## AUG

- 

## 2 2013

Clerk. Environ INITIALS

(Slip Opinion) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Environmental Administrative Decisions (E.A.D.). Readers are requested to notify the Environmental Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before publication.

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.
) Inre: ) ) Pio Pieo Energy Center ) PSD Appeal Nos. 12-04 ) through 12-06 PSD Pennit No. SD 11-01 ) )



# -------------­ ) [Decided August 2, 2013] ORDER REMANDING IN PART AND DENYING REVIEW IN PART
Before Environmental Appeals Judges Leslye M. Fraser, Randolph L Hill, and Kathie A. Stein.IN RE PI O P ICO ENERGY CENTER PSD Appeal Nos . 1 2- 04 through 1 2- 06 ORDER REMANDING IN PART AND DENY ING REV

IEW IN PART

Decid ed August 2 , 2 013

Sy lla bus Helpin g H and Tools, S ierra Clu b, and Mr. Rob Sim pson (“Petit ion ers”) eac h pet iti on the Env ironm ent al A pp e a ls Boa

rd ( “B oar d”) to re v ie w

a pre v ent ion of

s ig nif ic ant deterioratio n (“P SD”) perm it (“P erm it”) that Region 9 (“Region”) of the UnitedStates Enviro nm ental P r o tection A gency issued to th e Pi o P ico Energy Center (“Pio P ico”) purs uant to the Cl ea

n A ir A ct . The Permit aut horiz es Pio Pico t o const

ruc t and ope rate a 300-m eg aw att nat

ura l g as -f ire d pea k ing and/ or inte rm edi at e loa d-s hapi ng pow er pla nt (“Facility ”) in Otay

Mesa, Ca lifornia. T he pet iti ons cha lle ng e the Reg ion’s iss uanc e of , as w el l a s se v er al c onditi ons in, the P erm it. Co llectively , P etition ers raise eleven issues f or Boardresolutio n. These inc lude c hal le ng es to the Re g ion’s accep ta n ce of late c om m ent s; the a dequa cy

of the Region’s respon ses to com m ents; the Region’s decision to elim inate com bin ed-cy cle g as turb ines as a

contro l technol ogy

in its best av ailable contro l techno logy (“BA CT ”) ana ly si s f or gre enhous e g as es ; t

he ade quac y

of the BA CTe m is si on li m its the Re g ion se le ct ed f or gr ee nhouse ga se s and f or par tic ulate m atte r ( “PM” ); the Re g ion’s c oncl usi on that c ar bon m onox ide emis si ons f rom the Fa ci lit

y ar e not s ubje ct

to the PSD pr og ra

m ; t he loc at ion of ai r qual ity m onitor s; and the Re g ion’s dec is ions not to use emis si on re duct ion cr edi ts to m iti g at e ai r pol luta nts . I n a dditi on, tw o of

the p etit ione rs a sk

the Boa rd t o re m and the Permit to t

he Re g ion f

or a re as se ss m ent

of the “ nee d” f

or t he Fa ci lit y f ollow inga

re ce nt C al if

ornia Public U til iti es Com

m is si on (“ CPUC ”) de ci si on de ny ing the loc al uti lit

y the a uthori ty to ent er int o a long -te rm pow er purc has e agre em ent w ith Pio Pico. He ld: T he Boa rd r em ands the pe rmit in pa rt and dire ct s the Re g ion t o pre par e a re v is ed PM BA CTanal y si s and re open the publi c com m ent per iod to prov ide the publi c w ith an o pp ortu nity to c omm ent on it. The Board denies revie w of a ll oth er challenge s. (1) T he Re g ion’s A nal y si s of the “Ne ed” f

or t he Fa ci lit y : Mr. Sim

pson and Sie rr a Cl ub hav e not de m o n st rated t hat the Re g ion a

buse d it s dis cr et ion i n e le ct ing not t o pe rf

orm an inde pende nt a

nal y si s o f t h e “ne ed” f

or t he Fa ci lit y . The Re g ion ha d the dis cr et ion, but w as not re quire d, t o c onduct an indep en d ent ana ly si s of

the “ nee d” f

or the Fac ili ty , and the Re g ion a ls o ha d the dis cr et ion,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 2 but w as not re quire d, to re ly on the Sta te of Ca lif ornia a g enc y ’s a ss es sm ent

of need. In th is ca se, beca

use the Region exe rcised it s d iscretion no t to con du ct a nee ds as se ss m ent

and not to r el y

on a ny Sta te of Ca lif ornia a g enc y ’s det er m ination of

ne ed, the re ce nt CPUC dec is ion does not af f ec t t he Re g ion’s conc lus ion. (2) T he Re g ion’s A cc ept anc e of L at e Com

m ent s f rom One Indi v idua l: Unde r t he unique c onte x t of

thi s ca se , the Re g ion’s de ci si on to al low late c om m ent s f rom Mr. Sa rv ey on the Env ironm ent al Jus tic e Anal y si s w as jus tif ie d, a nd w as not an abus e of

the Re g ion’s inhe re nt di sc re tion to a ccept late c om m ent s in a per m it proc ee dingw ithout

re openi ng th e p u

blic c om m ent pe riod. Mr . Si m

pson has not dem on strated oth erw ise. (3) The Region’s Respon se to a Series of Forwa rded E-ma i l s and Attac hm ents: Mr. Sim pson has not demonst

rate d that the Re g ion c le ar ly e rr ed or a

buse d it s dis cr et ion by

not prov idingdeta ile d, i ndiv idua l r es ponse s to t he se rie s of f orw ar ded e- m ai ls and atta chm ent s Mr. Sim pson submitt ed during the publi c com m ent pe riod w her e he did not ex

pla in the ir re le v anc e or a

pplic abi lit

y to this P SD pe rmitpr o ceed in g. (4) The Region’s Con sideration of A ir Quality I mp ac t s at Nea

rby Correction al Fa ci lit ie s: H elpingH ands T ools ha s not dem onst rate d that the Re g ion f

ai le d to ade quat el y

a dd re ss c om

m ent s ra is ingc once rns a bout pot ent ia l a ir qual ity im pac ts on inm at e populations at ne ar by c orr ec tiona l f

ac ili tie s. T he Re g ion’s re spons e to c om

m ent s cl ea

rly e xpla ins w

hy a dditi onal a ir qual ity

m onitor ing is not re quire d to det er m ine ba ckg round c once ntra tions or to f

u lfil l its oblig at ions unde r E x ec utiv e Or der 12898. (5) T he Re g ion’s El im ination o f Co m b ined-C y cl e G as T urbine s at Ste p 2 of It s BA CTA nal y si s f or G re enhous e G as es : Mr. Sim pson and Sie rr a Cl ub hav e not dem on strated that the Region clearly erred in elim inatin g c om

bin ed-cy cle g as turbi nes in st ep 2 of

it s BA CTanal y si s f

or gre enhous e g as es , or that t he is sue oth erw ise wa

rrants revie w

o r rem and. In particul ar, the Board con clud es that the Re g ion di d not def

ine “ sour ce ty

p e” too nar

row ly in st ep 2, nor

did the Region clearly

err w hen it refe renced the po w er purchase agreem ent and related do cum ents in its analy sis. (6) T he Re g ion’s Se le ct ion of a Gre enho u se G as BA CTEmis si on L im it at Fif ty P erce nt Load: Sierra Club has not dem on strated t hat the Region fa iled to use its c onsi der ed judg m ent

w hen se le ct inga

g re enhous e g as BA CTem is si on li m it f or t he Fa ci lit y ’s emis si ons w

hen oper at ing at f

if ty per ce nt loa d. T he Re g ion’s dec is ion t o sel ec t an emis si on lim it that is not the m ost s tri ng ent is c onsi st ent w ith the de f

init ion of BA CTan d B o ard p re ce dent , both of w hic h a f f ord t he Re g ion t he dis cr et io n t o s et the e mis si on li m it at a le v el tha t e nsur es the Facility ca n achieve consisten t com plian ce over its lif

etim e.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 3 (7) The Regio n ’s Use of Saf ety Factors (or Com

plian ce Margins) in Its BA CT Anal y si s f

or G re enhous e G as es : Sie rr a Cl ub ha s not de m onst rate d that t

he Re g ion f ai le d to use it s cons ide re d judg m ent w hen it in corpora

te d s af et y f ac tors , or com

plia nce m ar g ins , into the g re enhous e g as BA CTe m is si on li m it. The Region pro vided adequ ate f actual supp ort for its decision to includ e such factor s in t

he emis si on li m it, and Sie rr a Cl ub’s pe tit ion f or r ev ie w f ai le d to address the Reg ion ’s rationale in th e adm inistrative record f or in clud ing tho se f actors. (8) T he Re g ion’s Se le ct ion of BA CT fo r PM: T he re cor d doe s not r ef le ct the Re g ion’s c onsi der ed judg m ent in se le ct ingthe BA CTem is si on li m its f or PM. T he Re g ion, in c onduct ingit s PM BA CTanal y si s, f ai le d t o a dequa

te ly co n si d ersi gn i fi ca n ti n fo rmat i o n i n th e a d min i st r at i ve re co r dre g a r d i n g t wo si m ple -c y cl e pla

nts that us e the s ame turbi ne m odel a s propos ed f or t he Fa ci lit y . N ei the r t

he “F ac t She et and the Am bie nt A ir Qua lit

y Im pac t R epor

t” nor t he re spons e to com

m ent s docum ent

ana lyze d this inf

orm at ion i n de ta il nor ex pla in how it a f f ec ts the Re g ion’s PM BA CTde te rmination. I n a dditi on, the Re g ion’s e xpla

nat ion for i ts s el ec tion of 80 pe rc ent

loa d a s the de f

ining cr ite rion f

or a pply ingtw o dif

f er ent e m is si on li m its and the s el ec tion of 5.5 pounds per hour (“ lb/hr ”) a s BA CTf or l oads unde r 80 per ce nt a re not ade quat el y

e xpla ine d in the re cor d. (9) T he Re g ion’s Re lia nce on Fe der al ly

Enf orc ea ble Permit T er

m s f or C ar bon Monox ide : H elping Ha

nd T ools ha s not de m onst rate d that t

he Re g ion c le ar ly erred w hen it relied o n fe derally enf orceab l e p er m it term s in the Fin al Determinatio n of Com

plian ce the San D iego A ir P ollu tion Con tro l Di st rict is sue d in conclu dingthat t he Fa ci lit y ’s c ar bon m onox ide e m is si ons ar e not subj ect to the P SD pro gram . T he R eg i o n p r o perly relied on th e Final Determinatio n of Com

plian ce, w

hich requ i r es t h at ea ch turb ine be equi pp ed w ith an ox idation ca

ta ly st to limit ca

rbon m onox ide emis si ons f rom the Fa ci lit

y to a le v el be low

the P SD sig nif

ic ant em is si on thr es hold r eg ar dle ss of ope rating loa d. (10) T he Re g ion’s A llow anc e of D at a f rom A ir Qua lit

y Monit or L o cat ed Ni ne Ki lom et er s From the Fa ci lit y : Mr. Sim

pson has not demonst

rated th at the Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr ed w hen it al low ed the use of

data fr om an air qualit y m onitor loc at ed nine k ilom et er s f rom the propos ed Fa ci lit

y a s oppose d to dat a f

rom othe r a ir qual ity

m onitor s in t

he ar ea . The Re g ion f

ully e xpla ine d it s rationa le in th e res po nse t o com

m ents do cum ent, and Mr. Simpson’s p etition f or review f ai ls to conf

ront the Re g ion’s e xpla

nat ion. (11) T he Re g ion’s Dec is ion Re g ar dingEm is si on Reduc tion Cr edi ts : Mr. Sim pson has not demonst

rate d tha t t he Re g ion c le ar ly

err ed by

f ai lingto re quire m iti g at ion of

a ir pollut ion t

hroug h the us e of

e m is si on re duct ion c re dits . M r. Sim pson’ s pet iti on f

or r ev ie w fai le d to conf

ront the Re g ion’s re spons e to aPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 4 si m ila

r c om m ent , a nd the e m is si on re duct ion c re dits in ques tion ar e util iz ed in no nattain m ent new

source rev iew

perm its rather than P SD perm its. Befo re E

nviron m ental App eals J udges L e s lye M. Fra ser, Ran dolph L. Hill an d K

athie A. Stein . Opin ion of th e B oard

by Jud ge S tein: TA B L E O F C O N TEN TS
II

. ISSU ES O N A PPE AL

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 7 II I. PRI NC IPLES G UI

DI NG BO ARDRE VIE W

... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 9 A. Sta nd

ard o f Review

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 9 B. Pe tit ione r’

s Bur den on Appe al, Inc luding Thres hold R equi re me nts
.... . 11 IV. SUMMARY OF DECISION

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 13 V. PR OC

ED UR AL A NDFA CTU

AL H ISTO RY

.... .... .... .... .... .... ... 15 VI. PENDING PROCEDURAL MOTIONS

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 18 VII. OV ERV IEW O F P SD LEG AL REQ UI

REM EN TS AN D BAC T AN

ALYSI S

... 20 VIII

. AN ALYSI S

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 23 A

. Pe tit ione rs Hav e Failed to De mons trate That the Re gion Abus ed Its D is cret ion in Ele ct ing N

ot to Pe rf

orm an I

ndepe ndent

“N ee ds”Anal

ys is, and t

he Cal ifor nia P ublicU

til ity Com mi ss ion’s ( “C

P U C ’ s ” ) R e c e n t D ec is ion D oesNot Re quire a Re mand for

theRe gion to Re cons ide r Its Anal ys is

.... .... . . 23 B. The Regio n Did No t Abu se Its Discre ti o n in Allo wing One Commenter Additio n a l Timeto Submi t Late Com me nts on t he Re gion’s Env ironme ntal Jus tic e ( “EJ ”) Analy

si s .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 28 C. Mr. Simpson Has Not Demonstrat ed Tha t the Regio n Clearly Erred or Abu sed Its Discretion by Not Provid ing a Detailed Res

po nse to the Series of Fo rwarded E-m ails and At tac hme nts H e Submi tte d D uri ng thePubl icCom me nt P er iod

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 33PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 5
D. He lping Hand Tools H as Not D em onst

rated That t

he Re gio n F a il ed to Ade quate ly

Address Com me nts About Ai r Qual ity

Im pact s on Inmate Pop ula tion s at Nearby Correctiona l Facilit ies

.... .... .... .... .... . 42 E. Pe tit ione rs H

ave Not D em onst

rated That theRe

gion C le arl y Er re d in Eli mi nating Com bine d-C yc leG as Turbine

s in Step 2 ofIts BA CT Analy si s for Gree nhouse Gas es ( “G

HG s” ) or That theIssueO the rw is e W arr ants Re vi ew

or Re mand

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 46 1. TheRe

gion’s Ste p 2 Anal ys is

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 49 2. M r. Simps on Faile d to Conf ront the R egi on’s Re

spons es to Com me nts and Ex plain W hy The y W ere Clearly

Erroneous on Hi

s Ge ner al C halle nge to the Regio n’s Elimin atio n of Combin ed-Cycle Gas Tu rbin es as BACT

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 54 3. Sierra Clu b Has Preserv ed One of Its Su bsta ntive Issues for Revie w

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 56 4. Sierra Clu b Has Not Demon strated T h a t t h e Region Defined “S

ou rce Ty pe”Too N

arrowl y in Step 2

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 59

a. NSR M

anual Step 2: Q ues tion of Te chni cal Fe asi bili ty
.... . . 59 b. TheRe

gion’s Ste p 2 Analy si s W as Cons is te nt Wi th the NSR M anual and Boar d Cas e Law

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 60 5. TheRe

gion’s Re fe re nce s to the Pow er

Purchas e Agree me nt and RFO in Its BA CT Analy

si s Do Not Ne ce ss itate a Re mand in Li

gh t o f th e Re ce nt CP UC D ec is ion

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 68 6. Conc lus ion

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 71

2 F. Chal le nges to CO BA CT Em is si on Lim it

.... .... .... .... .... .... . 71 1. Si e rra Cl u b H

a s N o t D e m o n s tra t e d T

h a t th e R e

g i o n F a i l e d t o Us e Its
2 Cons ide re d J

udgme nt i n Choos ing a CO BA CT Em ission Li mi t That Cor re sponds to theFac ili ty ’s O per ation at F

ift y Pe rc ent Load

.... 73

a. Bac kground

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 75 b. Analy si s .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 78 2. Sie rr

a Club H as Not D em onst rated That t h e Region F aile d to Us e Its Cons ide re d J

udgme nt W

hen It Inc orpor

ated Safety Fac tor s, or
2 Com plianc e M

argi ns, Into theCO BA CT Em is si on Lim it

.... .... 83PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 6

a. Bac kground

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 83

b. Analy si s .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 86 G. TheRe cor

d Does Not

Re fle ct thePe rm it Issue r’

s Cons ide re d J

udgme nt i n Selec ting theBA CT Lim it for Par tic ulateM

atte r ( “PM ”)

.... .... .... 89 1. Ov er vi ew of Pe rm it Condi tion

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 89 2. Chal le nges on Appe al

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 90 3. Analy

si s .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 91

a. Selec tion of 0. 0065 lb/M M Btu as BAC T

for Loads Abov e 80 Pe rc ent
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 92 b

. Selec tion of 80 Pe rc ent Load as the De

fini ng Cr ite ri on for

Appl yi ng Di ffe re nt E mi ss ion Li mi ts
... .... .... .... .... .... .... . 97

c. Selec tion of 5.5 lb/hr as BAC T for Loads Under 80 Pe rc ent
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 100 4. Because the Record Does Not Reflect th e P ermit Iss uer’s Considered Judg ment in Selecting BACT Limits for PM, a Remand Is in Order 101 H. He lping Hand Tools H as Not De mons trate d That t he Re gion C le arl y Er re d by Re ly ing on Fe der

ally Enfor

ce able Pe rm it Te rm s Inc lude d in the SD APC D’ s Final D eter mi nation of C

ompl ianc e to Conc ludeThat theFac ili ty ’s Potent ial to E mi t C arbon M onoxi de W

ill Not Ex ce ed theSigni

fic ant E mi ss ion Thres hold That W ould O the rw is e Re quire Com plianc e wi th t

he PSD Program ... 102 I. M r. Simps on Has Not De mons trate d That theRe gion C le arl y Er re d in Allowi ng theU seof Dat a from an Air

Qualit y M onitor Loc ate d Ni ne Ki lom eter

s from the Fac ili ty
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 112 J. M r. Sim pson Has Not De mons trate d That the Re gion Clearly Er

re d by Fai ling to Req u i r eM

i t i ga t i o n o f A i r P o l l u ta n t

s T h r o ugh t h eU s eo f E m is si on Re duct ion C

re dits

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... . . 114 IX. CO NC LU SIO N &O RD ER

.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... 116PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 7 I

. STA TEME

NT O F T HE C ASE Help ingH and Tools, Mr. Robert Sim pson , and Sierra C lub e ach fil e d a t i m ely

petition seekingrev iew of a Clean A ir A ct (“C AA ”) Prev ention of S ig nificant Deterio ration (“PS D”) perm it (“Pe rm it”), P SD No. SD 11- 01, that the U.S. Enviro nm ent al Pro te ct ion Ag enc y (“ EPA” or “ A g en cy ”) R eg io n 9 (“R eg io n” ) is su ed to P io P ic o E ne rg y

C ente r, L L C ( “P io P ic o” o r “P erm it te e” ) on N ov em be r 19, 2012

. Th e P erm it authoriz es P io P ico to con struct an d op e r a t e a 300- m eg awatt (“MW”) natural g as- fired p owe r plant (“Fa cility ”) in Otay Mesa, C alifornia. The petitions challeng e the Reg ion’s i s suanc e of, as well as sev eral cond itions in , the Perm it. Both the Reg ion and Pio Pico filed resp onses to the petition s. T he E nv ironm ental A ppeals Board (“B oard”) held a st a tu s c o n f

e r e n c e i n t h i s m a t t e r o n Ap r i l 1 1 , 2 0 1 3

. F o r t h e reasons set fo rth be lo w , th e B oard re m an ds th e pe rm itin p art and d en ie s re v ie win part

. I I

. ISSU ES ON AP PEA L The p et it io ns pre se nt

the fol lo w in gov er ar ch in gis su es f or B oard resolution : 1. Has Mr. Sim

psonor Sierra Club dem onstrated that the R eg io n ab us ed

it s di sc re ti on

in e le ct in gno t to p er fo rm an in depen dent “need s” an aly sis, and does the Californ ia Pu

blic U tilityC om

m ission’s (“ CPUC s’”) re ce nt d ec is io n re qu ir e a re m an d for th e R eg io n to reconsid er its analy sis? 2. Did the R eg ion a buse its discre tion in

allow ingon e com m enter a dditiona l tim e to subm it late com m ents o n the R eg ion’s Env ironm ental Justice (“E J ”) A naly sis? 3. H as Mr

. S im

ps on d em on stra te d th at

th e R eg io n cl earl y erred o r abu sed its discre tion by no t prov idinga detailed respon se to the series of forwarded e- mai l s andPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 8 attachm ents h e su bm itted du ringthe public com m ent period? 4. Has Help ingH and Tools dem onstrated that the R eg ion failed to ade quately

add ress co m m ents ra isingcon cerns about air q

uali t y im pacts on inm ate po pulation s at nearby correc tional fa cilities? 5. Hav e Mr. Sim

psonor Sierra Club dem onstrated that the Reg ion c learly erred in elim inatingcom bined- cy cle g as turbines in S tep 2 of its best av ailable c ontrol techno log y

(“B AC T”) analy sis for g reenho use g ases (“GH Gs”) or that the issue otherw ise warrants rev iew or rem and? 6. H as S ie rr a C lu

b d em on stra te d th at

the R eg io n fa il ed

to use i t s con sidered j udg m ent in cho osinga carbon

2 dioxid e (“CO ”) B AC T em ission lim it that correspo nds to the Fa cility ’s op eration at fifty perc ent lo ad? 7. H as S ie rr a C lu

b de m on stra te d th at th e R eg io n fa il ed to us e it s co ns id er ed jud g m ent w he n itin co rp or at ed s af ety
2 fa ct ors , or compli anc e m ar gins, in to t he CO BACT em is si on li m it ? 8. Doe s the record reflect the R eg ion’s consid ered jud g m ent ins el ec ti ngth e B A C T li m itf or p arti cu la te m atte r (“ P M” )? 9. Has Help ingH and Tools dem onstrated that the R eg ion cl earl y e rr ed b y r el y in go n fe de ra ll y

enf or ce ab le p erm it term s inclu ded in the San Dieg o C ounty A ir Po llution C ontr ol D is tric t’ s de te rm in at io n of c om pl ianc e to co n c l u d e th a tth e f

a c i l i t y ’ s p o t e n t i a l t o e m i t ( “ PTE”) carbon m onox ide (“C O”) will not ex ceed the significant em is si on thre sh ol d th at w ou ld othe rw is e re qu ir e c o mp l i a n c e wi thth e PS D p r o gr a m?PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 9

T he EPAre ce ntly

re v is ed 40 C. F.R . § 124. 19 and other re late d prov is ions in 1 parts 12 4 and270 of the Cod e o f Federal Regulatio ns to clarify practices and p rocedu res in a ppea ls of pe rmit dec is ions f

ile d be f ore the Boa

rd. See Rev ision s to P rocedu ral Rules to C la rif y Prac tic es and Proce du res Ap p lic abl e in Per m it A ppea ls PendingBe f

ore the Boa rd, 78 Fe d Re g . 5281, 5288 (J an. 25, 2013) , avai lable at ww w .e pa. g ov/e ab (c lic k

on Re g ulations G ov er

ning A ppea ls ). T he re v is ed par

t 124 prov is ions be ca

m e ef f ec tiv e on Marc h 26, 2013. Id

. B ecau se th e p et it io n s in t h is matt er were file db efor e th e effecti ve dat e of the re v is ed prov is ions , the par t 124 prov is ions c ite d in this de ci si on c orr es pond to t he prov is ions in ef

f ec t a t t he tim e the pe tit ions w er e f ile d. 10

. H as Mr

. S im

ps on de m on stra te d th at

th e R eg io n cl earl y er re d ina ll ow in gth e us e of d at a fr om

an ai r qu al ity moni t orlo c a t e d n i ne kil ome t e r s fr om th e Fa c i l i t y? 11

