUNVWKHLU
aesthetic en MR\PHQWRIWKHLUQDWXUDOVXUURXQGLQJVLVLPSDLUHGE\5HLG*DUGQHU¶V

1 Only one Petitioner need establish standing. Ma ss

. v

. EPA , 549 U.S. 497, 518 (2007); 2FHDQ$GYRFDWHVY86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJ¶UV , 402 F.3d 846, 809 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005).6 pollution. Members of Sierra Club and NPCA, who regularly visit and fly over the national parks affected by Reid Gardner

2 such as the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, and Zion

2 experience injury from degraded scenic vistas in those iconic places. Sierra Club member Jane Feldman has witnessed haze-obscured views in the Grand Canyon and Zion during family trips organized to enjoy the scenic beauty of these places. Feldman Decl. at ¶ 13

. Steven Conner, a pilot and amateur outdoor photographer, is similarly harmed by hazy views when he visits and flies over these famed parks. Conner Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7. On a recent flight over the Grand Canyon, 0U&RQQHUZDV3VKRFNHG ́E\WKH 3KD]HWKDWKDGVHWWOHGLQWRWKHFDQ\RQ ́ obscuring the bottom of the canyon in places Id

. at ¶ 3. The Moapa Band of Paiutes, who live next to Reid Gardner and who UHJXODUO\EUHDWKHWKHSODQW¶VSROOXWLRQDUHDOVRLQMXUHGE\5HLG*DUGQHU¶VH[FHVV emissions. Anderson Decl. at ¶¶ 4-12. This Court has upheld standing when, as KHUHDSODLQWLII3ZLOOVXIIHULQMXU\LIFRPSHOOHGWREUHDWKHDLUOHVVSXUHWKDQWKDW mandated by the &OHDQ$LU$FW ́ Na t

ural R e

s

. D e

f

. Coun c

il v

. EPA , 507 F.2d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 1974); s ee Hall v

. Nor t

on , 266 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) 3HYLGHQFHRIDFUHGLEOHWKUHDWWRWKHSODLQWLII¶VSK\VLFDOZHOO -being from airborne SROOXWDQWV ́HVWDEOLVKHVLQMXU\LQIDFW&KDLUPDQ$QGHUVRQ who suffers from respiratory problems that are exacerbated by exposure to excess pollution from 5HLG*DUGQHULVFRQFHUQHGDERXWWKHHIIHFWVRI5HLG*DUGQHU¶VSROOXWLRQRQKLV7 health, the health of his family and the health of other members of his tribe. Id

. at ¶¶4-9. The organizations comprising the Environmental Coalition also satisfy the traceability requirement for standing. The physical and aesthetic harms suffered by their members are trace DEOHWR(3$¶VLOOHJDOFRQGXFW+DG(3$LPSRVHG stronger pollution controls on Reid Gardner, as required by the Clean Air Act, emissions from the power plant would significantly decrease below pollution levels that currently are authorized by EPA, thus reducing risk to public health and LPSURYLQJYLVLELOLW\LQWKHUHJLRQ¶VQDWLRQDOSDUNDQGZLOGHUQHVVDUHDV S ee , e

. g

., NRDC v

. S w

. Marin e

, In c

. , 236 F.3d 985, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (to satisfy WUDFHDELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWGHIHQGDQW¶VFRQGXFWQHHGRQO\FDXVHRUFRQWULEXWHWR alleged injury). Finally, a favorable order by this Court will provide redress to the (QYLURQPHQWDO&RDOLWLRQIRUWKHLOOHJDODQGKDUPIXOHIIHFWVRI(3$¶VYLRODWLRQVRI the Clean Air Act. An order requiring EPA to engage in a new public process that complies with the Clean Air Act is likely to result in stronger pollution controls and to cure the above-described harm to the Environmental Coalition. S ee , e

. g

., C

t

r

. f or En e

rgy and E c

on

. D e

v

. v

. EPA , 398 F.3d 653, 657 (D.C. Cir. 2005) KROGLQJWKDW3WKHUHGUHVVDELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWPD\EHVDWLVILHGE\JLYLQJWKH8 aggrieved party the opportunity WRSDUWLFLSDWHLQDQHZUXOHPDNLQJ ́TXRWDWLRQV
omitted ). 67$7(0(172),668(6 1. Whether EPA properly rejected SCR technology in favor of the inferior 61&5WHFKQRORJ\LQGHWHUPLQLQJWKH3EHVWV\VWHPRIFRQWLQXRXVHPLVVLRQ FRQWURO ́IRUQLWURJHQR[LGHVSROOXWL on from Reid Gardner based on the governing law and the facts in the record.
2. :KHWKHU(3$¶VFRVWHVWLPDWHVIRUWKHWZRFRPSHWLQJWHFKQRORJLHV2 SCR and SNCR

2 have a rational basis under the relevant law.
3. :KHWKHU(3$¶VHVWLPDWHGYLVLELOLW\JDLQVIURPWKHWZRF ompeting technologies

2 SCR and SNCR

2 have a rational basis under the relevant law.
4. :KHWKHUWKHXQGLVSXWHGHUURUVLQ(3$¶VFRVW -benefit analysis rendered the DJHQF\¶VXOWLPDWHFRQFOXVLRQIDYRULQJ61&5DUELWUDU\DQGFDSULFLRXV
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.7, pertinent authorities are reproduced in an addendum to this brief. 67$7(0(172)7+(&$6( The Clean Air Act requires each state to submit a regional haze plan to EPA in order to eliminate haze pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2). EPA reviews plans submitted by the states and must approve9 plans that comply with all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act; however, if a state plan does not meet the requirements of the Act, EPA must disapprove the plan submission and promulgate a federal implementation plan that remedies the shortcomings. Id

. § 7410(c), (k). On November 18, 2009, the State of Nevada submitted a regional haze plan IRU(3$¶VUHYLHZ 76 Fed. Reg. 36,450, 36,451 (June 22, 2011). In light of public FRPPHQWVSRLQWLQJRXWPXOWLSOHIODZVLQWKH6WDWH¶VDQDO\VLV(3$FRQFOXGHGWKDW the information provided by the State was not sufficient for EPA to take final DFWLRQRQ1HYDGD¶VQLWURJHQR[LGH%$57GHWHUPLQDWLRQIRU5HLG*DUGQHU 77 Fed. Reg. 17,334, 17,335 (Mar. 26, 2012). EPA therefore delayed taking final action on the nitrogen oxide BART determination for Reid Gardner in order to conduct additional analysis. EPA proposed to approve in part and disapprove in part the NOx BART determination for Reid Gardner on April 12, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,896 (Apr. 12, 2012). EPA finalized the rule on August 23, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,936 (Aug. 23, 2012). In the final rule, EPA rejected the most effective technology for removing nitrogen oxide pollutants, SCR, in favor of a less-effective control technology, SNCR. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), Petitioners Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club filed this10 petition for judicial review on October 19, 2012. Nevada Power Company, the owner and operator of the Reid Gardner Generating Station, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection were granted leave to intervene on behalf of the Respondents. 67$7(0(172))$&76 I

. 7+(&/($1$,5$&7¶6 R E G I O N A L H A Z E PR O G R A M 9LVLEOHDLUSROOXWLRQRU3KD]H ́KDVORQJPDUUHGWKHRWKHUZLVHVSHFWDFXODU VFHQLFODQGVFDSHVLQRXUQDWLRQ¶VWUHDVXUHGSDUNVDQGZLOGHUQHVVDUHDV$V H[SODLQHGE\(3$3>U@HJLRQDOKD]HLVYLVLELOLW\LPSDLUPHQWWKDWLVSURGXFHGE\D multitude of sources and activities which emit fine particles and their precursors DQGZKLFKDUHORFDWHGDFURVVDEURDGJHRJUDSKLFDUHD ́ 64 Fed. Reg. 35,714, 35,715 (July 1, 1999). The primary pollutants that cause haze are sulfur dioxide DQGQLWURJHQR[LGHV312[ ́DOWKRXJKSDUWLFXODWHPDWWHUYRODWLOHRUJDQLF compounds, and other substances contribute to haze formation as well. Id

. ; s ee al s

o

76 Fed. Reg. 36,450, 36,456-59 (June 22, 2011). In addition to impairing visibility, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides also cause a range of serious health effects. Exposure to sulfur dioxide pollution can contribute to lung and heart ailments, including premature death. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,525-28 (June 22, 2010). Nitrogen oxides contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, which can cause or exacerbate respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased lung11 function; in other regional haze actions, EPA has recognized that reducing nitrogen oxides emissions will reduce the incidence of asthma and other respiratory conditions. 78 Fed. Reg. 8,274, 8,292 (Feb. 5, 2013). In Nevada, air pollution severely limits visibility in the Jarbridge Wilderness Area. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,456-58, 36,464-65. Moreover, air pollution that originates in Nevada disperses to neighboring states, where it impairs visibility in 24 national parks and wilderness areas

2 including the Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area in Arizona, Joshua Tree National Park in California, and Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks in Utah. Id

. at 36,455, 36,460. ,Q&RQJUHVVVHW3DVDQDWLRQDOJRDO ́FOHDULQJWKHQDWLRQ¶VSDUNVDQG wilderness areas of anthropogenic visible air pollution. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a). EPA has interpreted the statute to set a presumptive goal of attaining natural visibility conditions by 2064. 40 C.F.R. §51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). To achieve the statutory goal, HDFKVWDWHPXVWFUHDWHDVWDWHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQ36,3 ́FDUU\LQJRXWWKHUHJLRQDO KD]HSURJUDP¶VUHTXLUHPHQWV 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a), 7491(b)(2). EPA evaluates the SIP and either approves or disapproves it in whole or in part. Id

. § 7410(k)(3). ,I(3$¶VHYDOXDWLRQUHYHDOVWKDWD6,3GRHVQRWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH Clean Air Act, (3$PXVWSURPXOJDWHDIHGHUDOLPSOHPHQWDWLRQSODQ3),3 ́WKDWUHPHGLHVWKH shortcomings. Id

. § 7410(c)(1).12 (DFKVWDWH¶VUHJLRQDOKD]H6,3PXVWLQFOXGHHPL ssions limits on sources of air pollution within the state as necessary to protect visibility at all impacted Class I areas, both inside and outside the state. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(4), 7491(b)(2). In particular, a SIP must include emissions limits reflecting installation and operation of best available retrofit technology, or 3%$57 ́ Id

. § 7491(b)(2)(A). BART is an essential component of the regional haze program as it compels emissions reductions from older, disproportionately polluting sources that often have escaped control under other Clean Air Act programs. BART is required at eligible sources 2 that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at national parks, wilderness areas, ZLOGOLIHUHIXJHVDQGRWKHU3&ODVV,DUHDV ́ZKHUHDLUTXDOLW\VKRXOGEHSULVWLQH Id

. BAR 7LVGHILQHGDV3DQHPLVVLRQOLPLWDWLRQEDVHGRQWKHGHJUHHRIUHGXFWLRQ achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission UHGXFWLRQIRUHDFKSROOXWDQWZKLFKLVHPLWWHGE\DQH[LVWLQJVWDWLRQDU\IDFLOLW\ ́ 40 C.F.R. § 51.301

. The Clean Air Act requires consideration of five factors when GHWHUPLQLQJ%$57IRUDSDUWLFXODUIDFLOLW\3WKHFRVWVRIFRPSOLDQFH ́ the WLPHQHFHVVDU\IRUFRPSOLDQFH ́WKH3HQHUJ\DQGQRQ -air quality environmental

2 A source is BART-eligible if it is a stationary source within one of 26 enumerated categories, was not in operation before August 7, 1962, but was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A); id

. § 7491(g)(7).13 LPSDFWVRIFRPSOLDQFH ́3WKHUHPDLQLQJXVHIXOOLIH ́RIWKHVRXUFHDQG3WKH GHJUHHRILPSURYHPHQWLQYLVLELOLW\ ́IURPWKHFRQWUROWHFKQRORJ\ 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2). Ultimately, BART limits in combination with other SIP measures must achieve 3UHDVRQDEOHSURJUHVV ́WRZDUGWKHDFKLHYHPHQWRIYLVLELOLW\JRDOV S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2); &)5G7RWKLVHQGHDFKVWDWH¶VUHJLRQDO KD]H6,3PXVWVHW3UHDVRQDEOHSURJUHVV ́JRDOVH[SUHVVHGLQGHFLYLHZVIRUH ach Class I area located within the state. 40 C.F.R. § 51. 308 (d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(1)(ii). Further, to keep states on the so- FDOOHG3JOLGHSDWK ́WRZDUGUHVWRUDWLRQ of natural YLVLELOLW\E\VWDWHVDQG(3$FDOFXODWHWKHXQLIRUPUDWHRISURJUHVV3853 ́ the total amount of improvement needed divided by the number of years until
2064. Id

. § 51.308 (d)(1)(i)(B). Taken together, both the reasonable progress goals and the uniform rate of progress require small, incremental visibility improvement each year. The URP IRU1HYDGD¶VRQO\&ODVV,DUHDWKH-DUEULGJH:LOGHUQHVV$UHDLVGHFLYLHZVSHU year. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,456-58, 36,464-65. If all sources reduced emissions enough to improve visibility by .07 deciviews per year, Jarbridge would achieve the statutory goal of natural visibility conditions in 2064. For the Class I areas outside of Nevada that are affected by air pollution from Reid Gardner, other State SIPs have established similar URPs. For instance, the URP for the Grand Canyon14 National Park is .07 deciviews 3 per year. 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,704, 75,714 (Dec. 12, 2012). The uniform rate of progress is .14 deciviews per year for the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area, s ee 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,714, and .20 deciviews per year for Joshua Tree National Park. 76 Fed. Reg. 13,944, 13,951 (Mar. 15, 2011), finalized by 76 Fed. Reg. 34,608 (June 14, 2011). 4 These small incremental changes contemplated by the URP underscore the importance of making small improvements at multiple facilities in order to meet the statutory goal of natural visibility. EPA has consistently emphasized that Congress intended to require modest emissions reductions at multiple sources that, when aggregated, would result in significant visibility improvement. S ee , e

. g

. , 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104, 39,129- -XO\3(YHQWKRXJKWKHYLVLELOLW\ improvement from an individual source may not be perceptible, it should still be considered in setting BART because the contribution to haze may be significant UHODWLYHWRRWKHUVRXUFHFRQWULEXWLRQVLQWKH&ODVV,DUHD ́&RQVROLGDWHG Brief of Respondent EPA at 71-72, No. 12-1844, Nor t

h Da k

o

t

a v

. EPA (8th Cir. brief filed

3 Both the reasonable progress goals and the uniform rate of progress are calculated for both the 20 percent of days with the worst visibility, and the 20 percent of days with the best visibility. The URP values cited in this paragraph are for the 20 percent worst days. 4 The reasonable progress goal for the 20 percent worst days is .014 deciviews per year for Zion National Park and .02 deciviews per year for Bryce Canyon National Park. 77 Fed. Reg. 28,825, 28,834 (May 16, 2012), finalized by 77 Fed. Reg. 74,355 (Dec. 14, 2012).15 'HF3>,@QRUGHU to achieve the goal of remedying man-made impairments to visibility, States and EPA have to consider emission controls at numerous sources that on an individual basis may not yield perceptible improvements, but may be significant relative to other sources ¶FRQWULEXWLRQVDQG FDQFROOHFWLYHO\\LHOGGHWHFWDEOHLPSURYHPHQWV ́ II

. T H E R E ID G A RDN E R G E N E R A T IN G ST A T I O N The Reid Gardner Generating Station is a coal-fired electric power plant that sits next to the Moapa reservation outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. Three of Reid *DUGQHU¶VXQLWVZHUHEXLOWLQWKHVDQGVDQGDUHVXEMHFWWR%$57 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,900. The three units have a combined capacity of 300 megawatts. Id . Reid Gardner, which emits more than 7,000 tons of NOx per year and more than 1,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year, is a large source of pollution. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,459. Excluding the Mohave Generating Station, which no longer operates, Reid Gardner has the highest total emissions and causes the greatest visibility impacts of any source subject to BART in Nevada. S ee id

. Reid *DUGQHU¶VSROOXWLRQLPSDLUVYLVLELOLW\LQVHYHUDOQHLJKERULQJQDWLRQDOSDUNVDQG wilderness areas, including the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Joshua Tree, and Zion National Parks, and the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area. H. Andrew Gray, Modeling for the Reid Gardner Generating Station: Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas at 9-10, 13 (Aug. 2011) [hereinafter August 2011 Gray Report] ,16 attachment to Letter from Gloria Smith, Sierra Club to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 (Aug. 22, 2011) [JA ]; s ee al s

o

76 Fed. Reg. at 36,460. Currently, Reid Gardner operates without effective controls for nitrogen oxides pollution. While the plant operates with low-NOx burners with over-fire air, 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,900, this system removes only between 6.5 percent and 23.7 percent of the SODQW¶VQLWURJHQR[LGHHPLVVLRQV Id

. at 21,900, 21,902. Readily available, costeffective controls, such as SCR, can remove between four and ten times more pollution from nitrogen oxides emissions

. Id

. III

. (3$¶ S R E V I E W A ND F IN A L A &7,21211(9$'$¶66, P SUB M ISSI O N Nevada has long been subject to Clean Air Act requirements to address Rei d *DUGQHU¶VFRQWULEXWLRQWRKD]HSROOXWLRQ$OOVWDWHVKDGD'HFHPEHU deadline to submit their regional haze plans to EPA for approval. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(b). The State of Nevada missed this deadline by nearly 2 years. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,451. When it finally submitted its regional haze plan in November of 2009, the State determined that three units at Reid Gardner were subject to the Clean Air $FW¶VEHVWDYDLODEOHUHWURILWWHFKQRORJ y, or BART, requirements. Id

. at 36,463. The State evaluated several pollution control technologies, ranging from the least effective existing controls, low NOx burners and over-fire air, to the most effectiv e FRQWUROVHOHFWLYHFDWDO\WLFUHGXFWLRQ36&5 ́ZKLFKLVW\SLFDOO\JXDUDQWHHGE\LWV17 vendors to achieve a 90 percent pollutant removal efficiency. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,900, 21,903. Ultimately, the State rejected SCR, which it conceded is the best performing technology, on the grounds that the incremental costs of SCR did not justify the DOOHJHGO\3VPDOO ́LQFUHPHQWDOYLVLELOLW\EHQHILWVLWZRXOGDFKLHYH Id

. at 21,898. The State instead proposed a less effective control, selective non-catalytic UHGXFWLRQ361&5 ́WKDWDFKLHYHVDSROOXWDQWUHPRYDOHIILFLHQF\RIWR percent. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,463 (proposing an emission limit of .20 lb/MMBtu for units 1 and 2, and .28 lb/MMBtu for unit 3, based on a 12-month rolling average). (3$UHYLHZHGWKH6WDWH¶VSODQDQGLQLWLDOO\SURSRVHGWRDSSURYHLWLQLWVHQ tirety. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,450. The National Park Service and the Environmental Coalition submitted FRPPHQWVFULWLFL]LQJ(3$¶VSURSRVHGDSSURYDORIWKH1HYDGDKD]HSODQ7KH Envi ronmental Coalition (the Petitioners in this case) demonstrated that the State had committed several errors, such as overestimating the costs of SCR; underestimating the cost of less effective technologies; and underestimating the visibility improvement from SCR. S ee Letter from Gloria Smith, Sierra Club to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 (Aug. 22, 2011) [JA ]. The National Park 6HUYLFHHFKRHGWKHVHFULWLFLVPVRIWKH6WDWH¶VDQDO\VLV/HWWHUIURP&DURO0F&R\ National Park Service to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 at Attachment, p. 5 (Aug.18 17, 2011) [JA @31'(3GLGQRWIROORZWKH%$57JXLGHOLQHVEHFDXVHLWGLGQRW properly evaluate the effectiveness, costs, and degree of visibility improvement of DGGLQJ6&5WR5**6>5HLG*DUGQHU@ ́7KH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFHFRQFOXGHG WKDWRQFHWKHVHPXOWLSOHHUURUVZHUHFRUUHFWHG3(3$VKRXOGUHTXLUH6&5RQ5**6 >5HLG*DUGQHU@XQLWVDQGIRU%$57 ́ Id

. [JA ]. Acknowledging the concerns raised in public comments, EPA declined to WDNHDILQDODFWLRQRQ1HYDGD¶VQLWURJHQR[LGH%$57OLPLWVIRU5HLG*DUGQHU stating that: :HDUHWDNLQJQRDFWLRQLQWRGD\¶VUXOHRQWKHSRUWLRQRIWKH1HYDGD SIP that contains the BART determination at RGGS for NOx. Following our review of the public comments on this issue, we SHUIRUPHGDGGLWLRQDODQDO\VLVRI1HYDGD¶V12[%$57GHWHUPLQDWLRQ for RGGS. As a result, we no longer consider the currently available information to be sufficient for us to take final action on the Nevada 'LYLVLRQRI(QYLURQPHQWDO3URWHFWLRQ¶V>@GHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDWURWDWLQJ overfire air [ ] with Rotamix [ ] is the NOx control technology that represents BART. 77 Fed. Reg. 17,334, 17,335 (Mar. 26, 2012). After further investigation, EPA found that the nitrogen oxides portion of 1HYDGD¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQIRU5HLG*DUGQHUZDVGHILFLHQWWKXVWULJJHULQJ(3$¶V obligation to prepare a federal haze plan. 77 Fed. Reg. at 3>,@IZHILQGWKDW a state's required submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must SURPXOJDWHD),3WRILOOWKLVUHJXODWRU\JDS ́7RUHPHG\WKHVKRUWFRPLQJVLQWKH 6WDWH¶VDQDO\VLV(3$FRQGXFWHGLWVRZQDQDO\VLVRIWKHFRVWVDQGYLVLELOLW\EHQHILWV19 of SCR compared to SNCR. (3$¶VLQGHSHQGHQWHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHFRVWRIFR ntrols led EPA to conclude that: We agree that NDEP included inappropriate costs and our analysis excludes those costs that are not allowed by the CCM [cost control manual]. Therefore, we have revised these cost calculations and adjusted the value of specific variables to conform to values allowed by the CCM. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,901. EPA corrected the costs which the State of Nevada had LQFOXGHGEXWZKLFKDUHQRWDOORZHGXQGHU(3$¶V&RVW&RQWURO0DQXDO(3$¶V revised calculations indicated that the State of Nevada had mistakenly inflated the average and incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR by between 25 and 28 percent, as shown in the following tables. Id