. H as Mr. S im

ps on d em on stra te d th at

th e R eg io n cl earl y er re d by f ai li ngto r eq

ui re m it igat io n of

a ir p ol lutant s through the use of em ission reductio n cre dits? I I I

. PRIN CIP LES G UID ING BO ARDRE VIEW Section 12 4.1 9 of

T i t l e 40 of the C ode of F ederal Regulations g ov er ns B oard r ev ie wo f a P S D p erm it

. In any a ppe al f ro m ap erm it 1 decision i s s ue d under part 1 24, the petitioner bears the b urdenof dem onstratingthat rev iew is w arranted. See 40 C .F. R. § 124. 19(a). A. Stand ard of R eview The Bo ard has discretion whe ther to rev iew a PSD perm it. In re Aven al Pow er C

tr., LLC, PSD Appeal Nos . 1 1- 02 through 1 1- 05, slip op. at 14- 15 (EA B Aug . 1 8, 2011 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _ __, appe al do cke te d sub no m. Sierra Club v. EPA , No . 1 1-73 34 2 ( 9t h C i r . No v. 3, 20 11 ) . Or di na r i l y, the B oard will not rev iew a PSD perm it unless the p erm it decisio n eith er is bas ed o n a clearly

erron e ou s f

i ndingof fact or conclu sion of law , o r invol ves a m at te r of

poli cy or exer ci se of dis cr et ion that warr ant s re view. 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 (a )( 1)

- (2 ); accor d, e.g. , In re Prairie StateG enera ting Co. , 1 3 E .A .D . 1 , 10 ( EA B 2006 ), aff’d su b n om. Sierra C lub v . E PA , 49 9 F

. 3d 6 53 ( 7th C ir

. 2 00 7)

.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 10 When

e v aluatinga challeng ed p erm it decisio n fo r clear error, the Board ex am ines th e adm inistrativ e reco rd that serv es as the b asis fo r the perm it to d eterm ine whether the p erm it issuer exerc ised h is or her “cons idered j udg m ent.” See, e. g., In r e Steel Dyn amics, Inc. ( “Steel Dyn amics I”) , 8 E

. A

. D

. 16 5, 19 1, 22 4- 25 (E A B 2 00 0) ; In re Ash Gro ve Cem ent C o. , 7 E.A .D

. 387, 417- 18 (EA B 1997 ). The perm it issuer m ust articulate with reasona

ble c l a r ity

the reasons sup portingits c onclus ion an d th e si g ni fi canc e of

th e cr uc ia l f ac ts it r el ie d up on

whe n re ac hi ngit s conclu sion. E.g., In re Shell Offsho re, Inc. (“ Shell Offsho re 2 007”) , 13 E.A .D . 3 57, 38 6 (E AB 2 00 7). A s a who le, th e reco rd m ust de m on stra te th at

th e pe rm itis su er

“ du ly c on si de re d th e is su es r ai se d in th e co m m ents ” an d ul ti m at el y

a do pt ed an ap pr oa chth at

“ is r at io na l i n lig ht of all inform ation in the rec ord. ” In r e G ov ’t o f D

. C

. Mu n. S ep arate Storm Sew er S

ys. , 1 0 E

. A

. D

. 32 3, 34 2 (E A B 2 00 2) ; accor d In re City of Moscow , 1 0 E

. A

. D

. 13 5, 14 2 (E A B 2 00 1) ; In re NE H ub Partn ers, LP , 7 E .A .D . 5 61, 56 7- 68 (EA B 1998 ), r e v i e wd e n i e d s u b n o m
. P e n n F

u el Gas , In c. v. EPA , 1 85 F

. 3d 8 62 ( 3d C ir

. 1 99 9)

. On m atte rs th at are fund am enta ll y

te chni ca l o r sc ie nt if

ic in n at ur e, th e B oard

ty pi ca ll y w il l defer to a perm it issuer’s technica l expertise an d experience , a s lon gas th e pe rm itis su er

a de qu at el y

e xp la in s it s ra ti on al e an d su pp orts it s reasonin gin t he a dm inistrativ e reco rd. See In re Dom inion Ener gy Bray ton P oint, LLC, 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 4 90 , 5 10 ( E A B 2 00 6) ; s e e also, e. g. , In re Russ ell City En ergy Ctr. ( “Ru ssell C ity”) , PSD Appeal Nos . 1 0- 01 through 1 0- 05, slip op. at 88 (EA B Nov . 1 8, 2010 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _ __, petition denied

sub no m. C

habo t-Las Posita s Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. EPA , N o. 1 0- 7387 0 (9 thC ir

. May 4 , 2 01 2) ; In re Peab ody W . C oal C o. , 12 E

. A

. D

. 2 2, 4 0- 41 , 46 , 5 1 (E A B 2 00 5) ; NE H ub, 7 E .A .D . at 570

- 71. I n rev iewing an exercise of d iscretion by the perm itting authority , the Board applies an abuse of discretion standard

. Se e In re Gua m W aterw orks Auth

. , N P D E S App ea l N os . 9

- 15 & 9

- 16 , s li p op . a t 9 n.7 (EA B 2011 ) , 15 E.A .D . _ __. The B oard will u

phold a perm itting auth or ity ’s r ea so na

bl e ex er ci se o f di sc re ti on if th at d ec is io n is c og entl y explain ed and suppo rted in t he record. See Ash Gro ve , 7 E. A. D. at 3 97 (“ [A ]c ts o f di sc re ti on

m us t b e ad eq

uate ly exp la in ed

and jus ti fi ed

. ”) ; see also Motor V

ehicles Mfrs. A ss’n v . S

tate F arm Mut. Auto . In s. Co. , 463 U. S. 29, 48 ( 1983) (“We h av e frequ ently reiterated

that an a g encyPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 11

Fe der al c irc uit cour

ts of a ppeal hav e uphel d thi s Boa rd r equi re m ent

tha t a 2 pet itione r m

ust s ubst ant iv el y

c onf ront the pe rmit is sue r’ s re spons e to t he pet iti oner ’s pre v ious obje ct ions

. Ci ty of Pit ts fie ld v . EP

A , 6 1 4 F.3d 7, 11- 13 (1s t C ir. 2010), aff’ g In re Ci ty of Pit ts fie ld , N PDES A

ppea l No. 08-19 (EAB Mar . 4, 2009) ( Or der D enying R e v i e w ) ; Mic h. D ep’ t of Env tl. Q ualit

y v. EP A , 318 F .3d 705, 708 (6t h Ci r. 2003) (“[P etition er] sim

ply repack ag[in g] its com

m ents and the EP A ’s res po nse as un m ediated appe ndic es to its Peti tion to t he Boa rd * * * doe s n o t sat isf

y the burde n of

s how ing ent itl em ent

to re v ie w .” ), aff’

g In reWas te water

Tre atm ent

Fac . of U nion Tw p. , N PDES A ppea l N os. 00-26 & 00-28 (EAB J an. 23, 2001) (O rde r D enyingPeti tions f or R ev ie w ); (c ontinue d...) m ust co g ently

exp lain why

i t h a s e xercised

its d iscretion in a g iv en m anne r * * *. ”)

. B. P et it io ne r’

s B ur de n on A pp ea l, I nc lu di ng T hr es ho ld R eq ui re m en ts I n det er m ini ng whet herto re view a pet it ion fi le d unde r 40 C.F.R. § 1 24. 19(a), the Bo ard first consid ers whether the p etitioner has m et thresho ld pro cedura l requ irem ents s uch as tim eliness, sta nding , iss ue p r e s e rv a t i o n , a n d s p e c i f

i city

. Se e 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 ; In re Indeck

Elw ood, LL C , 1 3 E .A .D . 1 26, 14 3 (E AB 20 06). F or ex am ple, a petitioner m

ust d em onstrate that any

issue s an d argum e nt s it raises on appea l hav e be en preserv ed for Board rev iew (i.e., were raised duringthe public com

m ent p eriod or p ublic hearingon the draft pe rm it), unless the issues or argum ents w ere n ot reas onab ly asce rtainab l e a t the tim e. 40 C

. F

. R

. § § 12 4. 13 , . 19 ; see, e.g ., I n re C ity of Attlebo ro , N PD ES Appea l No. 08- 08, sl ip op . at 10, 5 8- 59 (EAB Sept . 1 5, 2009 ), 14 E.A.D.

__ ; City of Mosco w , 1 0 E

. A

. D

. a t 1 41 , 1 49

- 50

. Assum ing t hat a peti tioner satisfies all thresho ld pro cedura l oblig ations, the Board the n ev aluates the p etition to determ ine if it warrants rev iew. Inde ck , 13 E.A .D . at 143

. As noted abo v e, in any

app eal from

a perm it und er part 124 , th e petitioner bears the burde n o f dem onstratingthat rev iew is w arranted. Thus to the ex tent a petitioner challeng es an issue the permi t issuer ad dr es se d inits res po ns e to com m ents , th e pe ti ti on er

m us t explain w hy th e pe rm itis su er ’s p re v io us r es po ns e to th os e co m m ents w as c le ar ly erron eou s or ot her wis e warra nts review. Id

. § 1 24

. 19 (a ); see, e.g. , In re 2 3PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 12

(.. .c ontinue d)

2 Le Blancv . EP

A , N o. 08- 3049, at 9 (6th Ci r. Fe b. 12, 2009) ( conc ludingthat t he Boa rd cor re ct ly f ound pe tit ione rs to hav e proc edur al ly de f aul te d w her e pet iti oner s m er el y re st at ed “grie v anc es ” w ithout of f er ingreas o n s w

hy the pe rmit is sue r’ s re spons es w er e cl ea rly e rr oneous or othe rw is e w ar ra nte d re v ie w ), aff’

g In reCore Ene rgy

, LL C , U IC A ppea l N o. 07- 02 (E A B D ec . 19, 2007) ( Or der D enyingRe v ie w ).
T he Boa rd not es f or f u tu re refer enc e that t

he new part 124 re g ulations (not 3 appl icable to the petiti on s in this case b u t ap plicabl e to any petitio n filed on or afte r Marc h 26, 2013) f

urthe r r equi re that pe tit ione rs “ prov ide a c it at io n to the re le v ant com m ent and re spons e. ” 40 C .F.R . § 124. 19(a )( 4)( ii)

. Teck Com inco Alaska , In c . , 1 1 E .A.D

. 4 57 , 4 94

- 95 ( E A B 2 00 4) ; In re W estboro ugh , 1 0 E

. A

. D

. 2 97 , 3 05 , 3 11

- 12 ( E A B 2 002); In re City of Irving , 10 E.A .D . 111, 129- 30 (EAB 20 01), re vi ew d en ie d su b no m
. Cit

y of A bilene v. EPA , 3 25 F

. 3d 6 57 ( 5th C ir

. 2 00 3)

. Th e B oard c on si st entl y has denied

rev iew of p etitions that m erely cite, attach , in corpo rate, or reiterate co m

m ents p rev iously

sub m itted on

the draft p erm it. E.g

. , In re Cit y of P it ts fi el d , N PD ES App eal N o. 08- 19 (EAB Mar. 4, 2009 ) (O rder D eny in gR ev ie w ), aff’d, 61 4 F

. 3d 7 , 1 1- 13 ( 1s t C ir

. 2 01 0) ; In re Kna uf Fiber Glas s, Gm bH ( “K

nauf II”) , 9 E. A. D. 1, 5 (EA B 2000 ) (“Pe titions for rev iew m ay

no t sim ply repe at obj ections m ade duringthe com m ent pe ri od ; i ns te ad

theymust d em on stra te why th e pe rm it ti ngautho ri ty ’s re sp on se to th os e ob

ject io ns w ar

rant s re v ie w . ”) ; In re Had son Pow er 1 4 , 4 E.A

. D

. 2 58 , 2 94

- 95 ( E A B 1 99 2) ( de ny in gr ev ie wwhe re p et it io ne rs m er el y r ei te ra te d co m

m ents o n dr af

t p erm it an d atta ch ed a co py o f th ei r co m m ents w itho ut

a dd re ss in gp erm itis su er ’s r es po ns es to c om m ents ). Wh e n a p e tition is filed b y a person who is unrepresented b y le g al c ouns el , the Bo ar d en de av or s to lib er al ly con stru e th e pe ti ti on s to fairly identifythe substan ce o f the argum ents b eingraised

. In re Sutter Pow er P lant , 8 E

. A

. D

. 6 80 , 6 87 ( E A B 1 99 9) ; se e al so I n re E nv tl

. Disp osal Sys. , In c. , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 2 54 , 2 92 n . 26 (EAB 2 00 5) ; In re Envo tech, LP , 6 E.A. D. 260, 268 (EA B 1996 ). While the Board “d oes no t e xp ec t s uc h pe ti ti on s to conta insop hi st ic at ed leg al argum ents or to em ploy prec ise technical o r leg al term s,” the Board n ev ertheless “does expec t suchpetition s to pr ovi de sufficient spec ificity to apprise the Board o f the issues beingraised .” Sutter , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 6 87

- 88 ; accordPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 13 In re P .R

. Elec. Po wer Auth

. , 6 E. A. D. 25 3, 255 (EA B 1995 ). “The Board also expec ts the p etitions to articu late so m e su pportab le reaso n o r re as on s as to why

th e pe rm it ti nga

utho ri ty e rr ed o r w hy r ev ie wis otherw ise w a r r a nted.” Sutter , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 6 88 ; accor d In re Beckm an Prod . S ervs. , 5 E. A. D. 10 , 1 9 (E AB 19 94). Thus, the burden of dem on s t r a t ingthat rev iew is w arranted still rests w ith the petitioner challeng ing the p erm it decisio n. In re Ne w Eng. P lating Co. , 9 E.A.D. 726, 73 0 (E A B 2 00 1) ; I

n re E nc ogen C ogen erat io n F

ac il it y , 8 E .A.D. 244, 24 9- 50 (EA B 1999 ).

I V. SUM MA RY OF DECISION F or th e re as on s st at ed

b el ow , th e B oard

c on cl ud es th at : 1

. Mr

. S i m

p s o n a n d S i e rr a C l ub h a v e f a i l edto de m on stra te th at

th e Reg io n ab us ed

it s discretion in electingno t to perform an in de pe nd ent “ ne ed s” ana ly si s, and th e C P U C ’s recent decision does not re quire a rem and to the Reg ion to reco nsider its ana ly sis; 2. The R eg io n di d no t a bu se it s di sc re ti on in a l l o w i n g o n e c o m

m e n t e r a d d i t i o n a l t i m e to subm it late c om

m ents on the R eg ion’s EJ A na ly si s; 3. Mr. S im

psonhas no t dem onstrated that the Reg ion c learly

erred or abused its discre tion b y not p rov idinga detailed respon se to the se ries of forw arded e- m ails an d attac hm ents th at he su bm it te d duri ngth e pu

bl ic c om m ent p er io d; 4. Help ingH and Tools has not dem onstrated that the R eg i on failed to ad equately add ress co m m ents r ai si ngc on ce rn s ab out a ir q uali ty im pacts on inm ate po pulation s a t nearby co rr ec ti on al f

ac il it ie s;PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 14 5. Mr. S im psonand

Sierra C lub hav e no t de m on stra te d th at

th e R eg io n cl ear lye rr ed in e l i mi n at i n g

c o m bined- cy cle g as turb ines in Step 2 o f its B AC T analy sis for g reenho use g ases o r that the issue othe rwise w a rrants rev iew or re m an d; 6. Sierra Club has no t dem onstrated t hat th e R eg io n fa il ed

to u se it s co ns id er ed

jud g m ent i n
2 choo singa CO B AC T em ission l i m it that co rr es po nd s to th e F ac il ity’s op er at io n at f if ty pe rc ent l oa d; 7. Sierra Club has no t dem on s trated th at the Reg ion fa iled to use its con sidered j udg m ent whe n it incorpo rated s afety factors , o r
2 complia nce m ar gins, in to t he CO BACT em is si on li m it ; 8. The r eco rd

d oe s no t r ef

le ct th e R eg io n’ s con si der ed j udgm ent in se le ct ing the BACT li m itf or P M; 9. Help ingH and Tools has not dem onstrated that th e R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed b y r el y in go n fe de ra ll y enforcea ble perm it term s inclu ded in the San D ie g o C ounty

A ir P ol luti on C ontrol D is tr ic t’ s determ i nation of c om

pliance to co nclude that the F acility ’s PTE to emit C O will n ot ex ceed th e si g ni fi cant

e m is si on thre sh ol d th at

wou ld otherw ise req

uire co m pliance with the P SD pr ogram ; 10. Mr. S im

psonhas no t dem onstrated that the R eg io n cl earl y er

re d ina ll ow in gth e us e of

d at a from an air qua lity

m onitor located nine k ilom eters from

the propo sed Facility ; andPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 15

Be ca use the te rm s “dr af

t pe rmit” and “ propos ed per m it” are not cons is te ntly 4 use d a cr oss the parti es ’ doc um ent s, the a d m in is tr at iv e re cor d, a nd the part 124 re g ulations , the Boa

rd us es the m

int er cha ng ea bly thr oug hout t

his de ci si on. 11. Mr. S im

psonhas no t dem onstrated that the R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed b y f ai li ngt o re qu ir e mit ig ation of air pollutants throu g h the use of em ission reductio n cre dits. A s expl ai ne d ind et ai l i n P art V I I I

. F o f th is d ec is io n, th e B oard re m and s th e Per m it in par t fo r th e Regio n t o c o n d u cta revise d BACT analy sis for PM an d to allow public com m ents o n the R eg ion’s analy sis, and denies rev iew of all other issues.

V. P RO CE DU RAL AN D FAC TU

AL HIST OR Y The public com

m ent period for the propo sed perm it bega n on 4 J une 20, 2012, and was origin ally scheduled to close on J uly 24 , 2 012. See U. S. EP A Reg ion 9 , Resp onses to Pub lic Com men ts on the Propo sed Preve ntion of Sig

nificant Deter ioration Pe rmit for th e P io P ico E nergy Cen ter at 2 (Nov . 2 012) (Adm inistrativ e R ecord ( “ A. R.”) VI I .3) [hereinafter RTC]. Th e R eg ion later exte nded it until Se ptem

ber 5 , 2012

. Id

. The R eg io n al so al lo w ed on e in di v id ua l a dd it io na l t im e, unt il Se ptem ber 2 0, 2012 , to sub m it late c om m ents o n the R eg ion’s EJ Ana ly sis. Id . at 2 n . 2. O n N ov em be r 19 , 2 01 2, th e R eg io n is su ed it s fi na l pe rm it ti ngd ec is io n an d a do cum ent r es po nd in gto th e co m m ents it ha d r e c eiv ed. Se e ge ne ra ll yU

. S E P A R e g i o n9 , F i n a l P S D P e rm it (Nov . 1 9, 2012 ) (A .R . VI I .2) (“Perm it”); RTC at 1. Help ingH and Tools, Mr. Sim pson , and Sierr a Club e ach filed a tim ely app eal ch alleng ingdifferent aspe cts of the d eci s i onm ak ing pr oc es s, und er ly in gte chni ca l d et erm in at io ns , an d ce rt ai n co nd it io ns in the P erm it. See H elpingH and Tools Petitio n f or Rev iew (filed Dec. 19 , 2 012) (“Help ingH and Tools Pet. ”); Rob e r t Sim psonPe titionPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 16

T he Board assigned Helping Hand Tools’ petiti on P SD A pp eal 5 Num ber 12-04, Mr . Si m

pson’ s pet iti on PSD A

ppea l Num

ber 12-05, a n d Sier

ra Cl ub’s pet iti on PSD A

ppea l Num

ber 12-06.
De ci si on D eter

mi ning [ SDG & E’s ] Loc al C

apaci ty Re quirem ent

and 6 Granti ng Partia l Auth ority to En ter into [PPTAs] at2

- 3 ( M ar . 2 1 , 2013), avai lableat http ://d ocs.cpu c.ca.g ov/P ub lishedDo cs/P ub lis he d/ G 00 0/ M0 60 / K 89 8/6 08 98 56 7.P DF [here ina f te r CP UC D ec is ion ]. for R ev iew (filed D ec. 19, 20 12) (“Sim psonPe t.”); S ierra C lub P etition fo r R ev ie w( fi le d D ec . 1 9, 2 01 2) ( “S ie rr a C lu b P et

. ”)

. 5 Boththe Re gio n an d P io P ico filed respo nses to the petition s. See EP A Reg ion 9’s Resp onse to Petition for Rev iew (filed F eb. 6, 2013 ) (“ R eg io n R es p. ”) ; B ri ef

o f I nt erv en or

P io P ic o E ne rg y

C ente r, L L C in Resp onse to the Petitions for Rev iew (filed Feb. 6, 2013 ) (“Pio Pico Re s p. ” )

. On Fe brua ry 19 , 201 3, Si e rr a Cl ub f i l e d am ot i on se e kin g le a ve to file a rep ly

brief and a t t a c he d i ts pro posed reply brief. P etitioner S ie rr a C lu

b Mo ti on f or L eav e to F il e S ho rtR ep ly ; P et it io ne r S ie rr a Club ’s (Propo sed) Rep ly

(“S ierra C lub R eply

B r.”). B oth P io P ico an d the R eg ion o ppos ed S ierra C lub’s m otion. C on curr ent w ith th es e P S D per m itpro ce ed in g s an d purs uant to Californ ia law , th e Ca lifornia P ublic Utility C om m ission (“CP UC ”) unde rto ok r ev iew of an

app lication subm itted by the San Dieg o G as & Electric Com

pany (“S DG &E ”) for the ap prov al of l on g- t e rm po wer purch ase to llingag reem ents (“PPTAs”) withthree pow er plants, o ne o f whic h is the P io P ico F acility . The PPTA between SD G& E and Pio Pico wo ul d hav e authoriz ed S DG &E to purch ase p owe r g enerated at th e Fac il it y beginn ing in 2014 and con ti nui ng for a twe nty- year per iod

. On 6 March 2 2, 2013 , P io P ico filed a Notice of Sup plem ent al Inform ation notify ingthe Board that th e C PU C issued its final decision deny ing SD G& E th e authority

to enter into a PPTA with Pio Pico at the present tim e. N otice o f Su

pplem ental Inform ation at 1 ( M ar. 22, 20 13) (“Mar. 2 2, 2013 N otice”). T he C PUC decision did, ho wev er, “direct SD G& E to procure up to 298 MW of local capacity to come o n-l i ne be g inni ngin 20 18 , ” an d no te d th at , if th e pr op os ed

P P TA is am en de d toPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 17

T he attorne y

f or He lping Ha

nd T ools , Mr. Joha

nnes Epk e, did not

parti ci pat e 7 at the s tatus c onf

er enc e, but Mr. Sim

pson, w ho is a m em ber o f the g roup, atte nded the st atu s co n feren ce b y

ph o n e b o th on hi s an dHel p i n g H an dToo ls ’ b eh al f. St atu s Co n f. Tr. a t 7. On M ay