. Average cost-effectiveness is calculated as 3WKHWRWDODQQXDOL]HGFRVWVRIFRQWUROGLYLGHGE\DQQXDOHPLVVLRQVUHGXFWLRQV ́ 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Y § IV(D)(4)(e). Average cost effectiveness indicates howmuch money it costs to remove each ton of pollution. Incremental costeffectiveness is calculated as the difference between the cost of a control compared to the next control option divided by the difference in annual emissions reductions
between the two controls. Id

. § IV(D)(4)(e). Incremental cost-effectiveness indicates how much more money it costs to remove an additional ton of pollutants beyond what the less- ef fective technology removes.20 7DEOH(3$¶VUHYLVHGHVWLPDWHRIWKHDYHUDJHFRVWHIIHFWLYHQHVVRI6&5
Reid Gardner unit 1HYDGD¶VFRVW estimate 5 (3$¶VUHYLVHGFRVW estimate 6 Percentage reduction in costs Unit 1 $2827 $2110 25%
Unit 2 $2627 $1967 25%
Unit 3 $2932 $2183 25%
7DEOH(3$¶VUHYLVHGHVWLPDWHWKHLQFUHPHQWDOFRVWHIIHFWLYHQHVVRI6&5
Reid Gardner unit 1HYDGD¶VFRVW estimate 7 (3$¶VUHYLVHGFRVW estimate 8 Percentage reduction in costs Unit 1 $6370 $4534 28%
Unit 2 $6080 $4330 28% Unit 3 $3856 $2756 28%
Having calculated that SCR would cost significantly less than the State had estimated, EPA concluded that SCR would be cost-effective. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,901. However, once EPA corrected enough errors to find that SCR would be
cost- HIIHFWLYH(3$UHIXVHGWRFRUUHFWRWKHUHUURUVLQWKH6WDWH¶VFRVWDQDO\VLV Id

. 3>:@HGLGQRWDFFRXQWIRUWKHVHDGGLWLRQDOGLVFUHSDQFLHVLQRXUUHYLVHGFRVW HVWLPDWH ́

.

5 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,901. 6 Id

. 7 Id

. 8 Id

.21 Specifically, EPA refused to correct errors such as the discount that vendors provide when they install pollution controls on multiple units at a facility, which typically reduces overall costs by at least 5 percent ; and EPA refused to correct the
Stat H¶VDQDO\VLVWRUHIOHFWWKDW61&5XVHVPRUHDPPRQLDWKDQWKHKLJKHU

performing SCR, which greatly impacts costs because ammonia is between 24 percent and 40 percent of the total operating costs of the controls. Id

. ; s ee al s

o 3HWUD3OHVV%LOO3RZHUV5HYLHZRI(3$¶V3URSRVHG$SSURYDORIWKH5HYLVLRQWR WKH6WDWHRI1HYDGD¶V6WDWH,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQWR,PSOHPHQWD5HJLRQDO+D]H Program at 24, 29 (Aug. 22, 2011) [hereinafter Pless/Powers Report], attachment to Letter from Gloria Smith, Sierra Club to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 (Aug. 22, 2011) [JA ]. The Pless/Powers Report indicated that fixing all errors in calculating costs would reduce the incremental cost effectiveness of SCR even further, to levels significantly b HORZ(3$¶VUHYLVHGFRVWHVWLPDWHVDVLQGLFDWHGLQ the following table:22 Table 3: Incremental Cost Effectiveness of SCR
Reid Gardner Unit 1HYDGD¶VFRVW estimate, assuming 78

- 81% control efficiency 9 (3$¶VUHYLVHG cost estimate, assuming 85% control efficiency 10 Pless/Powers Report cost estimate, assuming 78

- 81% control efficiency 11 Pless/Powers Report cost estimate, assuming 90% control efficiency 12
Unit 1 $6370 $4534 $3713 $2745
Unit 2 $6080 $43 30 $3552 $2656
Unit 3 $3856 $2756 $2554 $1971
With respect to visibility benefits, EPA also conducted its own modeling of the best performing technology, SCR, but the agency chose to limit its focus to visibility improvement at the Grand Canyon exclusively, ignoring improvements at other Class I areas. As Reid Gardner contributes to haze in at least five Class I areas (the Grand Canyon, Joshua Tree, Zion, and Bryce Canyon National Parks, and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area), the National Park Service and the Environmental Coalition urged EPA to follow the direction that EPA itself has routinely given to other states to consider the cumulative visibility improvement at

9 Id

. 10 Id

. 11 Pless/Powers Report at 35 [JA ]. 12 Id

.23 all impacted areas. EPA nevertheless declined to consider cumulative impacts. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,904 (summarizing visibility impacts at only the Grand Canyon);
s

ee al s

o

77 Fed. Reg. at 50,945. EPA found that installation of SCR would improve visibility by .38 deciviews at the Grand Canyon and provided no projections regarding benefits at other Class I Areas. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,903-04. However, modeling commissioned by the Environmental Coalition indicated that installing SCR at Reid Gardner would improve visibility cumulatively by 3.12 deciviews at all affected Class I areas. H. Andrew Gray, Modeling for the Reid Gardner Generating Station: Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas at 11 (Aug. 2011), Attachment to Letter from Gloria Smith, Sierra Club to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 (Aug. 22, 2011) [JA ]. The Environmental Coalition and the National Park Service further alerted EPA to the problem that it had estimated visibility improvements from SCR on the assumption that SCR would achieve only a 85 percent pollutant removal efficiency, whereas SCR vendors typically guarantee and EPA typically assumes that SCR will achieve at least a 90 percent removal efficiency. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,9 03

. %\FRUUHFWLQJ(3$¶VDVVXPSWLR n of a lower removal rate as well as other DQRPDOLHVLQ(3$¶VDQDO\VLVWKH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFHFDOFXODWHG6&5¶VYLVLELOLW\
benefit to be 184 p e

r

ce n

t gr e

a

t

e

r WKDQ(3$¶VHVWLPDWH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFH-XQH24 &RPPHQWVRQ(3$¶V3URSRVHG)HGHUDO3ODQ at 16 [hereinafter NPS June 4, 2012 Comments] [JA ]. Finally, the Environmental Coalition raised the concern that neither Nevada nor EPA had evaluated the visibility improvement from SCR in light of the amount of visibility improvement needed at the Class I areas polluted by Reid Gardner. As discussed above, for many of these Class I areas, improving visibility by small DPRXQWVHDFK\HDUZRXOGEHVXIILFLHQWWRDFKLHYH(3$¶VJRDORIUHWXUQLQJWKHVH areas to natural visibility conditions by 2064; for example, improving visibility by only .07 deciviews a year would enable the Grand Canyon to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,704, 75,714.
No twithstanding the concerns raised by the Environmental Coalition and the 1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFH(3$¶VILQDOUXOHZDVODUJHO\XQFKDQJHGIURPWKHSURSRVDO Without correcting fundamental errors in the calculation of both pollution control costs and visibili W\EHQHILWV(3$FKRVHWKHLQIHULRU61&5DVWKH3EHVWV\VWHPRI FRQWLQXRXVHPLVVLRQFRQWURO ́IRU5HLG*DUGQHURQWKHJURXQGVWKDWWKH6WDWHKDG properly weighed costs and benefits. 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,937 (Aug. 23, 2012) (approving as BART for control of nitrogen oxides an emission limit of .02 lb/MMBtu at units 1, 2, and 3, which could be achieved through installation of SNCR).25 6800$5<2)7+($5*80(17 (3$¶VIHGHUDO haze plan for controlling nitrogen oxides pollution from Reid Gardner fails to meet the basic requirements of the Clean Air Act. With the goal ofrestoring clean air to national parks and wilderness areas, the Act requires coalILUHGSRZHUSODQWVVXFKDV5HLG*DUGQHUWRLQVWDOO3EHVWDYDLODEOHUHWURILW WHFKQRORJ\ ́RU3%$57 ́7KHJRYHUQLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVGHILQH%$57WREHWKH 3EHVWV\VWHPRIFRQWLQXRXVHPLVVLRQFRQWURO ́EDVHGRQDILYH -factor analysis that inc ludes the evaluation of visibility benefits and costs. $OWKRXJKWKHUHLVQRGLVSXWHWKDWVHOHFWLYHFDWDO\WLFUHGXFWLRQRU36&5 ́ technology is the most effective pollution control system for nitrogen oxides, EPA arbitrarily rejected this technology in favor of the inferior selective noncatalytic UHGXFWLRQRU361&5 ́WHFKQRORJ\(3$ based its conclusion on a fundamentally flawed cost-benefit analysis that artificially inflated the cost and artificially reduced the benefits of SCR . At the same time, EPA gave the inferior SNCR an unfair competitive advantage by underestimating its costs. Despite acknowledging glaring errors in its cost analysis, EPA refused to correct them, and instead claimed, with no rational basis, that such a correction would not change the result. EPA thus revealed a predetermined commitment to SNCR, despite the facts in the record. (3$¶VDUELWUDU\DQGFDSULFLRXVVHOHFWLRQRI this inferior pollution control system LQYDOLGDWHGWKHDJHQF\¶V regional haze determination for Reid Gardner

.26 $5*80(17 I

. ST A ND A RD O F R E V I E W 7KLV&RXUWUHYLHZV(3$¶VUXOHDFFRUGLQJWR3WKHJHQHUDOVWDQGDUGRIUHYLHZ for agency actions set forth in the [APA], 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 ± ́ S i e

rra Club v

. EPA , 671 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing La t

ino I ss u

e

s

Foru m

v

. EPA , 558 )GWK&LU3XUVXDQWWRWKH$3$(3$¶VILQDOUXOHPXVWEH RYHUWXUQHGLIWKHDJHQF\¶VGHFLVLRQZDVDUELWUDU\FDSULFLRXVDQDEXVHRI discretion, or otherwise inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and implementing regulations. S ee 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9); S i e rra Club , 671 F.3d DW7KH&RXUWH[DPLQHVZKHWKHU3WKHDJHQF\DUWLFXODWHGDUDWLRQDOFRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQWKHIDFWVIRXQGDQGWKHFKRLFHPDGH ́ $UL]&DWWOH*URZHUV$VV¶QY86 Fi s

h & Wildli f

e

)GWK&LU7KH&RXUW3μPD\QRW rubberstamp . . . administrative decisions that [are] inconsistent with a statutory PDQGDWHRUWKDWIUXVWUDWHWKHFRQJUHVVLRQDOSROLF\XQGHUO\LQJDVWDWXWH¶ ́ S

i e

rra Club , 671 F.3d at 961 (quoting $UL]&DWWOH*URZHUV$VV¶Q , 273F.3d at 1236); s ee al s

o Mon t

. S ulphur & Ch e

m

. Co

. v

. EPA , 666 F.3d 1174, 1183 (9th Cir. 2012). Courts have found agency actions to be arbitrary and capricious where the agency merely cited technical evidence but did not explain why the data led the agency to arrive at its decision. Nw