2 2, 20 13 , sev eral w eek s af ter the status confe rence, the Board receiv ed the copy of the Board’s schedulin g order that the Board h ad sent to Mr. Epke m arke d “not at this address.” See EAB D k t. No. 30, avai lableat w

w w .epa.gov/eab . T he Cl er k of the Board subsequ ently m ade sev eral a

ttem pts to contact Mr. Ep ke w itho ut success. correspo nd to the identified need, SD G& E could seek to m eet this need usingthe Pio Pico Energy C enter. CP UC

D ecision at 18

. Sho rtly therea fter, b oth th e R eg ion and Sierra Club filed m otions for leav e to respon d an d p ropose d resp onses to P io P ico’s n otice. B ased on the inform ation subm itted by the parties, the Board

concluded

that the chang es in circum stances raised sig nificant questio ns a bout the s tatus o f the p ropose d F acility , s uch as whether it still w ould be b uilt; if so , w he th er th e nature , purp os e, and

des ig n p ar am et er s of

th e pr ojec t w ou ld rem ain as orig inally

pro posed by Pio Pico and

as perm itted in the P SD decision the Reg ion issued; whe n constru ction lik ely wou ld be g in; an d whe ther th e R eg ion w oul d h av e ap proach ed its BA CT analy sis in the sam e m anner absen t Pio Pico ’s contractual o blig ation to S DG &E un der the P PTA. C onseq

uently , th e B oard g ra nt ed S ierra C lub’s and the Reg ion’s m otions and sched uled a status con ference on April 11, 20 13, to dis cuss thes e i s sues. See O rder S chedu lingStatu s C onferen ce an d Dir e c t i ngParties to Prov ide A dditiona l I nform ation at 2, 4- 6 (A pr. 5, 20 12 ) (“ B oard ’s Apr il 5 thO rd er ”) ; see al so Statu s C onferen ce Transcript (filed A pr i l 2 4, 2013 ) (“Status C onf. Tr.”). The B oard also directed Pio Pico and the R eg ion to file su pplem ental b riefs on

the issues and authoriz ed P etitioners to file respon ses to the supp lem ental b riefs, if they so chose



### . B oard’s April 5th O rder at 5, 7.
A ll p arti es p arti ci pate d inth e st at us c on fe re nc e. S ho rtly 7 th er ea ft er , P io P ic o, th e R eg io n, and S ie rr a Club file d fo ll ow - up b ri ef s as autho ri z ed

b y th e B oard’s April 5 thO rd er . O n Jun e 11 , 2 01 3, P io Pico filed a notice of supp lem ental inform ation inform ingthe Board o f a rece nt factu al dev elopm ent related to the issues discussed at th e statu s c on f e r ence: the fact that SD G& E and Pio Pico “had executed an am endm ent to the [PPTA] whic h co ntem plates the p roj ect startingPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 18

T he Board app lied th is sam e presum ptio n in its previous NSR stand ing ord er 8 as w el l. See Order G overnin g P etition s for Revie w o f Cl ean Air Ac t New

S ou rce R evie w Permits ¶ 3, at 3 (EAB A pr. 19, 2011)

. constru ction in early

20 14 and requires a co m

m ercial o peration s date no later than Se ptem ber 1 , 2 015. ” See [ Se c ond] No tice of Sup plem ental I nform ation a t 1. O n June 1 8, 2013 , S ierra C lub filed an unop posed m otion f or leav e to r es po nd

to P io P ic o’ s no ti ce and a tt ac he d it s propo sed respon se b rief. See Pe t i t i on e r Si e rr aCl ub ’ s Mo t i on fo r Le a ve to R espon d to Pio Pico Energy C enter L LC ’s J un e 11 , 2 013 Notice of S up pl em enta l Inf

or m at ion ; ( P ro po se d) S ie rr a C lu b’ s R es po ns e to P io Pico Energy

C enter L LC ’s June 11 , 2 013 Notice of Sup plem ent al I nform ation. VI

. PENDING PROCEDURAL M OTIONS C ur re nt ly b ef or e th e B oard

are tw o o ut st an di ngm ot io ns : S ie rr a Club ’s Motion

for Leav e to File S hort R eply and Sierra C lub’s Motion for L eav e to Resp ond to P i o Pi c o E nerg y C enter L LC ’s June 11 , 2 013 Notice of Sup plem ental Inform ation. The Board ad dresses them in turn. The Boa rd

a pp li es ap re sum

pt io n ag ai ns t the f

il in go f re pl y briefs or sur- replies in

app eals o f newsource rev iew (“NS R”) perm its, lik e the PSD perm it at h and. R ev ised Or de r G ov erningPe titions fo r R ev ie wo f C le an

A ir A ct N ewS ourc e Rev ie wP erm it s ¶ 3 , a t 3 (EA B Mar. 2 7, 2 01 3) ( “ St a nd ing O rder”), availab le at http ://ww w . ep a. g ov

/e ab ( fo ll ow“ S tand in gO rd er s” h y pe rl ink). A

8 pe ti ti on er s ee k in g le av e to fi le ar ep ly b ri ef m us t s at is fy

ah ig h thre sh ol d to ov ercom e this presum pti on bystating“w ith particularity the argum ents to which the Petitioner seek s to respon d and the reaso ns th e P et it io ne r be li ev es it is bo thn ec es sary to f il e a re pl y to th os e ar g um ents * * * an d h ow those reasons ov ercom e the presum ption in the Stan ding Orde r.” In re S

hell G ulf of

Mex., Inc

. (“S

hell G ulf of

Mex. 2 012”

) , OCS App eal N os. 11- 02, 11

- 03, 11

- 04 & 11- 08, slip. op . at 15 (EA B J an. 12, 2012 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _

__ (citations om itted).PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 19 A newexp lanation or ration ale for the Reg ion’s perm itting d e c i s i o n s t h a t ap p e a r s f

o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n t h e R e g i o n ’ s r e s pons e brief ha s th e po te nt ia l t o si g ni fi cant ly a ffect the o ut co m e of

th e B oard ’s decision on that issue, and historically , the Board has g ranted pa r ties’ m ot io ns to f

il e re pl ie s an d sur- re pl ie s w he n ne wargum ents are r ai se d in opposingbriefs. See, e. g., id. a t 1 6 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t

_ _ _ . Th e B oard has he l d t ha twhe n ape rmitis s ue r of f e r s a n e w r a t i on a l e , c i t e s ne w aut ho r i t y, or relies on newinform ation to supp ort its decisionm ak ingfor the first ti m e init s re sp on se b ri ef , s uc h ci rc um st an ce s m eet t he h ig h thre sh ol d required to ov ercom e the presum

ption ag ainst filinga reply brief. Id

. I n this instan ce, Sierra Club asserts that the R eg ion c ites for the first tim e in its respo nse brief ad ditional inform ation to su pport the Reg ion’s rationale for selectingthe PM B AC T lim it includ ed in the final P erm it

. S ie rr a C lu

b R ep ly B r. a t 6

- 7 & n . 8. S ie rr a C lu b si m il ar ly

a ss erts that the R eg ion re lied fo r the first ti m e in its response brief on add itional inform ation contain ed in the adm inistrative r e c ord to su pport the Reg ion’s decision

to include safety

factors , o r com

pliance m arg ins, within the GH G BA CT em ission lim it. Id. at 4

- 5. Upon consid eration, th e B oard c on cl ud es th at

f or th es e tw o se le ct

i ssu es Si er

raC lu b m ee ts the h ig h threshold required to ov ercom e the Board’s s tated p resum ption ag ainst filingreply

briefs in an

N SR app eal. Id

. A cc ord ingly, S ie rr a C lu b’ s m ot io n to f

il e a reply b ri ef

i s g rant ed

in p art. In re ac hi ngit s conclu sions set forthin this order the Board h as co nsidered the portion s of S ierra C lub’s reply

brief that address the Reg ion’s respon se reg arding th e P M B A C T li m it an d sa fe ty fa ct or s in cl ud ed inth e G H G B A C T li m it

. The B oard w il l no t co ns id er S ie rr a C lu b’ s re pl y br ie f arg um ents conce rningthe rej ection of co m bined cy cle g as turb ines, se e id

. at 1- 3, be caus e th es e m er el y

r ei te ra te argum ents a lr ea dy c onta in ed i n S ie rr a Club ’s petition

. With respect to Sierra Club ’s other pending m otion, which was un op po se d, th e B oard

g rant s th e m ot io n an d ac ce pt s S ie rr a C lu b’ s re sp on se to P io P ic o’s su pp le m enta l i nf

or m at io n. S ie rr a C lu

b’ s br ie f, w hi chis n ot ab ly

q ui te s ho rt , m er el y

r es po nd s to th e ne win fo rm at io n P io Pico filed u

pdatinginfor mat i on it h ad p rev iously pro v ided in resp onse to th e B oard ’s Apr il 5 thO rd er .PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 20 VI I

. OVERVI

EW OF PSD LEGAL REQUIREME NTS AND B A C T A N A L YSI S The PS D prov isions g ov ern a ir pollution in certain areas, called “attainm ent” areas, whe re the air quality m eets o r is c leaner than the nati on al am

bi ent a ir q ua li ty s tand ar ds ( “N A A Q S ”) , a s wel l as in unclass ifiable are a s t hat are neith er attainm ent n or “n onattainm ent.” C A A § § 16 0- 16 9, 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § § 74 70

- 74 79 ; accor d In re Ro ckGe n E ne rg y Ctr ., 8 E .A .D . 5 36, 54 1 (E AB 19 99). T he s tatutory PS D prov isions are larg ely

carried out throu g h a r e g ulatory pro cess th at requi res ne w m aj or statio nary sources in

attainm ent (o r un classifiable) ar ea s, s uc h as th e F ac il ity , to o bt ai n pr ec on stru ct io n pe rm it s purs uant to CA A § 1 65, 42 U .S. C. § 7475

. See 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 5 2

. 21 ; Ro c k Gen , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 41 ; In re K

nauf Fiber Glas s, Gm bH ( “K naufI”) , 8 E.A.D. 12 1, 1 23 ( E A B 1 99 9)

. The C A A and

A g enc y PS D r egul at io ns r eq ui re th at e v er y propo sed PSD perm it be s ub j ected to a precon struction rev iew by the p e rm i t t i n gau t h o r i t y , wh i c hm u s ti n c l u d e ano p p o rtun i t y f o r ap ub li c he ar in gth at

a ll ow s in te re st ed

p er so ns t o co m

m ent o n th e ai r qu al ity i mpa c to f th e pr op os e d s ou r c e , a l t e rna t i ves th e r e t o, co nt r ol te c hn ol ogy, and o th er a pp ro pr ia te c on si de ra ti on s. C A A § 1 65 (a )( 2) , 4 2 U

. S.C. § 74 75 (a )( 2) ; 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 12(a) ; In re Sierra Pac. Ind us. , P SD App eal N os. 13- 01 through 1 3- 04 (EA B J uly 18 , 2013 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _

__. A s parto f th e pr ec on stru ct io n re v ie wp roces s, n ewm ajor s ta ti on ar y sources and

m aj or m odification s of such sources em ploy the “best av ailable c ontrol techno log y ,” or B AC T , to m inim iz e em issions of re g ul at ed p ol lutant s. C A A § 1 65 (a )( 4), 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 7 47 5( a) (4 ); 40 C. F.R . § 52 .21 (j )(2). The statute defines the BA CT requ irem ents a s fo ll ow s: The term

“best availab le control technology ” m eans an em ission lim itation b ased on t he m axim um degree o f reductio n o f each pollutant sub j ect to regulation unde r this ch apter e m itted from or whic h resu lts from

any maj ore mit t i ng f

a c i l i t y, wh i c h t he pe rmit t i ng aut ho r i t y, on a c a s e - by-ca s e ba s i s , t a kin g in t o a c c ou nt en e r gy,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 21

Notably , the N

S R M a n u al i s n o t a

bindi ng A g enc y

re g ulation, and 9 cons eque ntly

s tri ct a pplic at ion of

the m et hodolog y desc ribe d in it is not m anda tory nor is it the re quire d v ehi cl e f

or m akingBA CTde te rminations

. E.g. , NMU , sli p o p . at 12, 14 E.A .D . at __; Prairie State , 13 E .A .D . at 6 n.2; Knauf I , 8 E .A .D . at 129 n.13. Nev ertheless, b eca

use it pro vides a

f ram ew ork f

or determ inin g BA CT that assures ade quat e cons ide ration o f t h e st at utory and re g ulatory

c rit er ia , i t ha s g uide d s tate and f ederal perm it issuers, as w ell as P SD perm it appl icants, on P SD requirem ents and p olicy f or y ea rs . E.g. , NMU

, s lip op. at 12, 14 E. A .D . at __; In reCar dinal FG Co. , 12 E.A .D. (c ontinue d...) env ironm ental, and e c onom ic im pacts and other costs, de t e rmin e s is ac hi e vab l e fo r su c h f a c i l i t y th r ou gh appli cati on

o f pr od

uc ti on p ro ce ss es and

av ai la bl e m ethods , s y stem s, and techniq ues, inclu dingfuel cleaning , c lean fu el s , or treatm ent o r inno v ativ e fue l combu s tion tec hniqu es for control of ea ch s uch po ll ut ant. C A A § 1 69 (3 ), 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 7 47 9( 3) ; a c cord 4 0 C. F.R . § 52 .21 (b)(12) (sim ilar regu latory

definition). A s the Board explained in In re N orthern Michigan Univ ersity ( “N MU”) , th e BAC T d ef

in it io n re qu ir es p erm it issuers to “p roceed [] on a cas e- by

- case basis , tak inga careful and detailed look , attentiv e to the tec hnolo g y or m ethods app ropriate for the par t icular fac ility , [] to see k the result tailo r- m ade for that facility and that p ollutant. ” PSD Appeal No. 08

- 02, sli p op . a t 12 (EA B Feb. 18 , 20 09 ), 1 4 E

. A

. D

. _

__ ( ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io ns o m it te d)

. B A C T is therefore a site- specific determ ination that resu lts in the se lection of an em ission lim itation re presentin g application of co ntrol tec hnolo g y or m e thods appro priate fo r the particular facility

. In r e P ra ir ie S ta te Gen erating

C o. , 1 3 E

. A

. D

. 1 , 1 2 ( E A B 2 0 0 6), af f ’ d su b n om. Sierra Club v. EPA , 49 9 F

. 3d

65 3 (7 thC ir

. 2 00 7) ; In re Thre e Moun tain P owe r, LLC , 10 E

. A

. D

. 3 9, 4 7 (E A B 2 00 1) ; K na uf I , 8 E. A. D. at 1 28- 29. I n 19 90 , E P A is su ed

dra ftgui danc e fo r pe rm it ti ngautho ri ti es to use in an aly z ingPS D requirem ents ( a mong others) in a consistent and sy stem atic w ay . See generally Office of A ir Q uality Planning & Stand ards, U. S. EPA , N ew S ou rc e R ev ie wW

or ks ho p Ma nu al 1 (dra ft O ct

. 19 90 ) (“

NSR Manu al ”). The NSR Manu al sets forth a “top- down” 9PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 22

(.. .c ontinue d)

9 153, 162 ( EAB 2005) ; se e als o In reSte el D ynam ics, Inc . ( “Ste el

Dynam ics II ”) , 9 E.A .D . 165, 18 3 ( EA B 2000) (“ T his top- dow n anal y si s is not a m anda tory m et hodolog y , but it is f

re quent ly use d by per

m itt ing aut

horit ie s to e nsur e that a

de f ens ible BA CTde te rmination, inv olv ingc onsi der at ion of a ll re quis ite statutor

y and re g ulatory criteria, is re ached.”). T he Reg ion utili zed the “to p-d own m etho d” described in the NSR M anual w hen det er m iningBA CTe m is si on li m its f or t he Permit. See U. S. EPAReg ion 9, Fact Sheet and Am

bien t A ir Quality

Im pac t Report for a CAA

P SD P erm it, P io P ico Ene rg y Ce nte r a t 8 (June 2012) (A .R. IV.2) (“Fa ct Shee t & AA QI R” ); RT C a t 31- 32, 45. process for determ iningB AC T for eachparticu lar regulated pollutant that is sum

m ariz ed a s follow s: The top- down process prov ides that all av ailable c ontrol techno log ies be rank ed in d e s c endingord er of control effectiv eness. The PSD app licant first e xa m ines th e mos tst r i nge nt – or “ t op ” – a l t e rna t i ve. T ha tal t e rna t i ve is es t a blished

as BA CT unle ss the app licant de m on stra te s, an d th e pe rm it ti ngautho ri ty in it s inform ed judgm ent ag

rees, th a tte c hn i c a l co ns i de r ations, or e ne rg y , e nv ir onm enta l, o r ec on om ic im pa ct s just if

y a co nclusio n that the most strin g ent tec hnolo g y is n ot “achiev able” in that case. Id. at B. 2. Pe rm it issuers apply the top- down m ethod on a cas e- by

- case basis to eac h p erm it they ev aluate. See id. a t B

. 1 (e xp la in ing t hat a ll BA CT analy ses are do ne c ase- by

- case). The NSR Manu al ’s recom m ended top- down an aly sis em

ploy s fiv e step s: Step 1: I dentify all av ailable co nt r ol op t i on s wi t h potential ap pl ic at io n to th e so ur ce and th e targ et ed

p ol lutant ; S te p 2: A na ly z e th e co ntro l o pt io ns ’ te chni ca l f ea si bi li ty ; Step 3: Rank

feasib le op tions in ord er of effectiv eness; S te p 4: E valuat e the e ner gy , e nviro nm ent al, and ec on om ic im pacts of the op tions; andPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 23 Step 5: Select a pollutant em ission lim it achiev able b y the m ost effe ctiv e co ntrol o ption not e lim inated in a preced ingstep. Id. at B .5- .9. VI I I

. A N A L YSI S I n the ana ly sis that follow s, the B oard consid ers eac h o f the issues identified in Part I I of this d ecision in turn

. The Bo ard c onclud es that, for on e issu e, rem and is w arranted. F or the rem ainingissue s, the Board co nclude s that Petitione rs hav e no t m et their burde n o f de m on stra ti ngth at

th e R eg io n bas ed it s pe rm itd ec is io n on ac le ar ly erroneo us fin dingof fact or conclu sion of law , o r that the R eg ion a bused it s di scr et ion in a m ann erwarr ant ing review. A. P et it io ne rs H

av e F ai le d to D em on stra te T

ha t t heR eg io n A bu se d It

s Discre tion in Ele cting Not to P erform an Independ ent “ Need s” A na l ys is , a n d

th e C a l i f o rn i a P u b l i c U

t i l i t yC o m m is s i o n’

s ( “C PU C’s” ) Re cent D ecision Do es Not Requirea Rem and for th e R eg io n to R ec on si de r It

s A na ly si s The Bo ard b eg ins its analy sis byaddressingMr. Sim pson ’s and Sierra Club ’s request that the Board rem and the Perm it in li ght of the recent CP UC dec ision that rais e s qu estions about the Facility ’s nee d. See S ta tu s C on f. Tr. a t 4 2- 44 , 5 0- 54

. T he Regi on , in r es po ns e to co m m ents a skin gwhe th er

th e F ac il it y was ne ed ed , h ad d ec li ne d to co nd uc t a “ ri g or ou s an d ro bu st ” an al y si s of th e “n ee d” f

or th e F aci li ty an d ha d de cl in ed

to r el y o n any C al if or ni a ag en cy ’s s pe ci fi c determ inations of “need ” for the Facility

. See RTC at 7 3. In d oingso, th e R eg io n re li ed

o n pr io r B oard pr ec ed ent st at in g th at s uc h m atte rs are within the Ag ency ’s disc retion. Mr. S i m p s o nc l a i m s th a tth e R e g i o n ’ s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c to nth is issue are “m isplaced .” Sim psonPe t. at 6. H e furth er ar gue s t hat th e B oard s ho ul d re m an d th e P erm itb as ed on “n ew in fo rm at io n” in th e fo rm of the CP UC ’s recent decision “to deny the [Pio Pico] proj e c t andPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 24

In his P etition , Mr. Simpson refe rs to CP UC’s prop osed decision, w

hich w as 10 is sue d the day

a f te r t he Re g ion i ss ued the P er

m it. A fi nal de ci si on ha s now

be en is sue d, and th e parties, in their argum ents at t h e status con f erence and in their sup plem ental briefs, discuss the f

inal decision . Consequ ently , the Board refe rs s o l el y t o t he f inal v er si on of

the de ci si on in the re st

of thi s dec is ion.
N orm al ly , the Boa

rd w ould not

a llow Sie rr a Cl ub to ra is e a new is sue f or t he 11 f i r s t t i m e o n a

p p e a l du r i n g th e s up p l e m e n t a l b r i e f i n g p h a se . See , e. g. , Rus se ll Ci ty , slip o p. at 45 n.3 5, 15 E .A .D. at _

__(explain ing that issue m ay not be raise d for the f

irst tim e in a re ply bri ef ); In reDomi nion Ener

gy Brayton Poi nt, LLC , 12 E .A .D . 490, 595 (EAB 2006) (de cl iningto cons ide r i ss ue that c ould ha v e bee n ra is ed in a tim el y pe tit ion but w as ins te ad ra is ed in a re spons e brie f

); Knauf I , 8 E.A.D. at 1 2 6 n . 9 ( “New issues raised for the f

irst tim e at the reply

stage o f t he[ ] p roceedings are equ ivalent to l ate f iled appe al s and m

ust be de nie d on the bas is of

ti m el ine ss .” ). Bec aus e Sie rr a Cl ub ra is es thi s is sue in conne ct ion w ith the CP UC ’s rec ent dec is ion, whic h the CPUC i ss ued af te r t he PSD pe rmit is sua

nce and w

hic h arguabl y

inv olv es ne w

inf orm at ion t

hat is pote ntia lly re le v ant to the pe rmit d ecisi on, the Boa rd c onsi der s Sie rr a Cl ub’s argum ent s w ith Mr. Sim pson’ s. See, e.g

. , I

n r e C ircle T Fee dlo t, Inc. , N PDES A ppea l N os. 09-02 & 09-03, s lip op. at 13 & n.11 (EAB June 7, 2010), 14 E.A .D . __ (a llow ingpe tit ione rs to f ile a j o i n ta d d e n du m

d i s c u s s i n g th e a

p p l i c a b i l i ty o f a U n i t e dS t at e s S up r e m e Court ca se is sue d a f

te r pe tit ions w er e f

ile d). associated

pro posed PP [T]A,” which was issued after the Re g ion is sued the fin al PS D Perm it. Id . (refe rringto CP UC D ecision ); accor

d Statu s 10 C o n f

. T r . a t5 0 -54

. Si e rr aCl ub s i mi l a r l y c o n t e n d s th a t , a tami n i mum, the permit and comm ent per iod sho uld be reope ned in light of the CPUC decision. S ierra C lub R espon se to [March 2 2, 2013 ] N otice o f

11 S up pl em enta l Inf

or m at io n at 2 ; accor d Statu s C onf. Tr. at 42- 44. Altho ug h n ot clear l y

articulate d in their p etitions and briefs, Mr. Sim pson and Sierra Club appea r to be rely ing on Boar d precedent in te rp re ti ngaC A A p ro v is io n, s ec ti on 1 65 (a )( 2) , 42 U. S

. C

. § 7 47 5( a) (2 ). See, e. g., S im

ps on P et

. at 6 ( ci ti ng

p ag e 73 o f th e re sp on se to c om m ents docum ent, whic h in turn c ites sectio n 1 65(a)( 2) o f the CA A); Status Con f. Tr. at 42

- 44 (arguingthat the Reg ion did not consider the need fo r the fac ilityor “alternativ es”). This section prov ides th at PS D perm itting authorities m

ust prov ide the public with the op portun ity to com m ent o n
“ t h e a i r q u a l i t y i m p a c to f [ t h e p r o p o s e d ] s o ur ce, alterna ti ves th er eto , co nt ro l te c h n o l o g y r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d o t h e r a pp ro pr ia te co ns id er at io ns [. ]” CAA § 16 5( a) (2 ), 42 U. S