. Coal

. f or Al ts

. t o P e

st i c

id e

s

v

. EPA , 544 F.3d27 1043, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008) (vacating a final decision that cited toxicological data but offered no clear explanation as to how the data led the agency to select a particular safety factor as opposed to other safety factors); s ee al s

o $VV¶QRI3ULYDWH Coll

. & Univ

. v

. Dun c

an )6XSSG''&37KDWWKLV explanation could be used to justify any determination at all demonstrates its DUELWUDULQHVV ́,IWKHDJHQF\IDLOHGWRSURYLGHDUDWLRQDOH[SODQDWLRQDWWKHWLPHRI LWVGHFLVLRQWKHDJHQF\¶VDFWLRQPXVWEHRYHUWXUQHGWKHFRXUWFDQQRWLQYHQWLWV own explanation or rely on po st

-ho c

rationalizations by the agency. Wild e

rn e

ss Wa t

c

h

, In c

. v

. U

. S

. Fi s

h & Wildli f

e S e

rv ., 629 F.3d 1024, 1038- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, if an agency relies on cost-benefit analysis, the analysis is arbitrary and capricious if it fails to properly calculate a value that could significantly alter the analysis. &WUIRU%LRORJLFDO'LYHUVLW\Y1DW¶O+LJKZD\7UDIILF6DIHW\$GPLQ 538 F.3d 1172, 1202 -03 (9th Cir. 2008). ,QRWKHUZRUGV3LWFDQQRWSXWDWKXPERQWKH scale by undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards.  ́ Id

. at 1198. II

. B O T H N E V A D A A ND EPA A RBI T R A RI L Y UND E R EST I M A T E D T H E V ISIBI L I T Y I MPR O V E M E N T F R O M SC R

. There is no dispute that SCR technology is the most advanced control technology for NOx pollution; SCR is, on average, twice as effective as the next best technology (SNCR) at controlling NOx pollution

. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,900, 21,902

. EPA nonetheless chose the inferior SNCR technology as BART, claiming28 that the relative visibility gains from SCR did not justify its higher cost. In arriving at this erroneous conclusion, EPA abandoned its standard cumulative approach to measuring visibility improvement, thus underestimating the visibility benefit offered by SCR and thwarting the visibility goal of the Clean Air Act as a result. The agency further failed to assume the standard 90 percent control efficiency for SCR, thus skewing its analysis even further. These anomalies UHSUHVHQWXQMXVWLILHGGHYLDWLRQVIURPWKHDJHQF\¶VVWDQGDUGDQDO\WLFDODSSURDFK and

are the hallmark of arbitrary action. A

. EPA Ignor e d th e Cumulativ e B e n e fit of SC R in It s Analy s i s

. EPA failed to consider the cumulative visibility benefit of SCR across all five national park and wilderness areas 13 DIIHFWHGE\5HLG*DUGQHU¶VSROOXWLRQDQG LQVWHDGIRFXVHGRQWKHWHFKQRORJ\¶VLPSDFWRQDVLQJOHSDUN2 the Grand Canyon. $FFRUGLQJWRWKH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFHZKLFKXVHG(3$¶VRZQPRGHOLQJ methodology, the cumulative benefit of SCR across all five areas is nearly two deciviews. NPS June 4, 2012 Comments at 16 [JA ]. The Environmental &RDOLWLRQ¶VPR deling similarly showed a significant cumulative visibility benefit from SCR. August 2011 Gray Report at 11 [JA ]. These analyses of cumulative benefits indicate that the incremental costs of SCR are warranted, but EPA summarily declined to consider them. In fact, EPA itself modeled the

13 Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area29 cumulative benefit of SCR across all five affected areas, but inexplicably chose not to include the results of its cumulative modeling in its proposed action or to FRQVLGHUWKHFXPXODWLYHEHQHILWRI6&5LQLWVXOWLPDWHGHFLVLRQ(3$¶VGLVDYRZDO RI6&5¶VFXPXODWLYHEHQHILWLVSODLQO\LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHVWDWXWHDQGZLWKWKH DJHQF\¶VRZQVWDWHPHQWVDQGDSSURDFKHOVHZKHUH A cumulative approach to measuring visibil LW\LVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH$FW¶V basic regional haze goal

2 natural visibility conditions in all national park and wilderness areas. 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (a)(1). This is because visibility impairment in any given area may be due to the cumulative effect of pollution from various sources, even if each of those sources appears to have only a minor contribution when viewed in isolation. EPA itself acknowledged that a cumulative approach to vi VLELOLW\LVQHFHVVDU\WRPHHWLQJWKHVWDWXWH¶VJRDOVLQRWKHUUXOHPDNLQJV 77 Fed. Reg. 51,620, 51, 631 -3 $XJ3(3$EHOLHYHVWKDWLWLVLPSRUWDQW to consider the visibility impact on multiple Class I areas. The goal of the visibility program is to remedy visibility impairment at all Class I areas. CAA $D ́ 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388, 52, $XJ3*LYHQWKDWWKH national goal of the program is to improve visibility at all Class I areas, it would be short -sighted to limit the evaluation of the visibility benefits of a control to only WKHPRVWLPSDFWHG&ODVV,DUHD ́7KLVFDVHLVQRH[FHSWLRQYLVLELOLW\LPSDLUPHQW LQWKHUHJLRQ¶V&ODVV,DUHDVLQFOXGLQJWKH*UDQG&DQ\RQUHVXOWVIURPWKH30 combined effect of multiple sources of pollution. By failing to acknowledge and UHPHG\5HLG*DUGQHU¶VFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHYLVLELOLW\SUREOHPLQDOOILYH VXUURXQGLQJ&ODVV,DUHDV(3$¶VDFWLRQLVLQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH&OHDQ$LU$FW¶V goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in WKRVHDUHDV:KHQDQDJHQF\¶V interpretation of a statute thus conflicts with clear congressional intent, it is not entitled to deference and cannot be upheld. Ch e

vron , U

. S

. A ., In c

. v

. Na t

ural R e

s

. D

e

f

. Coun c

il

, In c

., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n.9, 844 (1984). (3$¶VH[FOXVLYHIRFXVRQ5HLG*DUGQHU¶VLPSDFWRQDVLQJOHQDWLRQDOSDUN QRWRQO\IUXVWUDWHVWKH$FW¶VJRDORI eliminating manmade haze, but is also LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK(3$¶VHVWDEOLVKHGSROLF\DQGDSSURDFKHOVHZKHUH S ee W

. S t

a

t

e

s P

e

t

rol e

u

m

A ss ' n v

. EPA , 87 F.3d 280, 285 (9th Cir. 1996) >KHUHLQDIWHU3 W S

PA  ́@ 3: e need not defer to the EPA because the EPA has abused its discretion in GHSDUWLQJIURPLWVRZQSULRUVWDQGDUGV ́

. Specifically, in its regional haze determination for the San Juan Generating Station, EPA explained that: In fully considering the visibility benefits anticipated from the use of an available control technology as one of the factors in selection of [best available retrofit technology for nitrogen oxides pollution], it is appropriate to account for visibility benefits across all affected Class I DUHDV«:KHUHDVRXUFHVLJQLILFDQWO\LPSDFWVVRPDQ\&ODVV, DUHDVRQVRPDQ\GD\VWKHFXPXODWLYHμWRWDO>GHFLYLHZ@¶PHWULFLVRQH way to take magnitude of the impacts of the source into account. «*LYHQWKDWWKHQDWLRQDOJRDORIWKHSURJUDPLVWRLPSURYHYLVLELOLW\ at all Class I areas, it would be short-sighted to limit the evaluation of the visibility benefits of a control to only the most impacted Class I area.31 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388, 52,430 (Aug. 22, 2011). EPA thus cautioned against the
statute -defeating effect of failing to consider cumulative impacts. 7KHDJHQF\¶V regional haze rule for the neighboring Four Corners Power Plant confirmed the importance of considering the cumulative benefit of a particular control technology DVIROORZV3(3$EHOLHYHVWKDWLWLVLPSRUWDQWWRFRQVLGHUWKHYLVLELOLW\LPSDFWRQ multiple Class I areas. The goal of the visibility program is to remedy visibility impairment at all Class I areas. &$$$D ́ 77 Fed. Reg. 51, 620, 51 , 631

- 2 (Aug. 24, 2012). Responding to criticism of its cumulative analysis for Oklahoma, (3$H[SODLQHGWKDW3>F@OHDUO\YLVLELOLW\EHQHILWVIURPHPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQVZLOO be spread among all affected Class I areas, not only the most affected area, and VKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGLQHYDOXDWLRQRIEHQHILWVIURPSURSRVHGUHGXFWLRQV ́ 76 Fed. Reg. 81,728, 81,736 (Dec. 28, 2011). In its regional plan for Montana, the agency VWDWHG3ZHFRQVLGHUHGWKHYLVLELOLW\LPSURYHPHQWDWDOO&ODVV,DUHDVZLWKLQ NPRIWKHVXEMHFW>SROOXWLQJVRXUFH@ ́ 77 Fed. Reg. 57,864, 57, 869 (Sept. 18, 2012). And, most recently, EPA included a cumulative impact analysis for its proposed regional haze determination for Navajo Generating Station. 78 Fed. Reg. 8,274, 8, )HE3$OVRVKRZQDUHWKHFXPXODWLYHGHFLYLHZLPSDFWV which are the simple sum of impacts or improvements over all the Class I areas. Table 10 shows the average number of days with a baseline impact or improvement of at leas WGY>@ ́

.32 EPA has taken the same view in evaluating the legal and factual sufficiency of state regional haze plans. The agency faulted Arizona for not considering cumulative benefits as follows: [I]nstallation of more stringent controls . . . would result in visibility benefits at multiple Class I areas, yet [Arizona] chose to consider the benefits only at the most impacted area. Where, as here, the benefits of controls have been modeled for a number of surrounding areas and consideration of these benefits is useful in determining the appropriate level of controls, EPA does not agree that these benefits may be ignored. . . . EPA disagrees that state flexibility extends to categorically excluding consideration of visibility improvements occurring at multiple Class I areas. 77 Fed. Reg. 72,512, 72,519 (Dec. 5, 2012). EPA also required a cumulative LPSDFWDSSURDFKLQLWVUHYLHZRI1HZ<RUN¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQ 77 Fed. Reg.
24 ,794, 24,814 (Apr. 3,QPDNLQJ%$57G eterminations, EPA also recommends the consideration of cumulative impacts and improvements that could RFFXUDWDOORIWKH&ODVV,DUHDVDSDUWLFXODUIDFLOLW\PLJKWLPSDFW ́ 14 EPA echoed this view to the State of Nebraska. 77 Fed. Reg. 40,150, 40,156 (July 6, 3>$@FXPXODWLYHLPSDFWVDQDO\VLVLVDXVHIXOWRROIRUH[DPLQLQJWKHLPSDFW of a BART-subject source and the visibility improvement to be gained by the DGGLWLRQRIHPLVVLRQFRQWUROV ́$QGDVWKH1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFHSRLQWHGRXWLQ its comments on the EPA action at issue in this case, EPA also required the State of

14 The agency similarly considered cumulative benefits in reviewing New +DPSVKLUH¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQ 77 Fed. Reg. 50,602, 50,603 (Aug. 22, 2012).33 Colorado to provide the agency with a cumulative analysis. NPS June 14, 201 2 Comments at 15 [JA ]. Despite (3$¶VFOHDUDQGFRQVLVWHQWDSSURDFKUHTXLULQJDFXPXODWLYHLPSDFW analysis elsewhere, EPA failed to consider the cumulative benefit of SCR here. While the agency claimed to have considered the cumulative benefit of SCR , 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,938, 50, 943 -44 it acknowledged that it 3IRFXVHGODUJHO\RQWKH benefits at [the Grand Canyon] in our proposed action and pla ce d li tt

l e

w e

igh t on the b HQHILWVDWWKHUHPDLQLQJIRXU&ODVV,DUHDV ́ Id . at 50,945 (emphasis added). In fact, there is no HYLGHQFHVXSSRUWLQJ(3$¶VFODLPWKDWLWFRQVLGHUHGWKH cumulative visibility improvement in its cost-benefit analysis of SCR. Moreover, there is no justification for dismissing cumulative benefits at other Class I areas JLYHQWKHDJHQF\¶VRZQ practice of requiring cumulative benefits elsewhere. S ee W S

PA , 87 F.3d at 285 (agency ¶V3EURDGGLVFUHWLRQDU\SRZHU ́LVQRW3DQDGHTXDWH EDVLVWRVXSSRUWLWVRWKHUZLVHDUELWUDU\WUHDWPHQW ́RIDVLQJOHFDVHLQWHUQDO citations omitted). 5HYHUVDORI(3$¶VDFWLRQLVDSSURSULDWHZKHQDVKHUH3WKH
EPA has failed to offe UDVXIILFLHQWH[SODQDWLRQIRULWVGLIIHUHQWLDOWUHDWPHQWRI ́D particular state under the &OHDQ$LU$FW ́ W S

PA , 87 F.3d at 285; M c

Cla s

ke y v

. U

. S

. D e

p ' t o f En e

rgy , 720 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1983).34 B

. EPA A ss um e d an Unr e a s onably Low Pollution Control P e rforman ce for SCR

. In assessing visibility benefits, EPA compounded its apparent bias against 6&5E\XQGHUHVWLPDWLQJWKHWHFKQRORJ\¶VH[SHFWHGSHUIRUPDQFH$QDFFXUDWH estimate of the visibility gains from a particular pollution control technology necessarily requires an accurate estimate RIWKDWWHFKQRORJ\¶VHIIHFWLYHQHVV+HUH contrary to its own policy governing cost analysis, EPA significantly XQGHUHVWLPDWHG6&5¶VSROOXWLRQFRQWUROSHUIRUPDQFHE\LQFRUUHFWO\DVVXPLQJWKDW SCR would remove only 85 percent RI5HLG*DUGQHU¶VQLWURJHQR[LGHVHPLVVLRQV despite the fact that the established industry standard for SCR assumes a minimum pollution removal of 90 percent. 7KLVDVVXPSWLRQGHILHV(3$¶VRZQ guidelines, which counsel states to 3PDNHUHDVRQDEOHDQGVXSSR rtable assumptions regarding control efficiencies. An unrealistically low assessment of the emission reduction potential of a certain technology could result in inflated cost- HIIHFWLYHQHVVILJXUHV ́ 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104, 39,168 (July 6, 2005) (revising the regional haze rule and issuing guidelines for BART determinations)

. EPA itself found that simply assuming a 5 percent increase in control efficiency (to 90 percent) would correspond to a 10 percent increase in visibility benefit to the Grand Canyon. 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,943. In its proposed action, EPA acknowledged that SCR vendors typical ly guaran t

ee a 90 percent removal rate. 77 Fed. Reg. 21, 37\SLFDO6&5FDWDO\VW35 YHQGRUJXDUDQWHHVFDQLQGLFDWHSHUFHQW>QLWURJHQR[LGHV@UHGXFWLRQ ́

. This point was reiterated by both the Environmental Coalition and the National Park 6HUYLFHLQWKHLUFRPPHQWVRQ(3$¶VDFWLRQ Letter from Suma Peesapati, Earthjustice to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 at 7 (June 4, 2012) [hereinafter Environmental Coalition 2012 Comments] [JA ]; NPS June 4, 2012 Comments [JA ]. As explained in the expert report accompanying the Environmental &RDOLWLRQ¶VFRPPHQWVRQ(3$¶VLQLWLDODFWLRQLWLVUHDVRQDEOHWRDVVXPHD percent control of nitrogen oxides by SCR for Reid Gardner given the impressive and growing track record of successful SCR installations (over 300 in operation in the United States alone) and the low sulfur content of the coal fired at Reid Gardner (0.29 percent- 0.57 percent). Pless/Powers Report at 5- 20 >-$@(3$¶V

own experts have assumed a 90 percent (and even higher) removal efficiency for SCR in other regional haze determinations and did not dispute the fact that in 2011 alone, 21 coal-fired electrical generating units achieved a control efficiency of 90 percent or better using SCR and that 11 of those units were dry-bottom, wall-fired XQLWVOLNH5HLG*DUGQHU¶VXQLWV

. 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,943. 'HVSLWHWKHRYHUZKHOPLQJHYLGHQFHLQWKHUHFRUGLQFOXGLQJ(3$¶VRZQ acknowledgment that a 90 percent removal efficiency is assumed for modern SCR systems, EPA reached the arbitrary conclusion that that an 85 percent removal36 HIILFLHQF\VKRXOGEHDVVXPHGIRU6&5DWWKLVSRZHUSODQW(3$¶VRQO\H[SODQDWLRQ for its anomalous assumption in this case was as follows: The coal composition is also an important component of estimating the [nitrogen oxides] emissions rate that a facility can achieve

. [Reid Gardner] is capable of purchasing coal on the spot market so there is likely to be variability in the [nitrogen oxides] emissions rate that would be achievable with SCR or SNCR. As previously discussed in the response to Comment 2, [Reid Gardner] receives its coal by rail line and has access to different ranked coals with varying nitroge n content, which influence the [nitrogen oxides] concentration in the exhaust going to either SNCR or SCR controls. (3$¶VSROLF\LVWRVHW an emission limit that would reasonably accommodate the various coal sources under these circumstances. Id

. 7KLVUHVSRQVHRIIHUHGIRUWKHILUVWWLPHLQ(3$¶VILQDODFWLRQULQJVKROORZ First, the agency makes no attempt to identify the potential sources of Reid *DUGQHU¶VFRDOVXSSO\RUVKRZWKDWWKHVSHFLILFUDQJHRIQLWURJHQFRQW ent in Reid *DUGQHU¶V3YDULDEOH ́VXSSO\VRPHKRZGLVWLQJXLVKHVWKLVSRZHUSODQWIURPWKH multitude of coal plants that have achieved lower levels of controlled nitrogen oxides emissions elsewhere. Any concern about fuel-bound nitrogen is particularly impla XVLEOHJLYHQWKDWZHVWHUQFRDOVZKLFKOLNHO\FRPSULVHWKHOLRQ¶VVKDUHRI 5HLG*DUGQHU¶VFRDOVXSSO\DUHQRWNQRZQWRKDYHDKLJKQLWURJHQFRQWHQW 6HFRQG(3$¶VUHVSRQVHLJQRUHVWKHIDFWWKDWWKHQLWURJHQFRQWHQWLQWKHFRDOLWVHOI is only partially re VSRQVLEOHIRUWKHSODQW¶VSURGXFWLRQRIQLWURJHQR[LGHVSROOXWLRQ WKHFRPEXVWLRQWHPSHUDWXUHLQWKHFRDOXQLW¶VERLOHUDQGQLWURJHQOHYHOVLQWKH37 ambient air surrounding the plant are also key factors in the formation of this pollutant. Third, while EPA claimed that a higher amount of nitrogen oxides pollution entering the SCR translates to a higher amount of controlled emissions that exit the SCR, 15 EPA provided no evidence showing that the nitrogen content of coal affects the p e

r

ce n

t ag e

of nitrogen oxides pollution removed by SCR technology. For all these reasons, EPA offers no rational basis for its 85 percent removal assumption for SCR instead of the standard 90 percent removal typically JXDUDQWHHGE\WKHWHFKQRORJ\¶VYHQGRUV
The 1LQWK&LUFXLWKDVVWDWHGWKDWLWZLOO3QRWGHIHUWRDQDJHQF\GHFLVLRQWKDW μLVZLWKRXWVXEVWDQWLDOEDVLVLQIDFW¶ ́ T XFVRQ+HUSHWRORJLFDO6RF¶\Y6DOD]DU , 566 F.3d 870, 878 (9 th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). This is because deference WRWKH$JHQF\LVQRWDSSURSULDWHZKHQWKHW\SHRI3JHQHUDOL]HG ́GLVFXVVLRQOLNH the one offered by EPA in this case, does not 3H[SODLQKRZWKH$JHQF\DUULYHGDW
the s p

ec i f

i c FRQFOXVLRQ ́WKDWDQSHUFHQWUHPRYDOHIILFLHQF\IRU SCR is a rational assumption. Blu e

wa t

e r N e

t wor k

v

. EPA , 370 F. 3d 1, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). 3>,@QRUGHUWRGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHU>WKH$JHQF\¶V@ GHFLVLRQUHIOHFWVDμUDWLRQDOFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHIDFWVIRXQGDQGWKHFKRLFH PDGH¶DUHDVRQDEOHH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHVSHFL fic analysis and evidence upon which

15 37KHFRDOFRPSRVLWLRQLVDOVRDQLPSRUWDQWFRPSRQHQWRIHVWLPDWLQJWKH >QLWURJHQR[LGHV@HPLVVLRQVUDWHWKDWDIDFLOLW\FDQDFKLHYH ́ 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,943

.38 WKH$JHQF\UHOLHGLVQHFHVVDU\ ́ Id

. &RXUWVGRQRW3VLPSO\DFFHSWZKDWHYHU FRQFOXVLRQDQDJHQF\SURIIHUVPHUHO\EHFDXVHWKHFRQFOXVLRQUHIOHFWVWKHDJHQF\¶V judgment. In order to survive judicial review . . . an agency action must be supporte GE\μUHDVRQHGGHFLVLRQPDNLQJ¶  ́ 7ULSROL5RFNHWU\$VV¶QY%XUHDXRI Al c

ohol , Toba cc o

, Fir e

ar m

s

, and Explo s

iv

e

s

, 437 F.3d 75, 76 (D.C. Cir. 2006 ) (internal citations omitted). $SSO\LQJWKHVHSULQFLSOHVWRWKLVFDVH(3$¶VDFWLRQ cannot survive judicial review because its XQMXVWLILHGUHMHFWLRQRI6&5¶VVWDQGDUG UHPRYDOHIILFLHQF\ODFNVDUHDVRQHGEDVLVDQGWKXVIDLOVWRUHIOHFW3UHDVRQHG GHFLVLRQPDNLQJ ́ Id . For all of the above reasons, EPA severely underestimated the benefit of SCR, which, in turn, resulted in an arbitrary determination that the EHQHILWVRI6&5GLGQRWMXVWLI\WKHWHFKQRORJ\¶VUHODWLYHO\KLJKHUFRVW III