. C

. § 7 47 5( a) (2 ) (e m ph as isPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 25

a dd e d)

. T he B oa r d h a s in t e r pr e t e d t he st a tut or y la ngu a ge to allo w, bu t no t requ ire , c onside ration of a no- build alternativ e. I n r e Ci t yof P al m da le , P S D App ea l N o. 11

- 07 , sl ip op . at 57 (E A B S ep t. 1 7, 2 01 2) , 15 E.A .D . _

_, appe al docke ted sub nom
. Simp son v. EPA , N o. 12- 7412 4 (9 thC ir

. D ec . 18 , 2 01 2) ; P ra ir ieS ta te , 1 3 E .A .D . at 32- 33 (holdin gthat the state perm ittingauth ority wa s i ncorrect in statingthat it wa s no t em po w er ed to c on si de r a no - bu il d al te rn at iv e, b ut u ph ol di ng th e pe rm it be caus e itw as c le ar

th at th e pe rm it ti ngauthority h ad r ea so na bl y ex er cised i ts d is cr et io n no t t o co nd uc t an in de pe nd ent ana ly si s of a no- build alternativ e)

. I n the pr es ent p erm it ti ngp ro ce ed in g , Mr

. S im ps on in it ia ll y raised the issu e of the “n eed” for the Fa cility in his co m

m e nt s on the dr af t p erm it

. I n th os e co m

m ents , h e fi rs t g en er al ly

a ss erte d th at

“ th er e is no nee d fo r this project.” E- mai l f r om Rob S im

pson , E xec. D ir., Help in gH a n d

To o l s , t o R o g e r

K o h n , U

. S

. E P A , a t1 ( Ju l y 1 8 , 2 0 1 2, 00:56 PD T) (A .R

. VI .14 ) [hereinafter Sim psonC mt.]. Then, rely ingon languag e from

ano ther perm ittingdec ision in which the R eg ion h ad expl ic it ly r el ie d on as ta te a g en cy ’s “ ne ed s” ana ly si s, h e co nt en de d th at , becau se C alifornia had not y et add ressed the “n eed” issue for P io P ico, the R eg ion w as “n ot in a po s i tion to m ak e a final d ecision. ” Id

. a t1 -2 (quotin grespo nse to co m

m ents d ocum ent fo r the Pal m d a l e H y b r id P owe r Project perm ittingdec ision). I n r e s p o n d i n g

t o M r . S im

ps on ’s c om

m ent, th e R eg io n re as on ab ly ex er ci se d it s di sc re ti on

n ot to e v al uate th e ne ed fo r P io P ic o an d no t t o re l y o n a state ag ency ’s ana ly sis. See R TC at 7 2- 74. Am ongothe r th in g s, th e R eg io n co rr ec tl y p oi nt ed o ut th at it w as n ot r eq ui re d to condu ct an indepe ndent analy sis of the n eed for the Fa cility in the c on t e xt of the P SD perm it proc eeding

. Id

. a t 7 3 ( c i t i n g a n d r e l y i n g on P al m da le , s lip op . at 57, 15 E. A. D. at __, and P ra ir ie S ta te , 13 E.A.D. at 32

- 33). T he R e gio n d etailed th e difficu lties in perform ingsuc h an analy sis: “[I ]n order to cond uct a reasone d analy sis to de term ine th e ne ed for ne w natural g as- fired p owe r plants in g eneral, or a sp ecific n atural g as- fired p owe r plant in particular, either within the State as a whole, or inap arti cu lar g eo g ra

ph ic lo cati on

w ithi n th e S ta te , E P A w ou ld n ee d to consid er a m

yriad of extrem ely

com plex factors and d etailed in form ationPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 26

T he R e g i on di d no t e that the po w e r pur c ha s e a g r e e m e nt w i th SDG &E

12 sug g es ts the re is “ nee d” f or t he Fa ci lit y , but the Re g ion did

not rely upon this f

ac t in it s ana ly si s. See RT C a

t 73. O n a ppea l, Mr. Sim

pson dis pute s this la st

s tate m ent , c onte ndingtha t he did 13 submit se vera l do cum ents w ith “s pecif ic inform ation ” suppo rting his assertion o f the lack o f n ee dfo r

th e p r o j ec t : a d o cu men th e h ad p r ev i o u sl y sub mit t ed t o th e C P U C , two sc hola rly arti cl es by

Ma rk J ac obse n, a

nd Bi ll Pow er s’ te st im ony . S im pson Pet. at

3-4. A s the Bo ard holds be low , the Re g ion di d not cl ea rly e rr or abus e its dis cr et ion by not prov idinga

de ta ile d re spons e to t

he se ries of

f orw ar ded e- m ai ls and atta chm ent s Mr. Sim pson submitt ed to t

he Re g ion. See

inf ra P art VIII.C. that E PAhas neith er the r e s ou r c e s no r the expertise to an aly z e.” Id

. Sig nificantly , th e Reg ion then conclu ded that, “[i]n this case , EPA do es not b elieve th at it is ap

prop riate to con duct the typ e of rigoro us a nd robu st analys is that w ould be r equired to definitiv ely determ ine th e ne ed fo r th e P ro

ject

. Id . (emphasis ad ded). Mo reov er, with respect to the 12 State of C alifornia’s assessm ent o f nee d, the R eg ion e xplicitly stated that it wa s “ not d

eferring in this case to an y agen cy’s sp ecific de termin ation of ne ed for the [Fa cility ].” Id

. (em phasis added ). The Reg ion th en n oted that the com

m enter h ad n ot po inted “to any specific inform ation related to any suc h d eterm ination that [it] s hould con sider.” Id

.

13 O n ap pe al , n ei th er

Mr

. S im ps on n or Sie rr a C lu

b pr ov id e sp ec if

ic objections to the R eg ion’s respon ses to comm ents that call into q uestion the R eg ion’s initial decision not to ev aluate the need for the F acility , n or to rely on a s tate ag ency ’s ana ly sis. Sierra C lub d oes not a ddress the Reg ion’s respon ses to com m ents at all, and Mr. Sim

pson m erely

asserts, witho ut m ore, that the R eg ion’s factual determ inations are “m isplaced .” As stated in P art I I I , a

petition er m

ust explain why th e pe rm it iss uer ’s re sp on se to p et it io ne r’ s co m m ents duri ngthe com

m ent pe ri od

is c le ar ly er ro ne ou s or

o th er w is e w ar rant s B oard co nside ra ti on . M r. S im ps on ’s co nc lu so ry

a ss erti on is ins uf

fi ci ent t o ca ll into q

ue st io n th e R eg io n’ s conclu sion, whic h is a m atter clearly w ithin th e R eg ion’s discretion

. See, e.g. , R us se ll

Cit y , slip op. at 99

- 100 (decliningto find a buse of d iscretion w he re p et it io ne r’ s cl ai m s “b oi l d own to con cl us or y ass erti on s of

e rr or ”) ; In re BP C herry Poin t , 12 E.A .D

. 209, 228 (EA B 2005 ) (deny ingrev iew w he re p e t i t i o n e r

“ d o e s n o tar g u e w i t han y s p e c i f i c i t y ” wh y

th e p e rm itPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 27 is suer’ s co nc lu si on s w er e cl ea rl y e rr on eo us ); In re Envo tech, LP , 6 E

. A

. D

. 2 6 0 , 2 6 8

- 6 9 ( E A B 1 9 9 6 ) ( e x p l a i n i n gB o a r d ’ s s p e c i f i c i ty re qu ir em ent and

d is m is si ngp et it io ns f

or la ck o f sp ec if ic ity ). The Reg ion’s conclu sion that it had the d iscretion, but w as n ot re qu ir ed , to c on du ct

an in de pe nd ent ana ly si s of the nee d fo r th e F ac il ity inth e co nt ex t o f th is PS D per m itpro ce ed in gis e nt ir el y c on si st ent w ith Board p recedent interpre tingthe CAA. Se e P al m da le , s lip op . at 57, 15 E

. A

. D

. a t _

_; P ra ir ie S

ta te , 13 E

. A

. D

. a t 3 2- 34

. In fa ct , th e B oard ’s o b s e rv a t i o n s i n Pra ir ie S ta te are equally

app licable h ere. In that case, the B oard specifically

rejected the contention “ that a com m enter c an require a pe rm it issuer to perform a rig orous analy sis sim

ply by raising the subject of ‘nee d’ in the p ublic com m ents.” P ra ir ie S

ta te , 13 E.A.D. at 3 3. Th e B oard

e xp la in ed

t hat t he pe rm itis su er

is o nl y r eq ui re d to co ns id er the ana ly si s su

bm it te d by

th e co m m ente r – an d m ay

c ho os e to en g ag e ina dd it io na l ana ly si s “a s it s ees f it ” – as lo nga s th e pe rm it issuer’s respon se to public com m ents is “sufficient to ‘de m onstrate that all sig nificant com

m ents were consid ered. ’” Id . ( qu ot i ng In re NE H ub Partn ers, LP , 7 E. A. D. 56 1, 583 (EA B 1998 ), re vi ew de ni ed su b nom. Penn Fu el G as, Inc. v. EPA , 1 85 F.3 d 86 2 (3d C ir. 1 999)). H ere, the R eg io n re spo nde d to c om m ents o n th e is su e, b ut

d ec li ne d to e ng ag e in addition al ana ly sis. T hat is all that is required. A ccordin g ly , fo r these reasons , th e B oard conclu des that P etitioners hav e not m et their burde n of dem onstrating that the Reg ion abuse d its discretion in i t s initial “need s” d eterm ination. Mr. S im psonand Sierra C lub a lso argue on appea l that the CP UC ’s recent decis ion a ffects the R eg ion’s n e e ds a naly sis for the F ac il ity s uf fi ci ently eno ugh t o re qu ir e a re m an d fo r th e R eg io n to reconsid er its analy sis an d to reconsid er the perm it. Petitione rs m iss the po in t o f th e R eg io n’ s ne ed s an al y si s, ho w ev er . B ec au se th e R eg io n di d not re ly on the State of C alifornia ag ency ’s dete rm ination of n eed, new inform ation about C PU C’s opinio ns o n the “ne ed” for the Facility do esPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 28

Interestingly , the fac t s the parties reported suggest that SDG& E disagree s

14 w ith CPUC ’s conc lus ion on the nee d for the Fac ili ty . A s note d in Part VIII .E.5, infra , SD G & E i s pla

nningto purc has e pow er

f rom the Fac ili ty

usingshort- te rm

contr ac ts . I n addi tion , P io P ico has av erred that it w ill bu ild th e plant andsell the powe r in the op en m ar k et if SD G & E doe s not pur cha se it . Pio Pic o’s Supple m ent al Br ie f in Re spons e to Boa rd O rde r a

t 2.
P etition ers’ a

rgum ents concernin g th e state agency ’s n eeds assessm ent m ay 15 ar is e f rom a m is re adi ng of the Boar d’s ca se law

. In se v er al early c as es w her e pet iti oner s cha lle ng ed a per

m itt inga uthori ty ’s re lia

nceon a s tate ag enc y

anal y si s of

“ nee d,” the Boa rd and its prede ce ss ors expla ine d that it w as permis si ble for a permitt ingauthor ity

to rely on m echanism s w ithi n th e rele vant state to e valuate the need for a f acility , rather than conduct ingit s ow

n ne eds a ss es sm ent

. E.g., In reEc oElé ct ri ca, LP , 7 E .A .D . 56, 74 (EAB 1997) (holdingthat it w as not cl ea r er ror f or t he per m it is sue r t o de f

er to the s tate ag enc y ta sk ed w ith the re spons ibil ity to cons ide r ne ed f

or t he f ac ili ty); In re Ky

. Ut i ls. Co. , PSD A

ppea l No. 82-5, at

2 ( A dm ’r D ec . 21, 1982) ( sa

m e) , avai lableat 1 9 8 2 E PA A pp. L EXIS 17, at * 2-3; se e als o Pal mdale , sli p op. at

58, 15 E.A .D . at __ (r el y ingon m ec hani sm s w ithi n the Sta te to ev al uat e the ne ed f or t he f ac ili ty); Prair ieState , 13 E.A .D

. at 34 (c oncl uding that it w as “a ppropr iate f

or the PSD pe rmitt inga

uthori ty to tak e into ac count

a s tate le g is lature ’s de ci si on to der egulate the ele ct ric pow er g ene ration indus try” in dec lini ng to ex er ci se it s dis cr et ion t o e ng ag e in a broa d ne eds anal y si s)

. T hus, w hile the Re g ion ha d the dis cr et ion t o r el y o n the anal y si s of

s tate a uthori tie s in dis cus si n g t h e n eed for

the Fa ci lit

y – w hic h it de cl ine d to do in this c as e – it is not re quire d to do s o. not a ffect the Reg ion’s ass e s s men t. This d ecision, as well as the 14 R eg io n’ s de ci si on

n ot to r el y o n th e st at e’ s as se ss m ent, ar e bo ths qu ar el y within the Reg ion’s discretion, and neither partyhas dem onstrated that the R eg ion a

bused its d iscretion in m ak ingthos e de cisions. 15 B. The Regio n D id N ot A buse Its D iscretion in Al l ow ing O ne Com ment e r

A dditiona l Tim e to Subm it La te C omm ents o n the R eg io n’ s E nv ir on m en ta l J

us ti ce ( “ E J” ) A na ly si s The Bo ard n ext ex am ines Mr. Sim pson ’s cha lle nge to the Reg ion’s decision

to allow late co m

m ents from one com

m enter. The public com

m ent p eriod for the pro posed perm it beg an on J une 20, 20 12, and was sched

uled to clo se o n J ul y 2 4, 2012

. RTC at 2. O n July 24 , 2012 , Mr. R obert Sarv ey

inform ed th e Reg ion that he had not receiv edPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 29

T he re g ulations g ov er

ningpubli c notic e of

pe rmit actio n s an d publi c 16 com m ent pe riods re quire that t

he per mit is sue r not if

y by mail t h o se w

ho re ques t i n w rit ingto be on a

m ai lingli st . 40 C.F .R. § 124.10( c) (1) (ix ).
Exe cutive Order 12 89 8 (“EO 128 98 ” or “Ex ecutive Order”), entitled F ederal 17 Act i o n s t o Ad dr es s E n vi r o n men t al Ju st i ce i n M i n o r i ty P o p u l at i o n s a n dLo w- I n co me Populati ons, dir ec ts ea ch f ede ra l a g enc y

to inc orpor at e env ironm ent al jus tic e as part of the a g enc y ’s m is si on “ by

ide ntif y ing and addr es si ng , a s appr opria te , di spr oporti onat el y hig h and a dv er se hum an hea lth or e nv ironm ent al e f f ec ts of it s p ro grams, poli ci es , a nd ac tiv iti es on m inori ty populations and low -inc om e populations .” Ex ec . O rde r N o. 12898 §1-101, 59 Fe d. R eg . 7629 ( Fe b. 16, 1994 ). EP A ev al uat es the pote ntia l i m pac ts of pro po sed ag ency

ac tion s on m ino rity

and lo w income pop ulatio ns in an environ m ental jus tic e ana ly si s or r epor

t. the p ropose d p erm it’s pub lic no tice as he had requested , and he ask ed 16 that the Reg ion extend the public com m ent period for an other m onth. Id

. at 44

. I n ev aluatingMr. Sarvey’ s r e qu est, the R eg ion d iscov ered that becau se of a discrepancy in its public notice distribution lis t , s e veral person s ha d n ot rece iv ed th e req uired notice. Id

. A ccordin g ly , th e Re gio n d e c i de d t o e xt e nd t he publ i c c ommen tpe r i odfo r an ot he r fo rt ythree d ay s, until S eptem

ber 5 , 2 012. Id

. On Septem

ber 6 , 2 012, a day

after the extend ed p ublic com m ent period closed, Mr. Sarv ey notified the Reg ion by e- m ail that he h ad n ot receiv ed a

cop y of the R eg ion’s EJ Analy sis, a docum ent h e ha d 17 p r e v i o u s l y r e qu e s t e d o n Ju l y 2 4

. Id

. Th e R eg io n re sp on de d to Mr

. Sarve y , e xplainin gthat the E J A naly sis ha d b een av ailable in the electronic docke tfo r

th e pr op os e d p e rmit , o n ww w. r e gul a t i on s .g ov , s ince the b eg inningof the p ublic com m ent p eriod, but beca

use the R eg ion h ad not d irectly

respo nded

to his specific request, the Reg ion wou ld pro v ide hi m ac op y th at d ay and “ ex te nd ” to h im

tw o add it io na l w ee k s to com m ent o n the EJ An aly sis. Id . at 2 n.2 , 44. The R eg ion e m phasiz ed to Mr

. S arv ey th at it w as no t “ ex te nd in g ” th e pu bl ic c om m ent p er io d to the g eneral public. Id . at 44. Mr. S im pson , who had r e qu e s ted an exten sion of the orig inal publ i c c o m

m e n tp e r i o d

( t h a tth e R e g i o nu l t i m a t e l y g r a n t e d a f t erPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 30

In Jul y

2012, M r. Sim

pson re ques te d an e x te n si on of the publi c com

m ent 18 per iod t o a llow

the re late d state and loca l lev el proce edi ng s to tak e pla ce be f ore the PSD per m it proc ee ding s at

EPA

. See Sim

pson Cm t. at 1; RT C a

t 68. In its re spons e to com m ents, the Region explains that, in an e-m ail dated July 26, 20 1 2 , it no tified Mr. Sim pson and his attor

ney that t he com m ent pe riod w ould be e xte n d ed until Septem ber 5, 2 01 2, and rejec ted his requ est f or any f urth er d el ay

to allow other proc ee ding s to t ak e pla ce . R T C a t 70. Spe ci f ic al ly Mr . Si m pson st at ed: 19 The EP A fur th er p rej u d i c e d m e when itexten d edanexclu si ve com m ent peri od to anot

her m em ber of the publi c. T he EPAc annot p i ck an dch o o se wh o i to p en s i t s c o mmen tp er i o d s t o . I am a m em b er of the pu blic andI require the sam e rig hts as other US ci tiz ens . T he EPAa dm itt ed g iv ingpre f er enc e to a

nothe r c om

m ent er ; “E PAw as e x te ndingto him tw o a dditi o n al wee k s (unti l Se pte m ber 20, 2012) t o c om

m ent only on the EJ

A nal y si s f or t he Propose d Permit. EPA

note d tha

t i t wa s not e x te ndingthe publi c c o mme n tp e r i o d f

o r th e P r o p o s e dP e rmi tfo r th e [ F a c i l i ty] g ene ra lly .” R T C 44. I re quire a re openi ng of

the co m m ent pe riod f or all m em

bers of the pu blic. See Sim pson Pet. at

3. discov eringa problem

w ith its public notice distribution lis t) tak es 18 issue with the two week s g ranted to Mr. Sarv ey to subm it late c om

m ent on th e E J A na ly si s an d cl ai m s th at h e was pre

j ud ic ed b y th e R eg io n’ s ac ti on . Mr . S imps on

d oe s no t s pe ci fy

h owh e or

th e g en er al p ub li c 19 were harm ed o r prejudiced by the Reg ion’s action. Significantly , n either he n or any

of the other com

m enters, except for Mr. Sarv ey , c om m ented on the E J A naly sis. Mr. S im psonrequ ests on appeal that the public com m ent p eriod be r eo pe ne d fo r th e g en er al pu bl ic

. I t is un cl ear, ho w ev er , whe th er Mr

. Sim psonis requestin ga lim ited p ublic com m ent p eriod to foc us o n the E J A na ly si s, or a br oa de r op po rtun ity to co m m ent onthe e nt ir e pe rm it

. I n this case, the Reg ion characteriz ed the two- week period g ranted to Mr. Sarve y as an “extens ion,” which Mr. S im psonhas interpreted

as an e xtensio n o f the public com m ent p eriod. D espite the Reg ion’s characteriz ation, the Boa rd d oes not interpret the tim e g rantedPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 31 to Mr. Sarv ey

to be an ex tension of the pu blic co m m ent p eriod, but ra th er an in artf

ul ly w or de d de ci si on

b y th e R eg ion t o ac ce pt

late com m ent s from

on e co m m enter o n o ne iss ue. The pu blic co m m ent period had already

close d at the tim e Mr. Sarv ey contacte d the R eg ion. B y a ll ow in gMr

. S arv ey

tw o ad di ti on al w ee k s fo r su bm it ta l o f co m

m ents onthe EJ A n a l y s i s , th e R e g i o na p p a r e n t l y w a s n e i t h e r

p ur p o rt i n gto e xt e nd nor to reo pen the p ublic com m ent p eriod. S

e e I n r e B e ar L ake P r o p e r t i es I n c. , UI C App eal N o. 11- 03, slip op. 22

- 23 (EA B J une 28, 20 12 ), 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _

_ (c on cl ud in gth at

a cc ep tanc e of la te

- fi le d co m m ents do es no t re su lt in a re op en in g of th e co m m ent p er io d) ; In re W

eber #4-8, 11 E.A .D . 2 41, 24 3 n .2 (EA B 2003 ) (notin gthat sim ply by respo nding to lat e co m

m ents the per

m itiss ue r di d n ot

reo pe n th e co m

m ent p er io d)

. A s a g en er al m atte r, p erm itis su ers po ss es s inhe re nt autho ri ty an d di sc re ti on

to a cc ep t l at e co m

m ents in ap erm itp ro ce ed in gand are not re quired to reo pen the public com m ent period whe n exercisingsuc h discretion

. In r e U

pp er B la ck ston e W ater P ol lu ti on A bat emen t D is t. , NP DE S A

ppeal Nos

. 10- 09 through 10- 12, slip op. at 2 2 (E AB Mar. 30, 20 11 ) , 1 5 E

. A

. D

.