. EPA ¶ S R E G I O N A L H A Z E D E T E R M IN A T I O N R ESTS O N A N A RBI T R A R Y A N A L YSIS O F C OSTS

. (3$¶VWUHDWPHQWRIFRVWVLQLWVFRVW -benefit analysis was similarly skewed in favor of SNCR

. EPA improperly biased its cost analysis in this case by artificially inflating the cost of best technology (SCR) and artificially depressing the cost of the next best technology (SNCR). Although Nevada had the initial obligation to consider costs in proposing a BART determination, EPA was responsible for ensuring that the State complied with the Clean Air Act and properly considered costs. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(k), 7491(g)(2). EPA corrected some of the errors in 1HYDGD¶VDQDO\V is, but refused to correct all of them, even though correcting all of39 the errors would have reduced t KHDJHQF\¶VFRVWHVWLPDWHRI6&5E\ -40 percent.
EPA then UHDIILUPHGLWVDSSURYDORI1HYDGD¶VFRVW -benefit analysis, notwithstanding the facts. EPA thus abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to critically review a SIP submission when it uncritically accepted the 6WDWH¶V assertion that the costs of SCR do not justify the benefits

2 an assertion lacking any meaningful explanation in the record. A

. EPA Ov e r e s timat e d th e Co s t of SC R and Und e r e s timat e d th e Co s t of SN C R

. In their 2011 comments, the Environmental Coalition, the National Park Service, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service demonstrated that 1HYDGD¶VFRVWHVWLPDWHVZHUHGHHSO\IODZHG S ee 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,901 n.14. EPA agreed, and conducted an independent analysis to remedy some of the

errors

2 namely, WKH6WDWH¶V inclusion of costs that should not be considered under (3$¶V Cost Control Manual

. Id

. DW3:HDJUHHWKDW1'(3LQFOXGHG inappropriate costs and our analysis excludes those costs that are not allowed by WKH&&0 ́7KH6WDWH¶VHUURUVZHUHVLJQLILFDQW EPA ¶VUHYLVHGHVWLPDWHRIWKH average cost effectiveness of SCR was 25 percent EHORZWKH6WDWH¶VHVWLPDWHVDQG (3$¶VUHYLVHGLQFUHPHQWDOFRVW -effectiveness figures were 28 percent below the 6WDWH¶VILJXUHV Id

. +RZHYHU(3$GLGQRWFRUUHFWDOORI1HYDGD¶VHUURQHRXVFRVWFDOFXODWLRQV In view of Ninth Circuit law rejecting a cost-benefit analysis premised on a faulty40 monetization, the Environmental Coalition submitted comments to EPA urging the agency to correct remaining errors in its cost analysis

. S ee C t

r

. f

or Biologi c

al Div e r s

i t y

, 538 F.3d at 1202- 03; Letter from Suma Peesapati, Earthjustice to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 at 4-7 (June 4, 2012) [ JA ] ( 37KH(3$¶VUHYLVHG SCR cost analysis excluded certain inappropriate costs (owners cost, AFUDC, surcharges), but did not incorporate all of our recommended revisions

± namely, to include multiple units discounts, and use the correct capital recovery factor, all of which would further reduce cost and improve cost effectiveness of SCR compared 61&5 ́ 7KH3OHVV3RZHUV5HSRUWGHWHUPLQHGWKDWLIDOORIWKH6WDWH¶VHUURUVZHUH corrected, the incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR would be significantly lower tha n EPA indicated. For Unit 1, the incremental cost effectiveness of SCR is $2745 , which is nearly 40 percent lower than (3$¶V estimate; for Unit 2, the incremental cost effectiveness of SCR is $2656 , nearly 40 percent lower than (3$¶V estimate; and for Unit 3, the incremental cost effectiveness of SCR is $1971 , nearly 30 percent lower than (3$¶V estimate. Pless/Powers Report at 35 [JA ]. 16

16 These figures assume that SCR removes 90 percent of pollutants. The 3OHVV3RZHUV5HSRUWDOVRFDOFXODWHGWKHVHILJXUHVXVLQJWKH6WDWH¶VDVVXPSWLRQWKDW SCR removes between 78 percent and 82 percent of pollutants and found that the inc remental cost effectiveness of SCR would be $3713, $3552 and $2554 for Units 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Pless/Powers Report at 35 [JA ]. These figures are QHDUO\SHUFHQWEHORZ(3$¶VHVWLPDWHVIRU8QLWVDQGDQGQHDUO\SHUFHQW EHORZ(3$¶VHVW imate for Unit 3. Co m

par e id

. wi t

h

77 Fed. Reg. at 21,901.41 EPA agreed with the Environmental Coalition that additional, uncorrected HUURUVUHPDLQHGLQ1HYDGD¶V cost estimates. 3:HDJUHHWKDWWKHUHFRUGGRHVQRW support the positions that [Nevada] KDVWDNHQRQWKHVHFRVWLWHPV ́ 77 Fed. Reg. at 21, 901. EPA then proceeded to ignore these errors on the grounds that correctingthem was unnecessary because EPA already had determined that SCR was costeffective contrary to the 6WDWH¶V conclusion : Aside from these items, other commenters allege that aspects of [Nevada] ¶VFRVWHVWLPDWHVZHUHXQMXVWLILHGRURYHUHVWLPDWHG such as a failure to account for multiple unit discounts and overestimated reagent costs. We agree that the record does not support the positions that [Nevada] has taken on these cost items. However, we did not account for these additional discrepancies in a revised cost estimate since disallowing those costs not in the [cost control manual] resulted in our finding that SCR is cost-effective. Id

. In the final rule, EPA again freely admitted that the cost estimates contained errors that EPA had not corrected. Id

. DW32XUSURSRVDOQRWHGWKDWZHGLG not revise the cost-effectiveness calculation to adjust for all the discrepancies with the CCM [cost control manual] because on our initial adjustments we found that
SCR was not cost- SURKLELWLYH ́ EPA failed to correct errors that would significantly affect the costs of the pollution controls at issue. The remaining errors in the cost calculations improperly biased WKHDJHQF\¶VFRVW -benefit analysis against SCR. EPA exacerbated its skewed cost analysis by failing to correct the errors in 1HYDGD¶VHVWLPDWHVRIWKHFRVWRI61&5WKH competing control ultimately selected42 as BART. The Environmental Coalition submitted evidence that the State underestimated the amount of ammonia used for SNCR, and did not properly account for the increased maintenance costs from use of ammonia. Environmental Coalition 2012 Comments at 5-6 [JA ]. Ammonia is a major operating expense for SNCR. EPA responded to these concerns in the same way it responded to criticisms of the SCR cost calculations: by saying that it did not need to fix all of WKH6WDWH¶VHUURUVLQRUGHUWRDSSURYHWKH6WDWH¶VGHFLVLRQ,QUHVSRQVHWR&RPPHQW 3WKHFRVWRI6&5LVRYHUHVWLPDWHGDQGWKHFRVWRI61&5LVXQGHUHVWLPDWHG ́ (3$UHVSRQGHGWKDW3>H@YHQLIWKHDYHUDJHDQGLQFUHPHQWDOFRVW -effectiveness between SCR and SNCR were somewhat GLIIHUHQW1'(3¶V%$57GHWHUPLQDWLRQ would still be approvable based on its reasonable weighing of the cost and YLVLELOLW\LPSURYHPHQWIDFWRUV ́ 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,941. In short, EPA acknowledged that the State of Nevada significantly overestimated the cost of SCR, which skewed the decision-making process in favor RIOHVVHIIHFWLYHFRQWUROV(3$FRUUHFWHGVRPHRIWKH6WDWH¶VPLVWDNHVEXW conceded that EPA did not correct all of them. As a result, when EPA made its final decision, EPA did not know the actual costs

2 or even the true range of
costs

2 of SCR. I I(3$KDGFRUUHFWHGDOOWKH6WDWH¶VPLVWDNHVWKHLQFUHPHQWDOFRVW effectiveness of SCR would be nearly 40 percent lower than (3$¶V revised estimates for Units 1 and 2, and nearly 30 percent lower for Unit 3. It was43 DUELWUDU\DQGFDSULFLRXVIRU(3$WRDSSURYHWKH6WDWHRI1HYDGD¶VZHLJKLQJRI costs against benefits without correcting errors that would significantly change the relative costs of controls. As EPA itself has proclaimed, EPA must critically review SIP submissions; (3$LVQRWDUXEEHUVWDPSDQGFDQQRWDSSURYHDVWDWHSODQWKDWUHOLHVRQ3IDXOW\ cost data or relies on erroneous mathematical calculations that materially overstate or understate th HFRVWRIFRQWUROV ́&RQVROLGDWHG Brief of Respondent EPA at 42, Nor t

h Da k

o

t

a v

. EPA , No. 12-1844 (8th Cir. brief filed Dec. 10, 2012); s ee al s

o Mon t

. S ulphur & Ch e

m

. Co

. v

. EPA , 666 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2012); Mi c

h

. D

e

p

t

. o f Env t

l

. Quali t y v

. Brown e

r

, 230 F.3d 181, 183 (6th Cir. 2000). In taking ILQDODFWLRQRQWKH6WDWH¶VSURSRVDO(3$KDGDQ obligation to articulate a rational explanation for its final decision. Wild e

rn e

ss Wa t

c

h

, In c

. , 629 F.3d at 1038- 39

. Rather than provide the requisite explanation and support its findings with facts, EPA was explicit in its intent to approve 1HYDGD¶V choice of technology

r

e

gardl e

ss of the actual cost data: 3 [e]ven if the average and incremental costeffectiveness between SCR and SNCR were somehow different, NDEP ¶ s BART determination would still be approvable based on its reasonable weighing of the FRVWDQGYLVLELOLW\LPSURYHPHQWIDFWRUV ́ Id

. at 50,94 1. EPA provided

 and could provide

 no reason why this should be so. Undis puted evidence in the record demonstrates that the cost differential between SCR and SNCR changes very44 considerably when DOORIWKHDFNQRZOHGJHGHUURUVLQWKH6WDWH¶VDQDO\VLV are corrected. Absent an explanation why SCR should not be identified as BART i n light of these adjusted costs, EPA ¶V ultimate BART determination is indefensible. In short, EPA freely admit s to using significantly inflated costs in the cost -benefit analysis that determined the outcome of its regional haze analysis

. This arbitrary approach necessarily renders its haze determination invalid. S ee C t

r

. f or Biologi c

al Div e r s

i t y

, 538 F.3d at 1202- 03

. B

. Th e R ec ord 'RHV1RW6XSSRUW(3$¶V R e j ec tion of th e Mo s t Eff ec tiv e Control