_

_ ( “ T h e R e g i o n h a s t h e d i s c r e t i o n a ry au t h o r i tyto consid er an d rely

up on inform ation, inclu ding com m ents, receiv ed a fter th e cl os e of publ ic com

m ent and is n ot r eq ui re d to r eo pe n th e pu

bl ic com m ent p eriod excep t w here the R eg ion d eterm ines in its d iscretion that the newin f

or matio n it relies up on raises su bstantial new questio ns.” ), aff’d, N os. 11- 1474 & 11- 1610 (1st Cir. Aug . 3 , 2 012), ce rt

. denied, 13 3 S

. C t. 23 82 (May 13, 2013 ); Bear

La ke , s lip op . at 22- 23, 15 E.A .D . at __ (findingno clear error inthe perm it issuer’s acceptan ce of l a t e - filed co m

m ents) ; In re D omin ion E nergyBrayton Poin t, L

LC , 12 E.A .D . 4 90, 51 9 (E AB 20 06) (recog niz ingperm it issuer’s discretion to a cc ep t l at e- fi le d com m ents b ef

or e pe rm itis su an ce ); W eb er #4 -8 , 11 E.A .D . at 243 n. 2 (“[A ]s a m atter of g ood gove r nm ent, the R eg ion shou ld retain

the flexibility to freely respon d to citiz ens’ c oncern s, ev en those belatedly

raised , w ithout im

pairingthe efficiency

and finality of th e pe rm it ti ng p ro ce ss . ”) ; S te el D yn am ics II

, 9 E. A. D. at 1 94 & n.3 2 (perm it issuer consid ered and respon ded to late- filed c ommen t). The perm it issuer, ho wev er, m ust ex ercise s uch discretion in a w ay that is no t an a bus e o f this authority

. For exam ple, a pe rm it issuer canno t accep t late co m m ents from one com

m enter and rej ect the m

from ano ther who,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 32

T his do es n o t me an that th e Re gion is ob liged to pro vide indi vidual

20 inf orm at ion to ea ch re ques tor w hen the re ques te d inf

orm at ion is al read y

pu b licl y ava ilable.
A s note d abov e, while Mr. Sim pson had re ques te d an e x te nsi on of the publi c 21 com m ent perio d, h is w as a

n early request s ou ght bef

ore the closin g of

the original com m ent pe ri o d , and t

he Re g ion e x te nded the ori g ina l c om m ent pe riod until Se pte m ber 5, 2012. for sim ilar reasons and at the sam e tim e, requests that the p erm it issuer consid er his or h er late com m ents. This, how ev er, is no t the case here. The r ec or d be fo re th e B oard d oe s no t r ef

le ct th at o the r co m

m ente rs so u g h ta d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o f i l e c o m m e n t s , e i t h e r

g e n e r a l l y

o nth e dr af

t pe rm ito r sp ec if

ic al ly o n th e E J A na ly si s, f

ollowi ng th e R eg io n’ s extensio n o f the orig inal p ublic com m ent p eriod, or at the sam e tim e of Mr. S arv ey ’s requ est to subm it late c om m ents o n the EJ An aly sis. H er e, th e R eg io n w as try in gto c or re ct an ov er si g ht

and b e fa ir to Mr. Sarv ey . Mr. Sarv ey had specifically ask ed the Reg ion for a copy of t he E J A naly sis, and the R eg ion d id no t directly respo nd to that re qu es t. In th is unu su al c onte xt , th e decis io n to a cc ep t l at e co m m ents from Mr. Sarv ey

on the EJ Ana ly sis appears to be j ustified and does not s t r i ke t he Bo a r d a s an ab us e of di s c r e t i on . Give n t he ti me-se ns i t i ve

20 nature of P SD perm i t t ingdec isions, the Board can understan d the Regi on ’ s r eluctanc e to inv ite com m ents o n the EJ An aly sis from the g eneral public whe n n o other comm enters had m ade such a request or 21 appro ached

the Reg ion w ith a situation sim ilar to Mr. S arv ey ’s. That being said, becau se of the confu sing languag e the Reg ion used to acc ept late com

m ents, the R eg ion s hould con sider p rov iding othe r m em

be rs o f th e pu

bl ic th e sam e tw o- w ee k

o pp ortun ity

to s ub m it late comm ents on the EJ Analy sis as it g av e Mr. Sarv ey . As explain ed inm or e de ta il late r inth is d ec is io n, b ec au se th e B oa rd is se para te ly re m an di ngth e pe rm ito n an othe r is su e to a ll owp ub li c co m m ents , th is m ig ht prov ide an oppo rtunity to allow addition al late com m ents o n the EJ Analy sis. I n the future, the R eg ion s hould exe rcise care when using term s of a r t s uch as “e xtend” or “reope n” and shou ld av oid u singsuc h te rm s to d es cr ib e it s in te nt to a cc ep t l at e co m

m ents , unl es s itinte nd s toPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 33

If the Re g ion inte nds to reope n or exte nd the public com m ent peri od for

a ll 22 inte re st ed per sons , i t w ould ne ed to f ollow the proc edur es that g ov er n re openi ng and exte nsi on of

publi c com

m ent pe riods

. T hes e proc edur es re quire the Re g ion to pr ov ide public noti ce of

the re openi ng or exte nsi on and g iv e the g ene ra l public an opport unity to com m ent

. See 40 C .F.R . § 124. 14(e ) (“ Public notic e of any of the a bov e ac tions s hal l be i s s u e du n d e r

§ 124.10.” ); id . § 124. 14(a )( 1) ( “W hen the publi c com

m ent pe riod is re opene d unde r [§ 124.14( a) (1) ], al l pe rs o n s, i n cludinga pplic ant s, w

ho be lie v e any co n d it io n of a draftpe rmitis in ap p ro p ri at e o r t h atth e Regi o n al A d m in is tr at o r’ s te n ta ti ve dec is ion t o * * * pre par e a dra f t pe rmit is ina

ppropr iate , m

ust s ubm it al l r ea sona

bly av ai la ble f ac tua l grounds s upporti ng the ir posi tion” ). followthe proced

ures in 40 C. F.R . § 12 4.1 0(c) an d g iv e all m em bers o f th e pu bl ic a dd it io na l t im e to c om m ent. 22 C. Mr. Sim

pson H as N ot D emo nstrated

Th at theRe

gion Clea rly E

rred or A bu se d It

s D is cr et io n byN

ot Provi din g a D etai le d R es po ns e to the S eries o f Fo rwa rded E-m ail

s a nd Attach men ts H

e Su bmitted Dur ing th e P ublic Com men t Pe riod Mr. S im pso n a l l e g e s t h at the Reg ion v iolated part 1 24 proced ural requirem ents b y

failing to respon d to sev eral of his co m m ents. Sim

pson Pet. at 1- 5. H e requests that the Board “rem and the perm it and instruct the [R eg ion] to respo nd ” t o them

. Id . at 3. The Reg ion c ontend s Mr. S im pso n su bm it te d a num

be r of d oc um ents f

or whi chh e fa il ed

to pr ov id e any

spe ci fi c expl an at io n as to th ei r re le v an ce to th e P S D p erm it und e r r e v i e w o r t o t h e a n a l y s e s t h e R e g i o n h a d p r e p a r e d a s p a rt o f the perm it rev iew pr oc e s s . Reg ion R esp. at 9

. The Reg ion thus c ontend s that it did not err or abu se its discretion in not p rov idinga detailed respon se to those docum ents. Id

. A s expl ai ne d be lo w , th e B oard concl ud es th at

Mr

. S im ps on h as f ai le d to s ho wth at

th e R eg io n cl earl y erred o r abu sed its discre tion b y no t prov idingdetailed

respo nses to the e- m ails an d attac hm ents in qu estion. O n July 1 8, 2 01 2, Mr. Sim

ps on sub m it te d a tw o- pa g e e- m ai l t o the R eg ion, whic h state d that “[t]his and the fo llowin ge[- ] mai l s, from m e, constitute m

y openingcomm ents and re quest for an exten sion of the public com

m ent o pportunity

for the P io P i c o Proposed PSD perm it.” Sim psonC mt. at 1. Mr. Sim

pson ’s e- m ail spe cifically ask ed th e R eg ionPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 34
to ex tend the p ublic com m ent p eriod, tak e “o fficial no tice” o f the Californ ia E nerg y

C om m ission (“CE C”) Pio Pico procee ding s an d the Palm dale PSD p e r mit procee ding , in clude all “no tice lists” from the othe r C P U C and

C E C pr oc ee di ng s, an d re v ok e th e S an D ie g o C ounty

A ir Pollution C on trol D istrict’s (“S DA PC D” or “D istrict”) auth ority

. Id

. at 1- 2. The e- m ail further argued that “th ere is no need for this project.” Id . at 1. Sho rtly

therea fter, Mr. Sim

psonsen t the Reg ion a series o f sev en “follow

- up” e- m ails. Each was entitled “P io P ico P SD com m ents” and was conse cutiv ely

num bered (i.e., 1 through 7). The bo dy of each of the sev en e - m ails stated

“attach ed p lease fin d m y initial P io P ico P SD c o m m e n t s P i o P i c o P S D c o m m e n t s [ s i c ] , ” f

o l l o w e d b y M r . S i m ps on ’s name, mai lingadd

ress, and e- m ail add

ress. Three o f these follow

- up e- m ails w ere forw arded e- m ails that had ori ginally been subm itted by Mr. S im pson to Mr. Stev e Moore, who , based on the e- m ail add ress an d content, appears to work

for the S DA PC D. See, e. g., E- m ail from R ob Sim pson , E xec. D ir., HelpingH and Tools, to R og er Kohn, U .S. EP A ( Ju l y 1 8 , 2 0 1 2 , 0 1 : 1 9 P D T ) ( o r i g in al ly a dd re ss ed to “Stev e.Moo re@ sdcounty .ca. gov”) (A. R. VI .15 ). The other four fo ll ow - up e - m ai ls s im

pl y c onta in ed

a tt ac hm ents b el owMr

. S im ps on ’s nam e an d ad dr es s, w ith no e xp lanati on o f th ei r re le v an ce to th e dr af t PSD perm it. These attachmen t s , am ongothe r thing s, include d a 1979 Me m or an dum

o f U nd er st an di ngb etw ee n th e C E C and the C al if or ni a A ir R es ourc es B oard , Mr

. S im ps on ’s c om

m ents o n th e S D A P C D ’s P re li m in ar

y D eter m in at io n of

C om pl ianc e fo r P io P ic o E ne rg y C ente r, the tes tim ony

of Mr. Bill Powers, and a San Dieg o Sm art Energ y 20 20 study prep ared by

Mr. Pow ers. I n its respon se to com

m ents d ocum ent, t he R eg ion re spon ded po in t b y p oi nt to e ac h of th e is su es Mr. S im

ps on sp ec if

ic al ly ra is ed

in h is initial tw o- pag e e- m ail. See RT C at 70-74. Wi th r esp ect to t he fo ll owup e- m ails, the R eg ion s tated: The com m ent er also sub m itted a series o f em ails that contain ed m iscellaneo us attached docum ents. With th e ex ce pt io n of on e ema il th at is th e su

bjec t o f th isPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 35

T he Re g ion’s obs er

v at ion t hat Mr . Si m pson did no t au th o r se v er al of the 23 do cum ents see m s to im

ply that this w as relev ant to the Region’s decision no t to add ress the m in det ai l. If

this w er e the Re g ion’s pos iti on, the Boa rd w ould ha

v e a conc er

n w ith it. T he f ac t t hat a com m ent er did not aut

hor a docum ent , in and of its el f , is irr el ev ant

to its si g nif ic anc e in a per

m itt ing proc ee ding

. A com m ent er m ay submit st

udie s, re ports , or othe r doc um ent s pre par ed by othe rs , a nd of te n doe s. See , e. g. , Dom inion , 12 E.A .D. at 574 & n.1 38 , 57 6-7 8 & n.1 43 , 14 5 (di scussing sc ientific a nd ec on om ic studies pre par ed by

othe r a uthors that t

he a pplic ant subm itt ed in support

of its a pplic at ion). I n its re spons e to the pet iti on, how ev er , the Re g ion c la rif ie s its pos iti on, e xpla iningthat i t had “m ent ione d the is sue of the aut hors hip of the se docum ent s in i ts RT C t o il lus tra te the point that t

he docum ent s w er e pre par ed by third par tie s in c onte x ts othe r t

han the ins ta

nt PSD pe rmit proc ee dingand that t hei r re le v anc e to this proc ee ding w as uncl ea r.” R eg ion Re sp. at 9 n.4. W ith this c av ea t, it does not appe ar

that t he Re g ion mis under st ood it s oblig at ion w ith re spe ct

to the se doc um ent s. respon se, the b ody

of those em ails did

no t contain an

y act ua l com

m ents o n E PA ’s Pro posed Pe rm it or Fact Sh e et. The attachm ents d o n ot co ntain any actua l com m ents o n EPA ’s Prop osed Perm it or Fact Shee t for [the F ac il ity ], n or

h as th e co m

m enter exp la in ed

w ith an ys p e c i f

i c i t y th e a t t a c h m e n t s ’ r e l e v a n c e t o E P A ’s PSD perm it decisio n. Therefore, EP A canno t prov ide a d etailed re spon se. EP A ack now ledg es the co m m ente r’ s do cum ents p ro v id ed a s atta chm ents to h is em ail transm ittals an d has inclu ded the attac hm ents a s parto f th e co m

m ente r’ s co m

m ents inth e re co rd

f or th is action. We also note that the com m enter d id no t author any of the d ocum ents h e su

bm itted as attachmen t s to those em ails, w ith the exception of two letters, both dated

[ 23] J a nu ary 18 , 2 012, which were subm itted by the com m enter and his atto rney to SD AC PD

. These com m ent letters were issued long before E PAissue d the Prop osed Perm it and

Fa ct Sheet in this ac tion, and co ns ti tute c om

m ents o n S D A P C D ’s P re li m in ar y D et erm in at io n of C om

pl ianc e fo r th e pr ojec t. H ow ev er , the letter s do no t add

ress o r com

m ent o n the Pro posed Perm it and Fact Shee t, nor has the co m m enter e xplaine dPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 36 with any

specificity

the letters’ relev ance to E PA ’s PS D perm it decisio n. A ccordingl y, EPAcannot p rov ide a detailed respon se to these letters. RTC at 74

. The Reg ion lis t e d t he other m iscellaneo us d ocum ents and re po rt s th at

Mr

. S im ps on h ad a tt ac he d, n ot in gthat “[ a] s w ith th e le tt er s co m m e nt i n g o n S D A P C D ’s [ P re li m in ar

y D et erm in at io n of

C om pl ianc e] , the co m m enter h as not explained with any specificity

these do cum ents’ relev ance t o EPA’s P SD perm it decisio n, and therefore EPAcannot prov ide a detailed respon se.” Id

. A s no te d inP art I I I , th e A g en cy ’s p erm it ti ngr egul at io ns r eq ui re pe rs on s ch al le ng ing a PSD p erm itc on di ti on to “ ra is e al l r ea so na

bl y as ce rt ai na

bl e is su es and

s ub m ita ll r ea so na

bl y av aila bl e ar g um ents supp ortingtheir position by the close of the pu

blic c omm ent p eriod. ” 40 C. F.R . § 124.13

. The regulations also re quire that the perm it issuer “d es cr ib e an d re sp on d to a ll significan t com m ents o n the draft perm it.” Id

. § 124. 17(a)(2) (em

phasis added ). I n order to fully effectu a t e these pro vis i ons, parties subm ittingcom m ents o n d

raft perm its m

ust p resent their co ncerns with sufficient precision and spe cific ity

to apprise the perm ittingauth orities o f the sig nificant issue s s o that the perm it issuer can m ak e tim ely

and appropriate adjustm ents to its perm it determ ination, or , if no a dju stm ents are m ad e, c an e xp la inwhy

n on e ar e ne ce ss ar

y in it s r e s p o n s e t o c o m

m e nts. In re Scituate W astew ater T

reatm ent P lant , 12 E

. A

. D

. 7 08 , 7 22 ( E A B ) ; see a lso In re Sutter Pow er P lant , 8 E.A.D. 68 0, 6 87 , 6 94 ( E A B 1 99 9) ; In re R oc kG en E ne rg y Ctr ., 8 E .A .D . 5 36, 540, 54 7- 48 (EA B 1999 ). As the B oa r d e xplained in In re Encogen C ogen erat io n F

ac il it y , “ [t ]h e ef

fe ct iv e, e ffic ie nt

and p re di ct ab le adm inistration of the perm ittingprocess dem ands that the perm it issuer be g iv en th e op po rtun ity

to a dd re ss po te nt ia l pr ob le m s w ith dr af t p erm it s be fo re th ey

b ec om e fi na l. ” 8 E

. A

. D

. 2 44 , 2 50 ( E A B 1 99 9)

. I m portantly , th e pe rm ittingauth ority ’s adjustm ents and expl an at io ns to c om

m ents f or m th e ba si s fo r part ie s to a

pp ea l the p erm it decision

. See 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 12 4. 19 (a ). C on se qu entl y , “the a cc ount ab il ity of th e pe rm iti ssu er

f or p ro v id in gaf

ul l, m eani ng fu l r es po ns e to com m ents is tem

pered by the com m enter’s own

responsibility

to conv eyPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 37 its thou g hts cle arly

in the first instance .” Sc it ua te , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 7 22 ; see also , e.g. , Su tter , 8 E. A. D. a t 6 94 (notingthat “autho rities are not expec t e d t o b e p r e s c i e n ti nth e i r

un d e r s t a n d i n go f

v a g u e o r i m p r e c i se co m m ents ”) ; Ro ckGe n , 8 E.A. D. at 547- 48 (“Abs ent such s pecificity , th e perm it issuer canno t m eaning fully respo nd to co mm ents.” ). As the United State s C ourt o f Appeals for the D istrict of Colum bia C ircuit ha s explain ed: [T]he “dialog ue” betw een adm inistrativ e ag encies and the p ublic is a “two

- way street. ” J ust as the “opp ortunity

to com m ent is m eanin gless unless the ag ency respo nds to significant point s raised by the public, ” so too is the ag ency ’s op portun ity to respon d to th os e co m

m ents m eani ng le ss un le ss th e in te re st ed p arty clearly states its po sition. N o r th s i d e S a n i ta r yL a n d f i l l , I n c
. v
. T h o m as , 84 9 F.2d

15 16, 15 20 (D. C. C ir. 1 988) (citations om itted), cert. denied, 4 89 U

. S

. 1 07 8 (1 98 9) , qu oted in Sc it ua te , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 7 22 ; Rock Gen , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 48 ; In re Spok ane Reg’l W

aste-to-E nergy , 2 E

. A

. D

. 8 09 , 8 16 ( A dm ’r 1 98 9)

. I t is fo r th i s reason that, under the A g ency ’s perm itting regulations, it is well s e t t led th at “pe rm it issuers need not guess the m eani ngb eh in d im

pr ec is e co m

m ents and

are und er

n o ob li g at io n to specu late ab out p ossible conce rns th at w ere n ot art i c ulated in the com m ents.” Sc it ua te , 1 2 E .A .D . at 723 (qu otations and citations om itted). A ccordin g ly , “ [g ]eneraliz ed or v aguely enunciated conce rns warrant no form al, particulariz ed re spon se an d are no t prese rv ed fo r rev iew on appea l.” Id

. a t 7 23 ; accor d Sutter , 8 E. A

. D

. at 6 94 ; Rock Gen , 8 E

. A

. D

. at

5 47

- 48 ; Encogen , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 2 51 n . 12 ( w he re an “i ss ue is raised o nl y g en er ic al ly

d ur in gth e pu

bl ic c om m ent p er io d, th e pe rm it is su er is no t re qu ir ed to pr ov id e m or e th an a g en er ic just if ic at io n fo r it s decision , and the p etitioners canno t raise m ore specific concerns for the fi rs t t im e on

a pp ea l” ); cf. P ortland

C emen t Ass ’n v. Ru ckelsha us , 486 F. 2d 3 75 , 394 (D. C. C ir. 1 973) (statingin the ru lem ak ingcontext th at “ co m m ents m us t b e si g ni fi cant

e no ugh to s te p ov er

athre sh ol dPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 38

Bas e d o n s uc h c on c e rns , the S up r e m e C ourtha s e xpl a i ne d t hat 24 “adm inistrative procee d i ngs shou ld n ot b e a ga m e or f oru m to engag e in un

justified ob structio nism

by m aking cry

ptic andobscure ref

erences to m at t ers that ‘ought to be’ cons ide re d and the n, a f

te r f ai lingto do m ore to bringthe m atte r t o the a g enc y ’s atte ntion, seeking to have that ag ency determ inatio n vac ated on th e grou nd that the age ncy f ailed to con sider m atters ‘f

orcef ully presented. ’” Vt. Ya n ke e N u cl ea r Power Co. v. NRDC , 435 U .S. 519, 553- 54 (1978)

. requirem ent o f m ateriality befo re any

lack of ag ency

respo nse of consid eration becom es o f con cern”), cert. denied, 41 7 U

. S

. 9 21 ( 19 74 ). S im il ar ly, g en er al r ef

er en ce s to d oc um ents in

th e re co rd

o r to other PSD pro

j ects, with no explan ation as to the r e l e van c e of those docum ents o r projects to a PSD perm it condition at issue, are insufficient to preserv e that issue for rev iew. In re Maui Elec. C o. , 8 E. A. D. 1, 8- 12 (E A B 1 99 8) ; se e al

so S te el D yn am ics II

, 9 E

. A

. D

. a t 2 29 ( dec li nin gto re ach t he m er it s of

an is su e w he re p et it io ne r fa il ed in it s co m m ents to identify spe cific NSR Manu al

langua g e th at pr ov id ed th e li nc hp ino f it s ar g um ents o n ap pe al ); cf

. N o r th s i d e, 849 F. 2d at 15 19 (holdin g , in an an al og ou s ru le m akin gc onte xt , th at E P A ’s f ai lure to r es po nd

to s pe ci fi c is su es th e pe ti ti on er

c la im s on

a pp ea l w er e pre sen te d init s co m m ents w as n ei th er

arb itrary n or c ap ri ci ou s w he re p et it io ne r ha d ini tial ly s ub mit t e d 4 20 pa ges of do c ume nt s bu t “ mad e no a t t e mpt t o s pe c i f y why it con sidered those docum ents o r any thingin them

relev ant to the rulem ak ingpro cedure ”). I f a com m enter p rov ides little or no inform ation or explanation abo ut the app licability

of a do cum ent, the perm it issuer runs the risk of assum ing that the com m enter s ubm itted or referred to the docum ent to ad dress a particular issu e but then hav ingthe com m enter o n ap peal claim

it inte nded

the docum ent to be subm itted for anothe r reaso n. Se e, e
. g. , S te el D yn am ics II

, 9 E. A. D. at 2 29 n.7 1 ( ob s e rvin g th a t , b e c aus e pe t i t i on e r ha d f a i l e d t o p oi nt to t he key la ngu a ge su pp orti ngit s po si ti on

in it s co m m ents o n th e dr af

t p erm it, th e pe rm it is su er h ad c on stru ed

th e or ig in al c om

m ent d if fe re nt ly ). 24 While the Bo ard d oes not e xpect a pro se petitioner to co m m ent in great de tail on e ver y r eferenced or subm itted do cum ent, study , o r report, the Board d oes expect a pro se petitioner to alert the p erm it issuer as to th e re le v an ce o f a part ic ul ar d oc um ent to t he sp ec if ic p erm itPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 39

T he text of

the f orwa rded e-m ail, w

hich is addressed to Mr. Mo ore, states: 25
T he atta che d MO U is a

part of m y c om m ent s. Plea se ide ntif

y w hy the District has a com

m ent perio d, ho w

com m entin g to the District c o u l dh av e a

d i f f e r entef f ec tth an c o m

m e n t i n g w i th th e C E C , E PA or C A R and how

the public can af

f ec t the propos ed pe rmit w ith the (c ontinue d...) cond ition p etitioner is cha lleng ing

. See Sutter , 8 E.A. D. at 694 (noting that raisin gissue s on

the draft p erm it withsufficient spec if i c ity is a “princip le no less im

portant in the context o f petitioners not repres ented by c ouns el ”) ; In re E

nvotech , LP , 6 E. A. D. 26 0, 268 (EA B 1996 ) (s am e) ; cf. N orthside , 8 49 F

. 2d

a t 1 51 9- 20 ( expl ai ni ngth at whi le p et it io ne r di d no tha ve t o c ommen t“i n gr e a tde t a i l on eve ry s t u d y, ” i t “s ho ul d h a ve assum ed at least a m odicum of respon sibili t y f

or flagg ingthe relev ant is su es whi chit s do cum entary s ub m is si on s pr es ente d” ). Wh er e an e nt ir e docum ent is not relev ant, it wo uld b e adv isable for a petitioner to po int t o t h e s e c t i o n , p a r a g r ap h , o r p r o v i s i o n o f t h e d o c u m e n t t h a t is relev ant to th e pe rm itc on di ti on

p etit io ne r is c ha ll en g in g . Im po rt antl y , if

th is we r e no t t he rul e , co mm e nt e r s c ou l d in un da t e pe rmit i s s ue r s wi t h l a r ge quantities of seem ing ly irrelev ant reports, studies, and other docum ents, t h e r e b yd e l a yi n g th e p e rmi tp r o c e s s f o r ani n o r d i n a t e l e n gt ho f

t i me while the p erm it issuer strug g led to determ ine ea ch of t he do cum ents’ po te nt ia l r el ev an ce to th e dr af t p erm it