. EPA failed to support its conclusion that the incremental costs of SCR do not justify the incremental visibility benefits this superior technology would achieve. In evaluating a state plan ¶VFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK all applicable requirements, (3$PXVWDUWLFXODWH3DUDWLRQDOFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHIDFWVIRXQGDQGWKHFKRLFH PDGH ́ $UL]&DWWOH*URZHUV$VV¶Q , 273 F.3d at 1236. It is not sufficient for EPA to simply place incorrect data in the record and then pick a result at random. For example, in Nw

. Coal

. f or Al ts

. t o P e

st i c

id e

s

v

. EPA , the agency considered extensive data regarding the toxicological effects of pesticides in order to select a

μ safety factor ¶2 a margin of exposure to pesticides that would protect people from adverse effects

. 544 F.3d at 1052. But while the agency considered extensive data, EPA failed to explain the connection between the data and its decision

. Id

. EPA failed to explain why the data led the agency to select a particular safety45 factor, rather than any other safety factor, leading the court to conclude that 3>D@V IDUDVZHFDQWHOOIURPWKHUHFRUG ́(3$KDGUHDFKHGLWVGHFLVLRQ3DUELWUDULO\ ́ Id

. ;
s

ee al s

o $VV¶QRI3ULYDWH&ROO	8QLY , 870 F. Supp. 2d a W37KDWWKLV explanation could be used to justify any rate DWDOOGHPRQVWUDWHVLWVDUELWUDULQHVV ́ 6LPLODUO\KHUH(3$IDLOHGWRH[SODLQRUVXSSRUWLWVGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDW1HYDGD¶V

cost- EHQHILWDQDO\VLVZDVDFFXUDWHDQGVDWLVILHGWKH$FW¶VUHJLRQDO haze requirements. This evidentiary void is particularly stark given the record-based evidence showing that the visibility improvement from SCR would be significant. Nevada calculated the visibility improvement needed each year to eliminate all anthropogenic haze pollution by 2064 at the Jarbridge Wilderness Area 1HYDGD¶V only Class I area. 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,456-58, 36,464-65. The URP for Jarbridge is .07 deciviews per year; this means that if all sources inside and outside Nevada reduce emissions so as to improve visibility by .07 deciviews per year, Jarbridge will attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. Id

. at 36,456. 7KH853LVVLPLODUIRUWKHQDWLRQDOSDUNVPRVWLPSDLUHGE\5HLG*DUGQHU¶ s pollution. For example, Arizona calculated that to achieve natural visibility conditions in the Grand Canyon by 2064, visibility would need to improve by .07 deciviews per year. 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,704, 75,714 (Dec. 12, 2012). But in practice, Arizona expects to achieve emissions reductions that will yield only .0346 deciviews improvement per year. Id

. The URP for Sycamore Canyon Wilderness
Area is .14 deciviews per year, s ee 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,714, and the URP for Joshua Tree National Park is .20 deciviews per year. 76 Fed. Reg. at 13,951 (Mar. 15, 2011), finalized by 76 Fed. Reg. 34,608. According to EPA, installing SCR at Reid Gardner would improve visibility at the Grand Canyon by .38 deciviews, and .1 deciview more than the next- most

effective control. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21,904. Putting aside the Environmental &RDOLWLRQ¶VDUJXPHQWVDERXWWKHDFFXUDF\RIWKLVHVWLPDWHHYHQWKLVDUWLILFLDOO\ORZ HVWLPDWHRI6&5¶VEHQHILWV greatly exceeds the yearly improvement needed from all sources ( .07 deciviews) to achieve the statutory goal of natural visibility at the Grand Canyon. This cursory examination of the uniform rate of progress for Class I areas demonstrates that the assessment of visibility improvement relative to costs must be anchored to the fundamental goal of achieving reasonable progress toward visibility g oals

. In other words, the visibility improvement from controls must be judged in relation to the amount of improvement needed to satisfy the statutory goal of attaining natural visibility conditions. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1). Judged LQWKDWOLJKW3VPDOO ́QXPEHUVPD\EHLPSRUWDQW because small, yearly improvement in visibility may be adequate to achieve the statutory mandate. Moreover, the visibility benefits from SCR are far larger than EPA estimated; the47 cumulative visibility benefit from SCR are as much as 184 percent higher than that estimated by EPA and greatly exceed the small improvement needed to make reasonable progress. NPS June 4, 2012 Comments at 16 [JA ]. EPA never explained why the visibility benefits associated with installing SCR at Reid Gardner would be insuffi ci ent to warrant the costs of the SCR retrofit. According to the agency, there is no 3 bright line for cost-effectiveness  ́ 77 Fed. Reg. at 50,941. However, in the absence of any articulated standard or any explanation of its cost benefit calculus, EPA was simply acti ng on an unsupported 3EHOLHI ́WKDW the visibility improvement from SCR do es not justify its cost. Id

. In Ch e

m

. M f g

. $VV¶QY EPA , the D.C. Circuit summar LO\UHMHFWHGDVLPLODU3EHOLHI ́

- based conclusion by EPA FKDUDFWHUL]LQJLWDV3DGG>LQJ@QRWKLQJWRWKHDJHQF\¶V defense of its thesis except perhaps the implication that it was committed to its SRVLWLRQUHJDUGOHVVRIDQ\IDFWVWRWKHFRQWUDU\ ́ 28 F.3d 1259, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 6LPSO\ODEHOLQJWKHFRVWVDV3KLJK ́DQGWKHEHQHILWV3VPDOO ́GRHVQRW GLVFKDUJH(3$¶VREOLJDWLRQWRSURYLGHDUDWLRQDOH[SODQDWLRQIRULWVUXOH Instead, the agency must provide some basic explanation for the process it used to weigh costs against benefits. The record contains abundant detail regarding how the State and EPA calculated costs and benefits. But the crucial, dispositive stage of the decision-making was taking those costs and benefits and weighing them. And for48 that crucial, dispositive stage of the rulemaking, the record goes dark. S ee Nw

. Coal

. f or Al ts

. t o P e

st i c

id e

s

, 544 F.3d at 1052 3$VIDUDVZHFDQWHOOIURPWKH UHFRUG ́WKH6WDWHDQG(3$UHMHFWHG6&53DUELWUDULO\ ́ Nevada simply asserted that the costs do not justify the benefits, and EPA accepted that assertion. Given that Nevada did not explain how it weighed costs against benefits, DQGJLYHQ(3$¶VUHMHFWLRQRIWKHFRVWDQGYLVLELOLW\ estimates XQGHUO\LQJ1HYDGD¶VFRVW -benefit analysis, EPA could not simply accept the State ¶V threadbare assertion without abdicating WKHDJHQF\¶V responsibility to critically review SIP submis sions. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k); Mon t

. S ulphur & Ch e

m

. Co

. , 666 F.3d at 1181; Mi c

h

. D e

p

t

. o f Env t

l

. Quali t y

, 230 F.3d at 183; Consolidated Brief of Respondent EPA at 42

. I V

. EPA'S A N A L Y T I C A L PR O C ESS D E F I ES 7+($*(1&<¶62:1 R E G U L A T I O NS A ND PAST PR A C T I C E , AS W E L L AS T H E B ASI C *2$/2)7+($&7¶65( G I O N A L H A Z E PR O G R A M

. (3$¶VELDVIDYRULQJ61&5DQGDJDLQVW6&5 subverts the Clean Air Act regional haze SURJUDP¶V fundamental purpose to eliminate human-caused visibili ty impairment in Class I areas. Haze plans that compel installation only of controls ZLWK3ORZHU ́LQFUHPHQWDOFRVWVDQG3ODUJH ́LQFUHPHQWDOYLVLELOLW\EHQHILWV (whatever those might be) threaten the goal of attaining natural conditions in the Class I areas. The level of visibility improvement that can be achieved through reduction of emissions from any one source might always be deemed too small to49 justify the cost of controls, in which case that last increment of haze pollution will forever be 3WRRVPDOO ́WRMXVWLI\DGGLWLRQDOFRQWUROPHDVXUHV The Clean Air Act is designed to prevent this outcome by requiring consistent, reasonable progress toward elimination of manmade pollution and by imposing the requirement to retrofit some of the most polluting sources with the best system of controls. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1), (b)(2). The Act requires major VRXUFHVWKDW3FDXVHRUFRQWULEXWH ́WRYLVLELOLW\LPSDLUPHQWDW&ODVV,DUHDVWRLQVWDOO WKH3EHVWDYDLODEOHUHWURILWWHFKQRORJ\ ́RU3%$57 ́ZKLFKLV3DQHPLVVLRQ limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the b e

st s y

st

e

m

o f c on t

inuou s e m i ss ion r e

du c

t

ion for each pollutant which is HPLWWHGE\DQH[LVWLQJVWDWLRQDU\IDFLOLW\ ́ 40 C.F.R. § 51.301 (emphasis added). This definition reflects the appropriate framework for conducting a regional haze BART analysis. )LUVWWKHDJHQF\LGHQWLILHVWKH3EHVWV\VWHPRIFRQWLQXRXV HPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQ ́RUWKHEHVWWHFKQRORJ\IRUHDFKUHOHYDQWSROOXWDQW Id

. Once the best technology is selected, the agency then applies the following five-factor test to determine the best emission limitation achievable by that technology: The emission limitation must be established, on a case- by -case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, [1] the costs of compliance, [2] the energy and nonair quality (sic) environmental impacts of compliance, [3] any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source, [4] the remaining useful life of the source, and [5] the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.50 40 C.F.R. § 51.301; 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2). Only after determining that a technology is not viable in light of one of these five factors is a particular control option and associated BART limit eliminated in favor of the next best control option and limit. Id

. ; )HG5HJ-XO\3RQHRUPRUHRI the available control options may be eliminated from consideration because they are demonstrated to be technically infeasible or to have unacceptable energy, cost , or non-air quality environmental impacts on a case- by -case (or site-specific) EDVLV ́ Here, EPA did not follow this so -called top-down analysis required under its own guidelines. Id

. It first identified all of the possible controls and ranked them from least effective to most effective. EPA then deviated from its own procedure E\IDLOLQJWRSLFNIURPWKLVOLVWWKH3EHVWV\VWHPRIFRQWLQXRXVHPLVVLRQUHGXFWLRQ ́ as its starting point and subjecting its achievable emission limits to a five-factor test. It instead used the inferior SNCR technology as the starting point for its analysis and subjected better options to heightened scrutiny using the five-factor analysis. This flawed approach resulted in an improper bias in favor of the inferior SNCR technology and against the best technology

2 SCR. :KHQFRPPHQWHUVREMHFWHGWRWKHDJHQF\¶VIDLOXUHWRREVHUYHLWVRZQ JXLGHOLQHVLQWKLVFDVH(3$UHVSRQGHGWKDW3IRUSRZHUSODQWVWKDWDUHVPDOOHUWKDQ 750 [megawatts], our regulations allow the state to conduct a five-factor analysis51 WKDWGRHVQRWFRQIRUPLQDOOUHVSHFWVWRRXU%$57*XLGHOLQHVIRUODUJHUVRXUFHV ́ 77 Fed Reg. 50, 938. However, this response ignores the fact that EPA c ho s

e to use the guidelines and premised its findings and analysis for Reid Gardner on application of the guidelines