. I n lig ht of these principles , th e B oard has rev iewed all o f the e- m ails an d attac hm ents Mr. Sim psonsubm itted and conclude s that the R eg io n di d no t err or

a bu se it s di sc re ti on

in n ot r es po nd in gin di v id

ua ll y to th em . The re le v an ce of th e m ajor ity of Mr. S im ps on ’s a tt ac hm ents to th e R eg io n’ s F ac t S he et

and dra ftp erm itc on di ti on s is unc le ar and v er y fe w , if any , o f th e atta chm ents ap pe ar re la te d to th e sp ec if ic c om m ents Mr. S im pson raised in his in it i a l e - m ail. Som e do cum ents a ppear irrelev ant o n the ir faces to the R eg ion’s dr a f t perm it, su ch a s the forwarded e- m ail Mr. Sim psonorig inally

sen t to San Dieg o q

uestion ing San Diego’s public com

m ent p rocess and requestin ga com parison of San Dieg o’s p rocess to sev eral oth er entities’ proc esses, inclu dingEP A’s, and contain ingas an attachm ent a 1979 Mem orand um of Und erstandin g (“MOU ”) be tween

t he C EC and

the Californ ia A ir Re sources B oard. 25PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 40

(.. .c ontinue d)

25 District as op po sed to the CEC, EP A or CA RB. E

- m a i l f r o m R o b S i m p s o n , E x e c . D i r . , H e l p i n g H a n dT o o l s , to Ro g e r

K o h n , U

. S

. E PA (J uly 18, 2012, 01:20 PDT ) ( A .R. VI.20)

. T he e- m ai l c onta in i n g

t h i s d o c um ent

did st at e that “ [t]his atta chm ent s upports 26 a no pro ject a lternative as the pro ject is no t needed. ” E-m ail f rom Rob Sim

pson , Exec

. Dir., Helpin g H and Tools, to Roger Ko hn , U.S. EP A (July 18, 201 2 1: 19 P DT ). Eve n w ith this sta

te m ent , i t i s st ill not cl ea r how the Ca lif ornia guida nce a pplie s to E PA ’s per m itt ingde ci si on. Likewis e, wit hout a ny re al expl ana ti on tying the t wo togeth er , a CPUC g ui danc e do cum ent that se ts forthstand ar di z ed p lann in ga ss um

pt io ns it requires for the filingof resource plan s seem s wholly irrelev ant to the R eg io n’ s perm ittingdec ision. See E- m ail from R ob Sim pson , E xec. 26 Dir. , H elpingH and Tools, to R og er Kohn, U .S. E PA (July18 , 2 012, 0 1 : 1 9 P D T) ( a t t a c h i n gC P UC , Stand ardized Pla nning

As sum ptions ( Part I) for System Reso urce Plan s (fil ed Fe b. 10 , 2 01 1) ) (A

. R

. VI

. 15 ). Ot he r d o c u me n t s , s uc h a s th e J a c ob s on st ud y an d t he AES En e r gy Storag e pre sentation , a

ppear g enerally

relev ant to g reenho use g as an d/or en er g y sto ra g e is su es , b ut

th ei r pe rt in en ce to th e P io P ic o dr af t p erm itis not clear without any

exp lanation. See Mark

Z . Jacobso n, Enh ancem ent
2 of L ocal Air Pollutio n by Urb an CO D omes , 4 4 E nvtl. S ci. Tech. 24 97 (2010 ); A ES Energy

Sto rag e, Ener

gy S toragefor Flexibl e Pe aking Cap acity (Jun e 20 12 ); see a lso Bill P owe rs, San Diego Sm art E nergy 2020 , T he 2 1st C entury Alterna tive ( Oc t . 200 7) ( r e po rt pr ovi di ng ara nge of p otentially

av ailable c lean and sustainab le energ y option s for the S an D ie g o re g io n)

. A few of the docum ents are related to th e pro posed Fa cility and thus th ei r po te nt ia l r el at io ns hi p to th e P S D p erm it ti ngp ro ce ss is ab it m or e ap pare nt

. Th es e do cum ent s, ho w ev er , c ha ll en g e th e S D A P C D ’s conclu sions and prelim inary perm ittingdec ision for Pio Pico , n ot the R eg io n’ s P S D p erm it ti ngd ec is io n. Two of th e do cum ents , in fa ct , w er e prepared and subm itted prior to the issuance of th e R eg ion’s Fact Shee t an d dr af t p erm itand

thus, base d on

th ei r chro no lo g y , c anno t e xp li ci tl yPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 41

T he oth er d ocume nt, which is a copy of testim on y p resented to th e CEC, w as 27 pre par ed duringthe c om m ent pe riod. See Rebutta l T es tim ony o f Bi ll P ow er s, In the Matte r of the A pplic at ion f

or C er tif ic at ion f or t h e P io P ic o Ene rg y

Ce nte r, State of Ca lif ornia , D ock et

N o. 11- A FC- 01 (J

uly 6, 2012). It s spe ci f

ie d purpos e w as to challenge: [ a] failure of the CEC to follow the Ene rgy Ac tion Plan loa ding o rd er i n it s an al y si s o f al te rn at ive s to th e p ro p o sed P io P ic o En ergy Ce nte r; b) f

ai lure of CE C t o c onduct

de ta ile d anal y si s of

roof top sol ar as [an] al te rnativ e * * * c onsi st ent w ith the CE C de te rmination re g ar ding roof

top sol ar in the 2009 de nia l of 100 MW Chul a Vist a Ene rg y Up grade Proje ct

(C VEUP); c) f

ai lure of CE C t o de te rmine sol ar re sour ce av ai la

bili ty in top 100 dem and hours or to c orr oborate w het her Pio Pico c an ass u re 98+pe rc ent av ai la bili ty ; d) f

ai lure of CE C to ev al uat e low

c ost de m and re spons e al te rnativ es to Pio P ic o, inclu di ng bu t no t l i m i t e d t o I c e B e ar the rm a l s t or a g e un i t s used exte nsi v el y

by publi c util iti es in Sout h ern Ca lif ornia ; a nd e ) t he f ailure of CEC to establish that the ancillary serv ices to be provided by P io P ico canno t be m et by p ea k l o ad reductio n m easures ([ discou nt rate] , roo f

top [ ph oto voltaics]) or energy /therma l storage, or w hy the anci lla

ry servi ces is sue e liminate s roof top s ola r f rom cons ide ration in t

he ca se of

Pio P ic o b ut di d not in t he ca se of

the C VE U P. Id . at 2. None of these challenges ref er to th e Re gion’s P SD perm ittin g dec ision . T hu s, th e d o cu men t ’ s r el ev an ce t o th i s P S D p er mit p r o ce ed i n g i s u n cl ea r wit h o u tso me explanation by

the com m enter identi f

y ing ho w and w hat po rtion o f

t he testim on y

relates to a P SD pe rmitco n d it io n he is ch al le n gin g. ch al le ng e co nd it io ns o f th e dr af t P S D p erm it

. See L ette r fr om Apr il 27 Ros e S om

m er, Esq. , to Stev en Mo ore, SD AP CD (Jan. 18 , 2 012) (A

. R

. VI

. 26 ) (“ S om

m er S D A P C D C mt. ”) ; L ette r fr om Ro b S im ps on to St e ven Mo or e , S DA PC D ( J a n. 1 8, 20 12 ) (A .R . V I .2 3) . Si gni f i c a nt l y, m any of the com

m ents do not appear to be ev en arg uably relev ant to the PSD perm it’s cond itions or ev en PSD perm its. For exam ple, in m any

of Mr. S im pson ’s com

m ents on the D istrict’s prelim inary determ ination of com pliance, he cites to and questio ns sp ecific statem ents th e District m a d e i n i t s d e c i s i o n d o c u m ent. See , e.g. , L ette r fr om R ob S im ps on to Stev en Mo ore at 2- 10 (J an. 18, 20 12). The other docum ent ch alleng es certain aspects of the D istrict’s nonattainm ent p erm it, b ut differe nt st an dard s ap pl y

to th at p er m it, su cha s “L A E R ” (l ow es t a ch ie v ab le em issions rate) an d the requ irem ent fo r em issions offsets. Se e , e .g.,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 42 Som m er S DA PC D Cm

t. at 2, 5 (d iscussingapp licability of CA A section 75 03 to th e D is tr ic t’ s pe rm it, a pr ov is io n of th e A ct th at a pp li es to no natt ai nm ent pe rm it s, not PSD pe rm it s) ; com pare N SR Ma nu al pt. I with id. pt

. I I ; s e e a l

s o i d

. at G.1 (no ti ngth e di ff er ent r eq ui re m ents betw een the tw o p erm it program s). While co m m e nt s challeng ingon e pe rm it may be a

pp li ca bl e to s om e de g re e to ano th er p erm it , it

is incum bent upon

the c omm enter to exp lain what p ortion of h is or her pr ev io us c om

m ent app li es in

th e curr ent P S D p erm it ti ngc onte xt

. Ot he rwise, it is left to the se cond perm ittingauth ority

to g uess whic h com m ents th e co m

m enter intends to ap ply

to the se cond

perm itting decision

. This sho ul d be th e co m m enter’s burde n, not th e pe rm itting authority ’s. Moreov er, in this case, Mr. Sim pson further confo un de d t he is su e by s ta ti ng , in hi s tw o- pa g e e- m ai l, th at he ha d su bm it te d co m

m ents to th e S D A P C D , but that the D is tr ic t “ fa il ed to r es po nd

to m y c om m ents and issued their d ecision. I here by sub m it the sam e co m

m ents re g arding the P ropose d P SD perm it, in the fo llowing e

- mai l, an d req uest th at the E P A r ev ok e th e ai r di stri ct s [s ic ] auth or ity fo r it s fa il ur e. ” S im ps on C mt. at 1. These statem ents s ug g est he m ay hav e be en fo rwa r ding the co m m ents p re v io us ly

s ub m it te d to th e D is tr ic t t o th e R eg io n no t t o ch al le ng e th e P S D P erm it , b ut f or ano th er p ur po se a lt og ethe r. For all of the ab ov e- m entione d rea sons, the Board co nclude s that Mr. S im psonhas no t dem onstrated that the R eg ion c learly erred or ab us ed it s di scr et io n by

n ot p ro v id in gd et ai le d re sp on se s to Mr. S im pson ’s follow

- up e- m ails an d attac hm ents. D. Help ing H

and Too ls H

as N ot D emo nstrated

That the Reg ion F

ailed to A dequ ately A ddress C omm ents A bout Air Q uality Im pacts on Inma te P opula tions at N

earbyC orrection al F

acilities The Bo ard n ext ad dresses Help ingH and Tools’ challen g e to the R eg io n’ s re spo nse to c om m ents Mr

. S arv ey

r ai se d. D ur in gth e pu

bl ic com m ent p eriod, Mr. Sarv ey

raised con cerns about the air qu ality im pact of th e Pi o P i c o F a c i l i t y onth e ne a r by i nma t e po pu l a t i on . Sp e c i f i c a l l y, Mr. Sarv ey

claim ed th at “[E J ] con sideration s requ ire on site m onitoringPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 43

See supra note 17. 28 Mr. Simpson raises a

related bu t diff

erent issue in his petitio n, arguin g that 29 the Re g ion f

ai le d to util iz e the cor

re ct a ir qual ity

m onitor . S im

pson Pet. at

8. T he Boa

rd addr es se s Mr. Sim

pson’ s ar g um ent

late r i n thi s dec is ion. See infra Part VII I.I

. for a period of tim e to collect th e data to prov ide p roper back g round conce ntrations to ass ess th e a i r q uality im pact o f the Pio Pico and the O t a y M e s a P r o

j e c t [ s ] o n t h e l a r ge i n ma t e p o p u l a t i o n s . ” R T C a t 6 5

. In respon dingto this co m

m ent, the R eg ion referred Mr. S arv ey to sev eral other respon ses in

its res pons e to com

m ents docum ent, whic h ad dressed challeng es to the location of the air quality m onitors (respon ses 45 an d 58) and com

m ents about the scope of and the perm it issuer’s oblig ations un de r E O 1 28 98 ( re sp on se 5 4) and th e cum ul at iv e ai r qu al ity

im pa ct s 28 of the Pio Pico project (respon se 5 7). See id. (referringto respon ses 4 5, 54, 57 and

58 ). I n ad dition, the Reg ion e xpl ained that the PS D cum ulativ e im

pact analy ses th at w er e p e rform ed fo r particu late m atter
2 .5 less than 2 .5 m icrom eters in diam eter (“P M ”) an d n itrogen dioxid e

2 (“NO ”) i nc l ud e d em issions from the Otay Mesa Pow er P lant an d that the F acility

sho wed com pliance with the applicab le N AA QS

. Id . at 66. Help ingH and T oo l s challeng es the ade quacy of this resp onse, ar g ui ngth at

“ [n ]o ne o f th e * * * re sp on se s ci te d re fe r to o n- si te m onitoringat th e co rrectional facilitie s t o ad dress the E nv ironm ental J ustice concern s.” H elpingH and Tools Pet. at 4

. Therefore, Help ing H an d Too ls argue s, th e R eg ion “ di d no t a de qu at el y r es po nd to [Mr. S arv ey ’s] com

m ent.” Id

.

29 The B oard

d is agre es . In th is c as e, th e R eg io n’ s re spon se to com m ents docum ent addresses boththe specific as well as related issues to the con cern Mr. S arv ey raised

. By

refe r r i ng M r . S arv ey

to other respons e s , the R eg ion a ddresse d the issue of the n eed for ad ditional m onitoringto dete r mine bac k g round con centration s, as w ell as the Reg ion’s oblig ation under EO 12898. While the Reg ion’s respons e m ay not h av e sp ecifically

stated tha t E J con sideration s in this ca se d o n ot re qu ir e m on it or in g at th e co rr ec ti on al fa ci li ti es , th e re sp on se to com m ents doc ument clearly exp lains why

in this ca se ad ditionalPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 44

N ota

bly , H elpingH and T ools doe s not prov ide , and the Boa rd ha s not f

ound, 30 any autho rity s ug g e s t i ngthat EO 128 98 m andates m on itori ng at the c orrection al f acilities. A s ex pla ine d ea

rli er in this dec is ion, EO 12898 re quire s f ede ra l ag enc ie s to i dent if

y and addr es s, a s appr opria

te , di spr oporti onat el y

high and a dv er se hum an hea lth or env ironm ent al e f

f ec ts of it s prog ra m s, poli ci es , and a ct iv iti es on minori ty populations and low -inc om e populations

. See supra note 17. T he Ex ec utiv e Or der , how ev er , doe s not dictate how f

ederal ag encies a

re to com ply with such a m andate. T heref ore, to sugg est that EO 12898 requires on site m on itori ng at the correction al f acilities mischaracte rizes the Executive Order’s m andate.

The Exec utive Order does, ho w ever , im part consid erable lee w ay to fe deral ag enc ie s in de te rmininghow to com ply w ith the spiri t and lette r of the Ex ec utiv e Or der

. Accord In reAv enal

Pow er Ct r. , LL C , PSD A

ppea l N os. 11-02 through 11-05, s lip op. at 24 ( EAB A

ug . 18, 2011), 15 E.A .D . ___, ap peal dock et ed sub no m. Sierra Club v. EPA , N o. 11- 73342 (9th Cir. Nov . 3, 2011). A n ex amination of EP A ’s P la

n EJ 2014, the Age n cy’ s r o ad map fo r

i n t eg r at i n g E J i n t o i t s p r o gr ams , p o l i cy an dac t i vi t i es , al so sh o ws that p ermit ti ng a

uthori tie s hav e dis cr et ion t o de te rmine how to bes t i m

ple m ent the Ex ec utiv e Or der ’s m anda te

. See U .S. EPA , Plan EJ 2014 Prog re ss Re port (Fe b. 2013) , avai lable at http ://ww

w .ep a. go v/en vironme ntalju stice/ ; see also EPA A ct iv iti es to Prom ote Env ironm ent al Jus tic e in t he Permit A

pplic at ion Proc es s, 78 Fe d. R eg . 27,220, 27 ,22 2 (May

9 , 20 13 ) (n otin g th at ea ch perm it and comm un ity is dif f erent and th at ea ch EPAre g iona l of

f ic e has the ins ig ht a

nd e xper ie nce to de v el op s tra te g ie s ta ilor ed to t

he par tic ula r c om m uniti es and ne eds w ithi n the re gio n ). No th ingin EPA ’s Plan EJ 2014 sugge sts that the Reg ion w as re qu ired to con du ct onsite m on itori ng at the c orrection al f ac ili tie s bef

ore is sui ng the pe rmit. m on it ori ng is n ot

r eq ui re d. Th e R eg io n’ s r es po ns e to c om m ents 30 docum ent explains: (1) why sit e - specific m onitoringw as n ot req uired, R TC a t 3 7- 44 ; ( 2) why

th e m on it or in glo cati on s se le ct ed w er e ad eq

uate ly representativ e of back g round air q uality in the are a, id .; (3 ) w hy m onitoringnear the Don ovan p r ison was not re quired, id . at 44; and (4 ) th at d at a fr om

O tay Me sa w er e ev al uate d inth e cum ul at iv e im

pa ct s analy sis an d O tay

Mesa Pow er P lant em issions were consid ered in the m odelingana ly sis, id . at 55, 64

- 65. The respo nse to co m

m ents docum ent als o m ak es clear that the R eg io n w as f

ul ly aw ar e of th e ne ar by c or re ct io na l f

ac il it ie s an d of

it s oblig ations pur s ua nt to EO 12 898. See R TC at 5 6- 63. The Reg ion explain ed th at it h ad “ consid ered the d em og raphic and other inform ation conce rningthe popu lations at corre ctional facilities pro v ided by the c ommen t e r [ , a nd ] * * * th e un i qu e co nd i t i on s , s uc h a s ove r c r ow di ng,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 45

These are kno w

n as “ prima

ry standards.” See CAA § 109(b )(1), 42 U.S. C. 31 § 7409(b) (1)

.

These are known as “sec on dary standards.” See CAA

§ 10 9(b )(2), 4 2 U.S. C. 32 § 7409(b) (2)

.

See, e.g., A venal Po wer, s lip op. at 22 , 15 E .A .D . at __; She ll Of fs hore2007 , 33 13 E.A .D . at 404- 05 (E A B 2007) ; Knauf II , 9 E.A .D . at 16- 17; In re As h G rov e Ce me nt Co. , 7 E .A .D . 387, 417-18 ( EAB 1997)

.

T he Re g ion’s de te rmination appe ar s cons isten t wi th A g enc y pra ct ic e. See 34 In re Shell Gulf

of Mex . Inc. ( “She ll Gul f of M ex . 2010”) , O C S A

ppea l N o. 10- 01 through 10-04, slip op. at 69- 75 (E A B D ec . 30, 2010), 15 E.A .D . __; id

. at 74, 15 E. A .D. at __ (“ Th e Bo ard relies on and d ef ers to the A gency ’s cum ulative ex

pertise w hen upholdinga per

m it is sue r’ s env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s bas ed on a propos ed f ac ili ty ’s com plian ce w ith th e rele vant NA A QS in a P SD appeal. In the con text of an env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s, com plia nce w ith the N AA QS is e m ble m at ic of

a chi ev ing a l e v e l o f p ub l i c h e a l th p r o t e c t i o n th at , b a s e do n th e l e v e l o f p r o t e c t i o n a ff o r d e db y a (c ontinue d...) social vulnerab ilityand

he a l t h relate d issu es, im pactingthe prison com m unities located near the p r op osed Project site.” I d . at 60. The Reg ion a lso explained

that the EJ Ana ly sis determ ined that the m odeled results o f the NA AQ S analy sis ind icate t hat p ropose d em issions of the pollutants regulated unde r the PSD perm it for Pio Pico wou ld no t caus e or co ntribute to a v iolation of the N AA QS

. Id . at 59- 60, 66

. NA AQ S are standard s desig ned to protect publi c health, includin gthe health of “se nsitiv e” p opulatio ns su ch a s asthm atics, ch il dr en , and

the el der ly, w ith an

a de qu at e m ar g ino f sa fe ty , and to 31 pr o t e ct pu blic w elfare, includin gpro tection ag ainst v isibility im pairm ent and dam ag e to anim als, crops, v eg etation, and b ui lding s. B ecause 32 NA AQ S are health- based stand ards, the A g ency

often use s co m pliance with the N AA QS in the co ntext of env ironm ental j ustice as an indic ator that A g ency

action w ill not result in disprop ortionately hig h an d ad v erse h u ma n hea lt h or en viron m ent al eff ect s on m ino ri ty and low-inco me popu lations residingnear a propo sed facility

. In this case, the Reg ion 33 relied o n the results of the N AA QS ana ly sis to determ ine that m onitoring at th e co rr ec ti on al f

ac il it ie s w as n ot

n ec es sary . H el pi ngH an d Too ls does not q

uestionthis determ ination. 34PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 46

(.. .c ontinue d)

34 prim ar y N AA QS , de m onst

rate s that minori ty

or low -i n co m e populations w ill not ex per ie nce dis propor

tiona te ly high and a dv er se hum an hea lth or e nv ironm ent al e f fec ts du e to ex po sure to releva

nt criteria pol lutan ts.”). Theref ore, absent a d emon stration that the Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr ed in r el y ingon the NA A QS , the Boa

rd w ill not se cond- g ues s the Re g ion’s te chni ca l j udg m ent

.