. 77 Fed. Reg. 50, 936, 50,942 ( ci ting to its guidelines DVWKHFODLPHGEDVLVIRU(3$¶VDVVXPHGSHUIRUPDQFHIRU6&5 ). Id . at 50,942 n.12 (explaining WKDW(3$UHOLHGRQLWVJXLGHOLQHVEHFDXVH3WKH%$57JXLGHOLQHVGR provide useful guidance in VHWWLQJDSSURSULDWH%$57OLPLWV ́

. Id

.. at 50,940 (offering an extensive discussion of its guidelines to justify the cost-benefit analysis underlying its regional haze determination for Reid Gardner). Moreover, EPA cited to Nevad D¶VIDLOXUHWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKH guidelines as the basis for rejecting the 6WDWH¶V plan. 77 Fed. Reg. at 21 , 3:HILQGFHUWDLQHOHPHQWVRIWKH
emission limits HVWDEOLVKHGIRU>5HLG*DUGQHU@LQ>1HYDGD¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQ@DV HLWKHUXQVXSSRUWHGE\WKHUHFRUGRULQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK%$57*XLGHOLQHV ́ id (rejecting 1HYDGD¶VHPLVVLRQOLPLWVIRU5HLG*DUGQHUEHFDXVHWKH6WDWH¶V 3XV e of a rolling 12-month averaging period instead of a rolling 30-day average [was] LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK%$57*XLGHOLQHV ́(3$¶VDUELWUDU\WUHDWPHQWRILWVRZQ guidelines

2 cherry-picking certain elements of its guidelines while ignoring other elements

2 lacks transparency and falls short of the agency ¶V basic obligation to HQJDJHLQD3UHDVRQHGHYDOXDWLRQRIWKHUHOHYDQWIDFWRUV ́ S e

l k

ir

k

Con s

e

rva t

ion Allian ce v

. For s

gr e

n

, 336 F.3d 944, 954(9 th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).52 (3$¶VDQDO\WLFDODSSURDFKLQWKLVFDVHLVQRWRQO\LQFRKHUHQWEXWLVDOVR LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHDJHQF\¶VDSSURDFKHOVHZKHUH(3$KDV followed the correct procedure in its regional haze determinations for other power plants. For example, IRUWKH6DQ-XDQ*HQHUDWLQJ6WDWLRQWKHDJHQF\LGHQWLILHG6&5DV3WKHPRVW VWULQJHQWOHYHORIFRQWUROV ́LQLWVDQDO\VLV In justifying its analytical approach in that case to the Tenth Circuit, EPA cited to 70 Fed. Reg. at 39,164, n. 12, which VWDWHVWKDWWKHDJHQF\3PXVWLGHQWLI\WKHPRVWVWULQJHQWRSWLRQDQGDUHDVRQDEOH set RIRSWLRQVIRUDQDO\VLV ́(3$¶V Final Answering Brief of Respondent EPA at 77, WildEar t

h Guardian s

v

. EPA , No. 11-9552 (10th Cir. brief filed Sept. 25, 2012) . EPA then went on to explain to the Tenth Circuit that after identifying the most stringent option, the agency then applies the remaining four steps of the BART analysis to that option before proceeding to the next best option. Id

. As EPA itself correctly stated: [S]teps in the BART analysis may only be skipped if the most stri QJHQWFRQWUROVIRUD%$57VRXUFHDUHDOUHDG\LQSODFHDQG3PDGH IHGHUDOO\HQIRUFHDEOHIRUWKHSXUSRVHRILPSOHPHQWLQJ%$57 ́RU ZKHQ3DVRXUFHFRPPLWVWRD%$57GHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDWFRQVLVWVRIWKH PRVWVWULQJHQWFRQWUROVDYDLODEOH ́ 70 Fed. Reg. at 39,165. Id

. at 64- 65

. 7KXVDIWHULGHQWLI\LQJWKH3EHVW ́WHFKQRORJ\IRU6DQ-XDQ*HQHUDWLQJ Station, EPA conducted the five-factor regional haze analysis and, on that basis, determined that SCR could not be eliminated. Id . at 64-66. . When it was criticized for choosing SCR in its regional haze plan for the Four Corners Power53 Plant, EPA responded that it properly began its analysis with the most stringent controls. 77 Fed. Reg. at 51,624. As explained by the agency itself, EPA approached the five factor analysis using a top-down method. A top -down analysis entails ranking the control options in descending order starting with the most stringent option. The top control option is evaluated and if eliminated based on one of the five factors, the next most stringent option is considered, and so on. 75 Fed. Reg. at 64,225. In its fina OUXOH(3$IXUWKHUH[SODLQHGWKDW3>L@IWKH analysis shows no outstanding issues regarding cost or energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, the analysis is concluded and the t op l e

v

e

l of technically IHDVLEOHFRQWUROVLVLGHQWLILHGDVWKHμEHVWV\ stem of continuous emission UHGXFWLRQ¶¶¶ 77 Fed. Reg. at 51,624 (emphasis added). When it rejected $UNDQVDV¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQIRUIDLOLQJWRLGHQWLI\DQGDQDO\]HDUDQJHRIFRQWURO options, including the PRVWVWULQJHQWFRQWURORSWLRQ(3$GHVFULEHGWKH3WRS

GRZQ ́DQDO\VLVIRUUHJLRQDOKD]HDV3YHU\VLPLODUWRWKH>EHVWDYDLODEOHFRQWURO technology] review as described in the New Source Review Workshop Manual 'UDIW2FWREHU ́ZKLFKUHTXLUHVD3WRS -d RZQ ́DQDO\VLVRIDYDLODEOH technologies. Id

. at 14,612. In yet another rulemaking, EPA imposed a federal plan for Arizona after FULWLFL]LQJWKHVWDWH¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQIRUFKRRVLQJDWHFKQRORJ\WKDW3SURYL des WKHORZHVWYLVLELOLW\EHQHILWRIDQ\RIWKHFRQWUROVPRGHOHG ́ 77 Fed. Reg. at
42 ,846. EPA very recently took the same approach, starting with the most54 stringent controls, in its proposed regional haze determination for Navajo Generating Station. 78 Fed. Reg. at 8, 280. Similar to the above examples, the Reid Gardner record indisputably supports the conclusion that WKHPRVWVWULQJHQWRU3EHVW ́V\VWHPRIFRQWLQXRXVnitrogen oxides emission reduction for this power plant is SCR coupled with lownitrogen oxides burners and overfire air. S ee , e

. g ., 77 Fed. Reg. at 21 ,902, Table 4. And, a top-down analysis here would yield an estimated visibility benefit of 0.7 deciviews at the Grand Canyon alone. NPS June 4, 2012 Comments at 16 [JA ]. This visibility gain is more than that GHHPHGVLJQLILFDQWLQ$UL]RQD¶V plan. 77 Fed. Reg. at 42, 3%\FRQWUDVW6&5ZRXOGSURYLGHDQLPSURYHPHQWRI more than 0.5 [deciviews] at a single Class I Area.  ́ Had EPA maintained consistency with its previous actions, the agency would have used SCR as the VWDUWLQJSRLQWIRULWVUHJLRQDOKD]HDQDO\VLVLQWKLVFDVH$QDJHQF\¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ of a statute or regulation that conflicts with its prior interpretation is entitled to 3FRQVLGHUDEO\OHVVGHIHUHQFH ́WKDQDFRQVLVWHQWO\KHOGDJHQF\YLHZ Wa tt

v

. Ala s

k

a

, 451 U.S. 259, 273 (1981). While EPA seeks to justify its departure from its own top -down approach by claim ing that states enjoy flexibility in crafting regional haze plans that are submitted to EPA for approval , 77 Fed. Reg. at 50, 937- 38 , this response falls flat IRUDWOHDVWWZRUHDVRQV)LUVW(3$GLVDSSURYHG1HYDGD¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQIRU55 failing to comply with the Clean Air Act ¶VDSSOLFDEOHUHTXLUHPHQWV , which WULJJHUHG(3$¶VGXW\WRLVVXHWKH f e

d

e ral plan at issue in this case. 77 Fed. Reg. at GLVDSSURYLQJ1HYDGD¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HSODQEHFDXVHLWZDV3XQVXSSRUWHGE\ WKHUHFRUGRULQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK%$57*XLGHOLQHV ́ . Second, even if it were appropriate for EPA to rely on the analysis contained in a rejected state plan

2 which it is not 2DVWDWH¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIIHGHUDOODZLVQRWHQWLWOHGWRGHIHUHQFH S

a

f

e

Air f or Ev e

ryon e

v

. EPA , )GWK&LU3>D@VWDWH¶V interpretation of [EPA-approved regulations], even if binding as a matter of state ODZLVQRWGLUHFWO\GLVSRVLWLYHRIWKHPHDQLQJRI>WKRVHIHGHUDOUHJXODWLRQV@ ́EPA thus failed to provide any rational reason for deviating from its standard topdown analytical approach in this case. &21&/86,21 For the foregoing reasons, the Environmental Coalition respectfully requests the Court to ILQGWKDW(3$¶VILQDOGHFLVLRQLVDUELWUDU\ capricious, and not in accordance with law. The Environmental Coalition further requests the Court to UHPDQG(3$¶VUHJLRQDOKD]HGHWHUPLQDWLRQIRU5HLG*DUGQHUIRUUHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ Respectfully submitted this 28th day of February, 2013.56 s/ Suma Peesapati Suma Peesapati (CA# 203701) EARTHJUSTICE 50 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 217-2000 Phone (415) 217-2040 Fax speesapati@earthjustice.org Matthew Gerhart (WA# 42787) EARTHJUSTICE 705 2nd Ave., Suite 203 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 343-7340 Phone (206) 343-1526 Fax mgerhart@earthjustice.org Dan Galpern (OR# 06195) Law Firm of Charles M. Tebbutt P.C. 941 Lawrence Street Eugene, OR 97401 (541) 344-3505 Phone (541) 344-3516 Fax galpern@tebbuttlaw@gmail.com Coun s

e

l f or Environ m

e

n

t

al Coali t

ion Moapa Band o f Paiu t

e

Indian s

, Na t

ional Par k

s Con s

e

rva t

ion A ss o

c

ia

t

ion and S i e rra Club57 &(57,),&$7(2)&203/ ,$1&( Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, I certify that the attached opening brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more, and contains 12,928 words. Dated: February 28, 2013 s/ Suma Peesapati SUMA PEESAPATI58 67$7(0(172)5(/$7('&$6(6 Petitioners are aware of one other case that arises out of the same final agency action at issue in this case: N e

vada Pow e r Co m

pany v

. EPA , No. 12- 73411 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 22, 2012). Additionally, the following case raises legal issues that are similar to the legal issues in this case: Na t

ional Par k

s

Con s

e

rva t

ion A

ss o

c

ia

t

ion v

. EPA , No. 12-73710 (9th Cir. filed Nov. 14, 2012).C E R T I F I C A T E O F SE R V I C E I hereby certify that on February 28, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system. I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the following non-CM/ECF participant: Scott C. Fulton, General Counsel Correspondence Control Unit Office of the General Counsel United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W Mail Code 2310A Washington, D.C. 20460
Dated: February 28, 2013 s/ Suma Peesapati SUMA PEESAPATI