T o the e x te nt t

hat H elpingH and T ools atte m pts to cha llen g e the Re g ion’s 35 ration ale for conclud ing that on site m on itori ng at the c orrection al f acilities w as unnec es sa

ry , the pet iti on f

al ls s hort. Pet iti oner

ha s f ai le d to demonst

rate w hy the Region’s respon se to com m ents is clea

rly erroneou s. For a descriptio n of the NSR M anual ’s top-d own m etho d for BACT , see 36 supr a Part VII. I n sum , it is clear from

the response to com

m ents d ocum ent as a whole that the R egio n co nsidered the air qu ality

m onitoring inform ation already

av aila bl e t o be sufficient to ensure that the nearby inm ate co m

m unities will n ot e xp erience disprop ortionately high an d adv erse hum an h ealth o r env ironm ental e ffects from the Facility , and thus, determ ined that ad ditional m onitoringat th e co rrectional facilities was unne cessary . S

ee R TC at 5 5- 62. The Board the refore c onclud es that the Reg ion’s respons e to com m ents d ocum ent ad equately add resses Mr. S arv ey ’s con cerns about air q uality im pacts on inm ate po pulation s at nearby correction al facilities and that Help ing Han d Tools has not dem onstrated

othe rwise. 35 E. Petitione rs H

ave Not Dem onstra ted T

hat th e R egion Clea rly E rred in El imi nat ing

Combin ed- Cycl e Gas Turbin es in Ste p 2 of It s BACT Ana lysis for

G reenh ouse Gas es ( “GHGs”) or Tha t the Issue Othe rwise W

arran ts Re view or R ema nd Usin gthe N

S R M a nual t o perform

its B AC T analy sis for GH Gs, the Reg ion elim inated com bined cy cle ga s turbines fro m furthe r 36 BA CT con sideration

at s tep 2

. Fact Shee t & A AQ I R a t 1 5- 17. The Reg ion b eliev ed techn i cal difficu lties “w ould preclud e su ccessful deploy m ent o f a com

bined- cy cle op eration” at the Facility and thus conclu ded that the control techno log y wou ld be “technic ally infeas ible.” RT C at 27 (s umm ar izing and exp la ini ng it s in it ia l det er m ina ti on ); a ccordPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 47

T he Boa rd not es tha

t Mr . Si m pson did not

num ber the pa g es in his pe tit ion. 37 In r ef er ringto the pa g e num

ber s in his pet iti on, the Boa rd c onsi der s “pa g e one” to be the f irs t pa g e of

the PDF v er si on of

the doc k et ed docum ent

. “ Col d sta rts ” ty

pic al ly re f er s to s ta rtups that oc cur

m ore tha n f orty-e ig ht 38 hours a f te r s hutdow

n. Rus se ll Ci ty , s lip op. at 32 n.17, 15 E.A .D . at __. For a m ore de ta ile d de sc ript ion of the CPUC de ci si on, see supra Part V. 39 Fact Shee t & A AQ I R at 16

- 17. In N S R M a n u al p a r l a nce, the Reg ion ess e nti ally

con cluded

that com

bined- cy cle technology

w as n ot technica lly

feasible because the technology was not “applicable” to the Facility

. See R TC a t 2 7; NSR Manu al at B .18

. S ie rr a C lu

b an d Mr. S im

ps on bo th ch al le ng e the Reg io n’ s decision to elim inate c om

bined- cy cle g as turb ine tec hnolo g y fro m the G H G B A C T ana ly si s. M r. S im ps on g en er al ly

q ue st io ns th e R eg io n’ s fa il ure to s el ec t c om

bi ne d- cy cl e g as turb in es a s B A C T. S im ps on P et

. at 7- 8. Sierra Club specifically challeng es the Reg ion’s step 2 an aly sis,

37 essentially

qu estioningthe definition of “source ty pe” the R eg ion u sed in its analy sis. Sierra Club Pet. at 11, 13

- 18. S ierra C lub a lso q uestion s the b asis fo r the Reg ion’s selection of co ld sta r t a nd ram p rates

. Id

. 38 at 1 8. In re sp on se , th e R eg io n an d P io P ic o con te nd th at r ev ie wo f al l th es e is su es s ho ul d be de ni ed o n pr oc ed

ur al g ro un ds

. In part ic ul ar , b oth argue th at the Board shou ld rej ect Mr. S im pson ’s argum ent b ecause he does not e xplain why

the Reg ion’s respon ses to com m ents o n this issue w er e in co rr ec t, R eg io n R es p. at 22 ; P io P ic o R es p. a t 1 4- 15 , and s ho ul d s i m i l a r l y r e je c tS i e rr aC l ub ’ s ar g u m e n t s b e c au s e S i e rr aC l ub d i d no t raise the m

in the co m

m ents it subm itt e d on the dra ft perm it, R eg ion Resp . at 15- 16; P io P ico R esp. at 5

. On a so m ewh at d i fferent n ote, both petitioners also arg ue th at the R eg i on ’ s B AC T analy sis for GH Gs shou ld be rem anded in lig ht of the C PU C’s r e c e nt decision that es sentially pro hibits S DG &E from enteringinto a lon g - term purch ase ag reem ent with Pio Pico at this tim e. 39 See, e .g. , S im

pson P et . a t 7 ; S ie rr a C lu b’ s B ri ef in R es po ns e to Sup plem ental B riefs (“S ierra C lub S uppl. B r. in R esp. to Board O rder”) at 5; Status Con f. Tr. at 42- 43, 49- 52, 54, 6 4. Theyclaim that, bec ausePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 48 the R eg ion re ferred to SD G& E’s 2009 R eques t for Offers (“RF O”) and the p owe r purchase ag reem ent m ult iple tim es thro ug hout the adm inistrativ e reco rd, the CP UC decision unde rm ines the “fo undational elem ents” of the Reg ion’s decision

. See , e.g. , S ie rr a C lu b S up pl

. B r. in Resp . to B oard Orde r at 5

. A s no te d inP art I I I , ap et it io ne r ch al le ng in gan is su e th at is fundam entally

t echnica l in nature bears a particularly heavy burden becau se the B oard g enerally defe rs to the p erm it issuer on questio ns o f te chn ic al j udgme nt. The Boardhas al so st at ed, ho wever, th atBACT deter min ations, which are g enerally techn ical in nature, are one of the m ost critical elem ents in

the PSD perm ittingprocess and thus sh ould be well docum ented in the rec ord. In re Indeck -Elw ood, LL C , 13 E.A.D. 12 6, 13 4 (E A B 2 00 6) ; In re N ewm ont N

ev. Ener gy In v., LL C , 12 E.A.D. 42 9, 4 42 ( E A B 2 00 5) ; K na uf I , 8 E. A. D. at 131. In p articular, “[a] perm ittingauth ority ’s dec ision to elim inate potential control option s as a m atter of technica l infeasibility * * * m ust b e ad equately

exp lained and j ustified. ” K

na uf I , 8 E. A. D. at 1 31; se e also In re C ardina l FG

C o., 12 E.A .D . 1 53, 16 7 (E AB 20 05) (explain ingBoard’s standard of rev iew fo r te chni ca l i nf

ea si bi li ty ); In re P e nn s au ken Cnty ., NJ, Resource R ec ov er y F ac il it y , 2 E. A. D. 667, 672 (Adm ’r 198 8) (rem andingPS D perm it decision becau se the BA CT analy sis did no t contain the lev el of detail an d an aly sis n e c essary to showthat a particular technology w as te chni ca ll y

o r ec on om ic al ly

una ch ie v ab le ). O f part ic ul ar r el ev an ce to the p resent issue, the Board h as d istingui s hed betw een two ty pes of B A C T c as es : th os e inwhi ch th e pe rm itis su er f ai le d to c on si de r a control option

and those where the o ption was consid ered but re j ected. In c a s e s whe r e th e pe rmitis s ue r eva l ua t e d a ndre

j e c t e d a n a l t e rna t i ve control option , “ those fav oringthe opt ion m ust sh ow that the ev idence ‘f or ’ th e co ntro l opt ion c le ar ly o utw ei g hs th e ev id en ce ‘ ag ai ns t’ it s applicatio n.” In re Inter-Po wer of N .Y., Inc. , 5 E. A. D. 13 0, 144 (E A B 1 99 4) ; ac co rd

C ar di na l, 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 1 67 ; In re T hr ee Mo un ta in Pow er, LLC, 1 0 E

. A

. D

. 3 9 , 5 0 ( E A B 2 0 0 1 ) ; I n re Maui Elec. C

o. , 8 E

. A

. D

. 1 , 1 5 (E A B 1 99 8)

. I n li g ht o f th is s ta ndard

and th e part ie s’ argum ents , th e B oard m ust resolv e sev eral subissu es in decidin g the ov erarching issue ofPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 49

w he th er th es e tw o pe ti ti on er s hav e de m on stra te d th at the R eg io n cl earl y er re d ine li m in at in gc om

bi ne d- cycle g as tu

rb in es in it s B A C T ana ly si s for G HG s or that this issue othe rwise warrants rev iew or sh ould be rem anded

. First, with respect to his g eneral challeng e to the elim ination of co m bined- cy cle g as turb ines, has Mr. S im psoncon fron t e d the R eg io n’ s re sp on se s to c om m ents and

e xp la in ed

why th ey w er e cl earl y e r roneo us? Se cond , h as S ierra C lub p reserv ed any of its sub st a nt i ve issues for r e vie w? T hird, on the issu e of definingthe “source ty pe,” whic h the B oard will treat as preserv ed, has Sierra Club dem onstrated that the Reg ion defined “source ty pe” too n arrow ly

in step 2 ? Fourth, do th e R eg io n’ s re fe re nc es to th e po w er purc ha se agre em ent an d RF O in it s BACT a n a lysis nece ssi ta te a remand in l ight of the r ece nt CPUC de ci si on ? A ft er

desc ri bi ngth e R eg io n’ s st ep 2 ana ly si s, th e B oard consid ers the procedural issues before turningto the su bstantiv e issu es. 1. T heR eg io n’

s Step 2 A na ly

si s I n step 2 of its BA CT analy sis for GH Gs, the Reg ion c onside red se v er al f ac to rs in a ss es sing th e te chni ca l f ea si bi li ty o f co m bi ne d- cy cl e g as turb ine tec hnolo g y

for the F acility

. The Reg ion first consid ered the ty pe o f facility

(i.e. , th e so urce) t ha t the applicant prop osed to bu ild. Thr o u g h o u ti t s F a c tS h e e t , th e R e g i o ne x p l a i n e d th a tth e p r o p osed facility is intended

to b e a peak ingplant and /or interm ediate loadsha ping f ac il ity th at p ro v id es u

p to 3 00 MWo f po w er . F ac t S he et & AA QI R at at 3 (3 00 MW “peaking ”), 10 n.4 (“pe ak ingand load shapin g ”), 16 (“peakingapp lications”), 18

- 19 (“peaking and lo ad sh ap in g ”) ; see also R TC at 6 (“pe ak ing ”), 23 (“peaking ”), 28 (citingthe RF O’s reference to the facility a s a 300 MW “p eak ingand i nt e rmed i a t e - c l a s s re s ou r c e ” )

. I n ch a r a c t e r i zi ng t he pu r po s e an d d e s i gn of th e pr op os ed

fac il it y , th e R eg io n re li ed o n st at em ents m ad e by

P io Pico in its app lication. See, e. g., Fa ct Sh eet & A AQ I R at 4 n.1 0 (citing App lication to the U .S. EP A for a Prev ention of S ig nificant Deterio ration Perm it, P io P i c o En e rg y

C enter, San Dieg o C ounty , C alifornia, at 2 .1 (r ev ’d S ep t. 2 01 1) ( A

. R

. I

. 15 ) [h er ei na ft er R ev is ed App li cati on ] ); see also R ev is ed

App li cati on

a t 2

. 2, 3

. 55 ( no ti ngth at t he F ac il ity “ is de si g ne d as as im

pl e- cy cl e, pe akin g , an d in te rm ed ia te lo ad ”) , 3

. 9. B oth th e R eg io n an d P io P ic o expl ai ne d th at th e re as on

b eh in d th e fa ci li ty ’sPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 50

A cc ordingto Pio P ic o, e ac h tur bine ta k es 10 m inute s to re ac h f

ull ca pac ity 40 and thus , i f

a ll thre e ar e st ar

te d up at t

he same t ime, th e thr ee tur bine s shoul d re ac h a com b in ed l o ad o f 3 00 MW w ithi n 10 minute s, not 30. Pio Pic o Re sp. at 6 n.1. Con sequent ly , the Region’s ref erences t o “ 3 0 minutes” are incorrect and sho uld read “10 m inu tes.” Id

. Because, f or the pu rpo ses of the f

ollo w ing analy sis, it do es not m atter wh et h erth e tu r

b i n es re ac h fu l l cap ac i ty a t 1 0 m i n u t es o r at3 0 min u t es –

th e t i me dif f er ent ia l be tw ee n 31⁄2 hours and e ithe r 10 or 30 m inute s is s til l s ig nif ic ant – the Boa

rd w ill re ta in a

nd us e the Re g ion’s re f

er enc es to 30 m inute s in t

he re m ai nder

of the de ci si on. purpo se an d d esig n w as “to directlysatisfy the San Dieg o are a de m and for pe ak ingand

load

- shapin gg eneration , n ear an d lon gterm .” R ev ised App li cati on

a t 2

. 1; accor

d Fa ct Sh eet & A AQ I R at 10 n. 4. The R eg io n al so emphas iz ed th at th e pr ojec t w as inte nd ed to supp ort ren ewab le pow er g eneration

. Fa ct Sh eet & A AQ I R at 10 n. 4, 16. Acco rdingto the Reg ion, “[the Facility ’s] capacity for freq uent and fast turbine startup s w ill prov ide n ecessary po wer to co m

pensate for the in te rm it te nt

n at ur e of w in d an d so lar g en er at io n, and thus w il l u lt im at el y pr ov id e cr it ic al s uppo rt f or th e g ro w tho f re ne w ab le e ne rgy s ourc es in the are a.” Fa ct Sh eet & A AQ I R at 10 n. 4. Base d o n the se co nsideratio ns, the R eg ion s tated in the Fact Shee t that “in order to satisfy its busine ss purpo se, the [Facility ] m ust b e able to offer units that: 1) are h ig hly flexib le and

t hat can pro v ide re g ul at io n duri ngth e m or ni ng an d ev en in g ram

ps , 2 ) can be r ep eate dl y s t a rt e d a nd s hu t do wn a s ne e de d, a nd3) ca n b e br ou ght on l i ne qu i c kly, ev en und er c ol d- st art c on dition s. ” F ac t S he et & A A Q I R

a t 1 6; accor

d id. a t1 0 n . 4

. T h e Re gi o nth e ne xp l a i n e d th a t“ t h e c o mp l e t e s t a rtup t i me fo r a co m

bi ned

- cyc le p lant

is ty pi ca ll y lo ng er th an th at o f a similarly -sized

sim ple cy cle plant.” Id . at 16 (em phasis added ). Thus, accord ingto the R eg ion, the sim ple- cy cle turb ines pr oposed for the Facility “can be dispatch e d f

r om ‘cold iron’ to 30 0 MW in less than 30 m inut es . B y

c om pari son , the m os t l ik el y c om bi ne d- cy cl e [ 40] alternativ e in [Gen eral E lect r i c C om pany ’s (“G E’s”)] produ ct offerin g – a 107F A pow er blo ck – wou ld be cap able o f prov idi ng a t m ost 160 MW in appro xim ately the sam e am ount of tim e.” Id . (fo otnotes and re fe re nc es om it te d)

. The R eg io n furthe r no te d th at , “[ e] v en w ith fastst art te chno lo g y , newcom bi ne d- cy cl e un it s li k e th e G E 7 F A m ay r eq ui rePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 51 up to 31⁄2 hours to achiev e full load unde r som e cond itions. These long er startup tim es are incom

patible with the purpose of the P roj ect to prov ide quick respo nse to ch ang es in the su pply and dem and of elec tricity .” Id

. at 17

. D ur i n gth e p ub l i c c o m m e n tp e r i o d , s e v e r a l c o m m e n t er s questio ned the R eg ion’s conclu sion that c ombined- cy cle g as turb ines wou ld no t be technica lly feasible for the p ropose d p lant. See, e. g., Letter from William C orcoran , R eg ’l D ir., Sierra Club , to R og e r Kohn, U .S. E P A , R eg io n 9, at 2- 5 (J ul y 2 4, 2 01 2) ( A

. R

. VI

- 33 ) [h er ei na ft er S ie rr a Club Cm t.] ; E- m ai l fr om

Rober t Sar vey

to Roger K ohn, U.S. EPA, atta ch

. a t 4

- 5 (Jul y

24, 2012) (A

. R

. VI

. 36 ) [h er ei na ft er S arv ey C mt. ]. Sierra Club raised two issue s. I t first argued that P io P ico’s C EC ap pl ic at io n li st ed

ad if fe re nt p ur po se th an di d th e R eg io n’ s F ac t S he et

. S ie rr a C lu

b C mt. a t 3 ( ci ti ngC E C S ta ff R ep ort at 3

- 1). A cc or di ngto Sierra Club , th e form erd oc um ent lists the p urpose of the F acility as prov idinga “m inim

um of 100 m eg awatts (MW ) of peakingand in te rm ed ia te

- cl as s re so ur ce s. ” S ie rr a C lu b C mt. at 3 (c it in g C E C S ta ff Rep or t at 3- 1). Sierra

C lub b eliev ed th at, b ecause the Reg ion’s Fact S he et s ta te d th at

a1 07 F A p ow er

b lo ck c om bi ne d- cy cl e pl ant c ou ld ac hi ev e qu ic k

s tart ca pa ci ty of at le as t 16 0 MW, th is te chno lo g y s ho ul d be c onside red in

the Reg ion’s BA CT analy sis an d w ould m eet the Facility ’s purpose as d e s c r i be d in the State applicatio n. Id

. Seco nd, Sierra Club contended

that a co m

bined- cy cle g as turbine co uld b e us ed if th e F ac il ity

wa s “s uf fi ci entl y siz ed so th at it c ou ld p ro du ce 3 00 MW with the turbines alone in 30 m inutes. ” Id. a t 4

. I n co nn ec ti on w ith th is po in t, S ie rr a C lu

b st at ed th at , a cc or din g to a st

ud y b y H enk el , “ w ith ce rt ai n up g ra de s, a40 0 MW[co m bi ne d- cy cl e g as tur

bi ne ] can re ac h fu ll pow er w ithin 4 0 m inutes after a cold start.” Id . at 5. Ano t her co m m ente r, Mr

. S arv ey , a ss erte d th at “m od er n co m bi ne d cy cl e pr ojec ts hav e start tim es that are sim ilar to ‘sim ple c ycle peak er plants’” an d referred to certa in units propo sed for use at the WillowPa ss G enerating Station. S arv ey

C mt. at 4- 5. The Reg ion a ddresse d t he com m enters’ conce rns an d sug g estions in the respo nse to co m m ents docum ent. See R TC at 2 7- 30, 52- 54. Am ongothe r thing s, the R eg ion re iterated and further explain edPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 52 its conclusion reg ardingthe technica l feasibility of com bined- cy cle g as turbines, clearly

indic ati ngthat it foun d the control technology to be “inapp licable”: E P A di sa g re es w ith th e co m m ente r th at

c om bi ne d cy cl e g as turb ines are technically feasib le for this p roj ect for the rea sons ex plained

in detail in

our Fa ct Sh eet. Fo r exam ple, EPAhas longheld

that whe n as sessingthe te c h n i c a l f

e a s i b i l i t y o f a c o n t r o l t e c h n o l o g y , i tis appro priate to consid er whe ther the techno log y m ay reasona bly be deploy ed o n, or is ap pl ic ab le to , th e source ty pe unde r con sideration

. Our Fact Shee t for the Proposed Perm it clearly exp lained that the longer startup times are not c omp atible w ith the ope r ationa l ch arac te ri

st ics of th e prop os ed

fa ci li tyand

that t hese technica l difficulties woul d p reclude success ful deploy m ent o f a com

bined cy cle op eration in this ca se. RTC at 27 (em

phasis added ). The Reg ion next address ed Sierra Club ’s com m ent reg ardingthe project’s “purp ose” as describe d in the CE C applicatio n. R TC at 2 8- 29. The Reg ion s tated tha t “[i]n our v iew, the statem ent th at the Project sho u l d i n c l u d e ‘ a m i n i m u m o f 1 0 0 m e g a w a t t s ’ m e r e l y s p e c i f i e s a minim um requ irem ent.” Id . at 28 (em phasis a dd e d)

. The Reg ion a lso specifically

add ressed Sierra Club ’s sug g estions about resiz ingthe plant and usingothe r po tential co nfigurations so th at com bined

- c ycl e g as turbines could be u sed at the Facility

. Id . at 29- 30. The Reg ion s tated: The com m enter s ug g ests, for exam ple, that a com

bined cy c l e p l a n t c o u l d b e s i z e d s o t h a t i t i s c ap ab le of produ cing30 0 MW in

the first 30 m inutes witho ut the aid o f the [heat re cov ery steam g enerator] a nd steam g enerator. T he com

m enter then su g g ests that onc e the [h eat re co v er

y ste am g en er at or ] an d st eam

g en er at or are f ul l y fu n c t i on a l , t he fu e l supp l y co ul d b e sc a l e d b a c k. We f i n d t h i s n o t i o n t o b e i l l

- s up p o rt e d andPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 53 unpe rsuasiv e. To fol l ow the co m m enter’s sug g estion wou ld be to g rossly ov ersiz e the fac ilityand requ ire the applicant to procure, constru ct, and m aintain addition al g en er at in gc ap ac ity

th at i t m ay

n ev er u se and th at is incons istent w ith the pow er purchase ag reem e nt that serv es a s th e fund am enta l b as is f or th e pr ojec t. Furthe rm ore, g as turb i ne s (whether sim ple cy cle or com bined cy cle) are m

uch less efficient whe n o perated at low er load s. T he c om m enter h as n ot de m onstrated th at a co m bi ne d cy cl e pl ant th at is larg er th an n ec es sary but the n op er at ed at p arti al lo ad s w ou ld b e m or e efficient th an th is Pro

j ect. We a l s o n ote th at the co m m ente r ha s m is re pr es ente d w hat the H enk el r ep ort say s. Th e re po rtin

f ac t s ta te s th at

w ith ce rt ai n up g ra de s, as tart

- up time of les s th an

4 0 m inut es is possib le for a 40 0 MW c om bined cy cle plant after an ov er ni g ht s hutd own. Th is de sc ri be s ho t s tart , n ot c ol d start con ditions. Id . at 30. F in al ly , in

r es po ns e to com

m ents r ef er en ci ngc om

bi ne d- cy cl e units at WillowPa ss G enera tingStatio n, the R eg ion s tated th at the inform ation was unpe rsuasiv e be cause “[a] pe rm it for th is f a cility w as nev er pro posed

or finaliz ed, an d we w ere rece ntly no tified by

the Bay A re a [Air Q ua li ty

Mana g em ent D is tr ic t] th at th e ap pl ic at io n fo r th is facility has bee n cancelled. ” Id. at 53

. The Reg ion fu rther n oted that the un ita t i ss ue “ ha s a ne t g en er at in gcap ac ity of 27 5 MWand

it can op er at e down to a m inim

um l oa d of 6 0 p ercent, or appro xim ately 16 5 MW,” wh e r e a s th e un i t s pr op os e d f orP i o Pi c o “ ha ve apr a c t i c a l op e r a t i ng r a nge dow n t o 50 MW.” Id. at 53

- 54. The Reg ion e xplaine d that, as it h ad di sc us se d init s F ac t S he et , “ itis an ec es sary e le m ent of

th e P ro ject to operate ov er a wide rang e of loads and the un i t sug g ested by the com m enter is not c apable of satisfy ingthat objective .” Id . at 54.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 54

Mr . Si m

pson addi tiona lly

a ss er ts that t he Re g ion “ ig nore d [his] c om m ent s 41 on the m atte r.” Sim

pson Pet. at 8. He does not, how ev er , indicate wha t sp eci f ic com m ents the Region allege dly ignored o r w

here he raised such c omm ents. Upo n review of Mr . Si m pson’ s tw o-pa g e com

m ent le tte r, the Boa

rd is una ble to loc at e any

c om m ent th at i s r e l at e d t o th e R e g i o n ’ s B A C T an a l y s i s f o r G HG s. See gene ral ly

Sim pson Cm t. at 1-2. A s discussed in P art V III.C, Mr. Sim pson submitted a nu m

ber of re po rts, stud ies, and othe r doc um ent s to t he Re g ion a s atta chm ent s to a s er ie s of e -m ai ls , but

f ai le d to inc lude any

e xpla nat ion or a rgum ent

a s to t hose doc um ent s’ re le v anc e to t hes e PSD proc ee ding s. I nsof

ar a s Mr. Sim

pson m ay be c la im ingthat t

her e is s om et h in g w ithi n tho se do cum ents that he inten ded a s a com m ent on the Region’s BA CT an d / o rGHG ana l y s i s , the B oa

r d h a s a l r e a dy

de t e rm i ne d t

hatthe R e g i ondi d n ot

c l e ar l y e rr or a buse its discretion by

not provid ing a detailed respon se to those particul ar com m ents. Beca

use it is P et i tion er’s burde n on a ppea l t o de m onst

rate that B oar d re v ie w

of an is sue is w ar ra nte d, w ithout

s pec if ic re f er enc e to o r e v ide nce of an a lle g edl y

“ ig nore d” BA CT /G HG

com m ent, th e Board is unp ersuaded th at the Region erred in ig no ring such a com m ent

. Fur

the rm ore , a s Mr. Sim

pson him se lf

point s out i n c onnec tion w ith this ar g um ent , the Re g ion di d “ re pl[y ] to a no th er com

m ent er ” on thi s is sue . S im pson Pet. at 7-8 (quoti ng the Regi on’s s um m ar y of the othe r c om

m ent and part of

the Re g ion’s respon se to i t )

. Th e R egion is not required“to respon d to ea ch com m ent in an ind ividualized m anner.” In re NE H ub Par tne rs, LP , 7 E .A .D . 561, 583 (E A B 1998) , re vi ew de nie d s ub nom . Pe nn Fue l Gas , Inc. v . EP A , 185 F .3d 862 ( 3d Ci r. 1999). It is only requi re d to re spond to a ll si g nif ic ant c om m ent s, se e id. , w

hic h it did r eg ar dingthi s is sue . See RT C a

t 27- 30, 53- 54. For

the se re as ons, re v ie w

of thi s is sue is de nie d. 2. Mr. S im ps on F ai le d to C on fr on t t heR eg io n’

s R es po ns es to Com men ts and Expla in W hy They W

ere Clea rly E

rroneo us on His Gen eral C

hallenge to the R egion’s Elimi na t ion o f Combi ned

-Cy cl e Gas Tur bin es as BACT I n hi s pe ti ti on , Mr. S im

ps on g en er al ly

c ha ll en g es th e R eg io n’ s BA CT an a l ysi s fo r

GHG s , as s e rt i ng t ha tth e Re gio n “ s ho ul d h a ve required a com bined- cy cle configuration as BAC T.” Sim psonPet. at 8. 41 Mr. S im ps on, h ow ev er , f

ai ls to a dd

re ss th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se s to co m m ents o n th es e sam e is sue s or expl ai n w hy th e R eg io n’ s explan ations were clearly erron eous. He m erely

recites statem ents fro m the respon se to com

m ents docum ent. See id. at 7- 8 (q uotingR TC at 5 3- 54). F urtherm ore, contrary to Mr. S im

pson ’s im plication, see id

. at 7 , the R eg ion d id in fact “addre ss” the relev ant “factors” that led it to s elect sing le- cy cle ov er co m

bined- cy cle g as turb ines. See RT C a t 27- 30, 53

- 54 ; see a lso in

fra Part VI I I .E. 1 (sum

m ariz ingand

discu ssingthe Reg ion’s analy sis).PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 55 As the B oard has explain ed o n m any occ asions, petitioners m

ust describe eachob

j ection they

are raisingand

exp lain whyth e pe rm it issuer’s respon se to petitioners’ com men t s duringthe com

m ent p eriod is clearlyerroneous or o therw ise w arrants consid eration. E.g

. , I n re Cit y of P al m da le , P SD Appeal No. 11

- 07, slip op. at 3 2- 34 (EA B Sept. 17 , 2012 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _

_, appea l

do cketed sub nom . S

imps on v. EPA , N o. 12- 74 12 4 (9 thC ir

. D ec . 1 8, 2 01 2) ; I n re D es er et

P ow er E le ct

. Coo p. , P S D App ea l N o. 0 7- 03 , sli p op. at 2 0 (E A B N ov . 1 3, 2 00 8) , 14 E

. A

. D

. _

_; In re PeabodyW

. C oal C o. , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 2 2, 3 3 (E A B 2 00 5) ; In re I ndeck -Elw ood, LL C , 13 E.A.D. 126 , 143, 170 (EAB 2006) (“[ A] pe ti ti on er ’s f

ai lure to a dd

re ss th e pe rm itis su er ’s res po ns e to c om m ents is f at al to it s re qu est fo r re v ie w . ”) ; see a lso su pra Part I I I

. Here, Mr. S im ps on ha s fa il ed

to d o so . M er el y

d is agre ei ngw ith th e R eg io n’ s conclu sion and alleg ingerror is insu fficient to ov ercom e his burde n o f de m on stra ti ngth at

th e R eg io n cl ear ly e rr ed and th er ef or e re v ie wis warranted, especially in this ca se where the R eg ion p rov ided a leng thy discuss ion o f its ratio nale. See , e.g. , Rus se ll Cit y , s lip op . at 91- 92, 15 E

. A

. D

. a t _

_; I n r e A s h G r o v e C

emen t C o. , 7 E. A. D. 38 7, 404 (E A B 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ G e n e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f e rr o r , w i t h o u tam o r e s p e ci fi c show ing* * * , are no t sufficient to obtain Board rev iew. ”). Moreov er, as n oted abov e, whe re analternativ e co ntrol o ption has been ev aluated and r ej ected, thos e fav oringthe option m ust sh ow that the ev idence “for” th e co ntrol o ption clearly outweighs th e ev idence “ag ainst” its app lication. See supra P art V I I I

. E ; s ee a lso in fra discu ssion P art V I I I

. E

. 4. b. B y

n eg le ct in gto a ddress t he R eg io n’ s an al y si s whatsoev er, Mr. S im

psonhas also failed to dem onstrate t hat th e ev idence for co m

bined- cy cle g as turb ines c learly outweighs th e ev i d ence ag ainst its applicatio n. See Maui E lec. , 8 E.A .D

. at 15 (deny ingrev iew w he re p e t i t i o n e r f

a i l e d t o d i s c u s s t h e p e rm i t i s s u e r ’ s r e s p o n se to com m ents explainin gwhy

it rej ected a co ntrol tec hnolo g y and thus failed to d em on stra te why

it s ev id en ce c le ar ly

ou tw ei g he d th e pe rm itis su er ’s ev id en ce ). F or

th es e re as on s, th e B oard

d en ie s re v ie wo f Mr. S im ps on ’s g en e r a l i z e d

c l a i m s r e g ar d i n g

th e R eg io n’ s el im in at io n of c om bi ne d- cy cl e g as turb ines fro m

its B AC T analy sis for g reenho use g ases.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 56 3. Sierra Club H as Preserved

O ne of Its Subs tantive Issues for Review Sie rr a Club chal le nges the s ubs ta nce o f the Re gion’ s st ep 2 GHG BA CT analy sis on two prim ary g round s. Sierra Club first contends that the Reg ion im

prope rly defined “source ty pe” for purpos e s of

the te chni ca l f

ea si bil it y ana ly si s “b as ed

o n de si g n- sp ec if

ic a ttri bute s of

it s preferred produ ction process , to the exclusio n o f clean er pro duction process es.” Sierra

C lub P et. at 11. A ccordin gto Sierra Club , if the Re gio n h a d p r op e r l y de f i ne d “ s ou r c e typ e ,” th e Re gio n w o u l d h a ve co nc lu de d th at

c om bi ne d- cy cl e g as turb in es ar e “d em on stra te d” w ithi n the m e a ningof the ste p 2 ana ly sis an d thu s w ould not h av e elim inated the tec hnolo g y

at th at step

. Id . at 15- 16. Within this section of its brief, Sierra C lub a lso q

uestion s the basis for the startup an d r a mp rates the R eg ion u sed in its analy sis. Sierra Club claim s that, altho ug h the R eg ion s tates that the produ ction process m

ust ac hiev e a sta r tup rate of 100 MW in 1 0 m inutes and 300 MW i n 30 m inutes, “no thingin the rec ord specifies this p articular rate.” Id . at 18. Thus, accordingto Sierra Club , th e rates are “n ot ba sed on an y re c o r d e vid e nc e ” bu tin s t e a d o n “ vagu e , ge ne r a l i zed , n a rr a t i ve de sc ri pt io ns ” of

th e F ac il ity ’s op er at in gpar am et er s, wh ic h it b el ie v es to be in ap pr op ri at e inth e B A C T c onte xt

. As explain ed in

Part I I I , in

ord er for an issue to be prese rv ed fo r pur p o s e s o f a dm i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w , i t m u s t h a v e b e e n r a i s e d b e f

ore th e perm ittingauth ority

duringthe public com

m ent pe r i od (includingany pu bl ic h eari ng s) , unl es s th e is sue w as n ot r ea so na bl y a sc erta in ab le duri ngth e co m

m ent peri od. Ono cc as io n, whe re th e pe rm itis su er ’s reasonin gon an issue was not clearly ascertainab le from the record at the draft p erm it stag e but w as later clarified fo llowin gthe close of the com m ent p eriod (for exam

ple, in the res pons e to com m ents d ocum ent o r duri ng th e ap pe al pr oc es s) , th e B oard ha s co ns id er ed th e is su e on

a pp ea l, conclu dingthat such issue had not truly been “rea sonab ly

asce rtainable. ” See , e.g. , In re Prairie StateG enera ting C o. , 1 3 E. A. D. 1, 45 n. 41 (E A B 20 06 ) (“ B ec au se [the pe rm it is su er ]’ s an al y si s expl ai ni ngwhy it w as r ejec ti ng [the co ntro l op ti on ] w as no t pr ov id ed in th e re co rd

p ri or toPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 57

In its repl y , Si er

ra Cl ub did not r es pond to the Re g ion’s c onte ntion that t he 42 Boa rd s hould de ny

re v ie w of the se c la im s on proc edur al g rounds

. th e pu bl ic co m m ent pe ri od , but in st ea d w as p ro v id ed f or th e fi rs t t im e in respon se to com

m ents, [the perm it issuer]’s reasonin gw as n ot ascertainab le befo re the close of public com m ent and m ay

be challen g ed for the first tim e on

app eal.”), aff’d su b n om. Sier r a Cl ub v. E PA , 49 9 F

. 3d 6 53 ( 7th C ir

. 2 00 7) ; In re Cam po Lan dfill

Project , 6 E.A.D. 505, 51 7- 19 (EA B 1996 ) (con sideringissue that becam e clear in the perm it issuer’s respon se to t he p etition, but “ was not s o clear as to be ‘reasona bly asce rtainable’ duringthe public com m ent p eriod”). Sierra Club raised

tw o is sues about the Reg ion’s technica l fe as ib il ity an al y si s in it s co m m ents on th e dr af

t p erm it , f ir st p oi nt in gto difference s be tween

the “purp ose” listed in

Pio Pico ’s C EC app lication and the p urpose no ted in the Reg ion’s Fact S heet, and secon d as serting that co m bined- cy cle g as turb ines c ould be fe asible if the propo sed fa c i l i t y w a s s i z e d s ub s t a n t i a l l y l a r g e r . S i e rr a C l ub C mt

. a t 3

- 5. S ie rr a C lu b di d no t, h ow ev er , c le ar ly r ai se th e qu es ti on

o f th e ap pr op ri at e “source ty

pe” definition that shou ld be used in a step 2 B AC T analy sis, nor did it questio n the bas is for the R e gio n’ s s t artup and ram p rates

. These issue s, therefore, are potentially pro cedura lly

barred

. 42 Non etheless, the Board w ill cons ider t he s ubstan ce o f the first issue – the Reg ion’s definitionof “source ty pe” – b elow

. This particular issue is arguably

a n a t ur a l progression from the com m ents S ierra C lub didrai se co nce rni ng st ep 2 of the Regio n’s g r e e nhou se gas BACT analy sis an d the Reg ion’s respon ses to thos e co m m ents. See , e.g. , In re Cap e W ind A ssoc. , O CS Appeal No . 11- 01, slip op. at 12 (EAB May 20, 2011 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _

_ (explainingthat the ap propriate tim e to questio n in fo rm at io n th e pe rm itis su er a dde d to th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd in re sp on se to pu

bl ic com m ents is inan ap pe al to th e B oard ); In re NE H ub Partn ers, LP , 7 E. A. D. 56 1, 587 n.1 4 (E AB 19 98) (sam e), reviewden ied sub. no m Penn Fu el G as, Inc. v. EPA , 1 8 5 F. 3 d 8 6 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 9 )

. It ap pe ar s th at

S ie rr a C lu

b m ay h av e re co g ni z ed

f ro m th e R egio n’ s respon ses to com

m ents th at the real dispute betwee n the parties related to the differinginterp retations of “so urce ty pe” within

the BA CT step 2PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 58

an al y si s. It w as n ot

until th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se s to c om m ents th at

it becam e clear that the R eg ion h ad d et e r m ined that the techn olog y w as technica lly

infeas ible unde r step 2 becau se the R eg ion h ad fo und it to b e “inapp licable.” See RTC at 27 (using the term “applica ble” as well as st atingthat technica l difficulties wou ld pre clude the “s uccessfu l deploy m ent” o f a com

bined- cy cle op eration, a term that is ty pically use d in an “ap plicability ” asse ssm ent). I t also becam e clearer in th e resp onse to c om m ents d ocu m ent that the R eg io n’ s co nc lu si on w as s ig ni fi cant ly influenc ed b y the 300 MW desig n elem ent: the Reg ion’s listingof k ey oper a t i o n a l f

a c t o r s i n t h e F a c t S h e e t d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e s i z e o f the facility per se, see Fa ct Shee t & A AQ I R at 16 (listingthree factors), but in its respon ses to com

m ents, the Reg ion e m

phasiz ed th e im

portanc e of the F acility ’s 300 MW pow er output to a m uch g reater d eg ree, see, e.g. , R TC a t 2 8- 30

. O n th e othe r hand , Sie rr a C lu b d id m enti on the 30 0 MW in the com

m ents it subm itted, sug g estingits awaren ess th at siz e affecte d t he Re gio n’ s de c i s i on maki ng. Moreov er, not o nly

is th e issu e P etitioner raises h ere – the pro per def initio n of “s ourc e ty

pe ” w ithi n th e m eani ng of st ep 2 of a BACT analy sis – an iss ue o f first im pression befo re t he B oard, it is also a cr it ic al q u e s t i o n tha t, i n cer ta in ca ses , can af fe ctthe en ti re BACT determ ination. I f perm ittingauth orities d efine “ source t y pe” too narrow ly , th is prac tice co uld le ad to the elim ination of technolog ies that sh ou ld h av e be en

s el ec te d as “ [t ]h e m os t e ff ec ti v e co ntro l opt io n” in s t ep 5. N

SR Ma nu al at B .9. G iv en th e im portanc e of this k ey inte r p r e t i v e i s s u e , th e B o a r d

w i l l r e s o l v e an y

am b i g u i t y a s t o w hether this issu e w as reas onab ly a s c e r t ainable in fav or o f the petitioner. See Cam po , 6 E. A. D. at 5 19. A ccordin g ly , th e B oard declines to deny rev iew of this issue on proced ural ground s as t he Reg ion re quests and will a ddress the su

bstance of the issu e in the n ext se ction. The B oard

d oe s, h ow ev er , c on cl ud e th at S ie rr a C lu

b fa il ed to preserv e its challeng e to the p articul a r c ol d start and ram p rates up on w hi chth e R eg io n re li es . Th e stat ements S ie rr a C lu b qu es ti on s ar e co nt ai ne d inth e R eg io n’ s F ac t S he et , b ut Sie rr a C lu b di d no t o bjec t t o the se lected rates d

uringthe com

m ent p eriod. See Sierra Club Cm t. at 2- 5. Sierra Club, in fact, referred to the 3 0 m inute/30 0 MW req uirem entPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 59 in its com

m ents, but d id no t chal l eng e the basis of tho se sele cted num bers. See id. at

4

. B ec au se th is is su e w as r ea so na bl y a sc erta in ab le and Sierra Club failed to raise it durin gthe com m ent p eriod, Sierra

C lub fa il ed to pres er ve the is sue f o r re view, and t hus m ay not ra is e it now. Acco rding ly , th e B oard declines rev iew of this latter issue

. 4. Sierra Club Has N

ot D emo nstrated

Th at theRe

gion Define d “So urce Type ” T

oo Narrow ly in Step 2

a. N SR Man ua l S

te p 2: Q uest io n of

T ec hn ic al F ea si bi li ty I n step 2 of the NSR Manu al ’s “to p- down” B AC T analy sis, perm it issuers elim inate “ technica lly infeas ible” o ptions from the potentially

av ailable c ontrol option s identi f i ed in step 1. NSR Manu al at B. 7. S te p 2 inv ol v es f

ir st d et erm in in gf

or e ac h te chno lo g y

whe th er it is “de m onstrated ,” or in other word s, whe ther it has been “installed and operated suc cessfully on the ty

pe of source unde r rev iew. ” Id . at B .17

. I f a techno log y

has n ot been “d em onstrated ,” the an aly sis be com es “so m e w h a t m o r e i n v o l v e d , ” r e qu i r i n g a d e t e rm i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r the techno log y

is b oth “ av ailable” and “applica ble.” I d

. An “a vai l abl e ” te c hn ol ogy i s on e th a t“c a n be ob t a i ne d t hr ou gh com m ercial ch annels or is otherw ise av ailable within the c om m on sense m eaning of the term .” Id

. An “applica ble” te chno log y

is o ne th at “can reas on a bly

be installed and operated on the source ty

pe under consid eration. ” Id . T hu s , ac ommer c i a l l y a vai l abl e co nt r ol te c hn ol ogy will g enerally

be presum ed a

pplic a ble “if it has been or is soonto be deploy ed (e .g ., is spe cified in a perm it) on the sam e or a sim ilar source ty pe.” Id

. at B

. 18

. O n th e othe r hand , “[ a] sho wing of unr es ol v ab le technica l difficulty

w ith ap ply ingthe control wo uld constitute a sh owin g of technical in feasibility

(e. g ., si ze of th e un it , lo cation of the pro posed site, and op erating

pro blem s r elated to sp ecific circ ums tances of the source ).” Id. a t B

. 19 ( em ph as is a dd ed ). Te chni ca l i nf ea si bi li ty is ty pically dem onstrated

bas ed o n “a

techn ical asse ssm ent co nsidering phy sical, chem ical an d en gin e e ringprinc iples * * * sh owin gthat the techno log y

w ould not w ork

on the em issions unit under rev iew, or that unreso lv able te chnical difficulties wou ld pre clude the suc cessfulPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 60

P io P ico seem s to interp ret this and o ther sim ilar statem ents to mea n that

43 Sie rr a Cl ub is arg

uingthat “ the Re g ion e rr ed by f indinga c o m

b in ed c y cl e pla

nt t o be te chnol og ic al ly

inf ea si ble unde r S te p 2 of its BA CT ana ly si s ins te ad of unde r S te p 1 of the anal y si s. ” Pio Pico R es p. at 5; acc ord id. at 9. T he Boa

rd doe s not r ea d Sie rr a Cl ub’s petitio n to raise this issue, which w ou ld be inconsisten t w ith it s overa rchin g positio n th at the BA CTe m is si on limits f or G HG s at the Fa ci lit

y shoul d be bas ed on c om bine d-c y cl e (c ontinue d...) deploy m ent of the techniq

ue.” Id

. a t B

. 20 ; see a lso In deck, 13 E.A .D . at 134 (“A techno log y

is a pplicab le on ly

if it can be ‘rea sonab ly

installed and operated

on the source ty

pe under consid eration, ’ in lig ht of howthe particular control option has been used in the p ast an d h ow that p ast us e c ompa r e s to th e pr op os e d p r oj e c t .” (q uo t i ng N SR Manual

a t B

. 17 ))

. Nota bly , th e NSR Manu al pr ov id es th at “ [t ]e chni ca l ju dgm ent o n th e part of th e ap pl ic ant and

th e re v ie wauthor ity

is to b e ex er ci se d in determ iningwhether a co ntrol a lternativ e is applicab le to the so urce ty pe unde r con sideration .” N

SR Ma nu al at B .18

. Technolog ies ide ntified in step 1 as “potentially ” av ailable, but th at are nei th er

“de m on stra te d” no r fo un d af te r care fu l re v ie wto be b oth “av ailable” and “applica

ble,” are elim inated unde r step 2 fr om fu rther BA CT analy sis. See id. at B .7, B .17

- B. 21.

b. T heR eg io n’

s Ste p 2 A na ly si s W as C on si st en t W ith the N SR Manual and Boa rd C

ase Law I n its petition, Sierra

C lub c halleng es the R eg ion’s technica l feasibility

ana ly sis on

the g round

that the R eg ion im

properly“rejected the co m bined- cy cle pro duction

pro cess b ecause it d eterm ined that the as sum ed startup ti m es o f th e part ic ul ar te chno lo g y

[ P io P ic o] s el ec te d to m eet S DG &E ’s 2009 RFO defined the ‘source typ e’ within the m eaning of a Step 2 an aly sis.” Sierra C lub P et. at 14. A ccordin gto Sierra Club , “‘ so ur ce ty

pe ’ re fe rs to a gen er al c at eg or y o f em is si on s so ur ce s, n ot to specific desig n elem ents o f a specific propo sed facility .” Id

. Sierra Club furthe r as se rt s th at , b y

r el y in go n th e RF O , “the Re gion is d oi ngin Step 2 o f the BA CT analy sis what it is prohib ited from doing in Step 1 – elim inatinga control techno log y by narrowly definingthe purpo se o f the p roj ect to preclud e the use of applicab le control technolog ies.” Id

. 43PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 61

(.. .c ontinue d) 43 gas turb ines.

On ap p eal , n o n e o f th e p art ie s h ave p o in te d to an y th in g in th e ad m in is tr at ive 44 re cor d s ug g es tingthat t his te chnol og y

ha s bee n us ed in a

s im ila r pe akingand or pea k ing/int er m edi at e- cl as s f

ac ili ty . A lthough one c om m ent er ci te d a f

ac ili ty w her e the te chnol og y

ha d a lle g edl y

be en propos ed f

or us e, upon i nv es tig at ion, the Re g ion det er m ine d that the pe rmit in que st ion ha d ne v er be en propos ed or f

ina liz ed. R T C a

t 53. T he Re g ion pr oper ly

dis count ed W ill ow

Cr ee k ’s a lle g ed usa g e of c om bine d-c y cl e techno logy

as “dem on strated.” Id. at 53- 54; se e NSR M anual at B .17. I n es sence, Sierra

Club is claim ingthat the Reg ion defined “source ty pe” too n arrow ly

in step 2 and , in

do ingso, im

prope rly con cluded

that the te chn o l o g y

w a s n o t“ d e m o n s t r a t e d

. ” F o r th e f o l l o w i n gr e a s o n s , S i e rra Club ’s argum ents are insu fficient to show that the R eg ion c learly

erred in its definition of “source ty pe” and in its technica l feasibility ana ly sis. Here, in order for the Reg ion to hav e de term ined that co mbinedcy cle g as turb ines are “ina pplicab le” to the “source ty pe” in qu estion, the Re gio n mus tfi r s tha ve c on c l ud e d t ha t c ombi ne d-cyc l e ga s tu r

bi ne s ha ve not been installed or operated successfu lly (i.e., are no t “dem onstrated ”) on the “ty pe o f source” under rev iew. NSR Manu al at B. 17. S ierra C lub asserts th at such a co nclusio n is erroneo us b ecause “[h]undred s of such fa ci li ti es e xi st

in th e U ni te d S ta te s. ” S ie rr a C lu b P et

. a t 1 6. Th e B oard pr es um es th at

S ie rr a C lu

b is larg el y re fe rr in g to th e te chno lo g y ’s u se in ba se lo ad

and /o r in te rm ed ia te

- on ly

lo ad f ac il it ie s, f

or whi chth is statem ent w ould be true. B ased on this statem ent, Sierra Club intim ates 44 that “s ource ty

pe” shou ld include all gas- fired electric g eneratingplants. Si e rr aCl ub fu rt he r

as s e rt s th a t , i n o r de r f

or t he Re gio n t o h a ve com e to its “de m onstration ” co nclusio n, i t m ust h av e de fined “source ty pe” to inc lude only

the “qualities specific t o [ t he Fa cility ].” Se e id

. at 15

- 16. Sierra Club argues that this appro ach is erron eous based on the dictionary

defin ition o f

“ty pe,” which “refers to a g roup, categ ory , o r class and not to a particular applicant or a particular fac ility ’s un ique de sig n elem ents.” Id. a t1 5 ( c i t i n gM e rr i a m - W e b s t e r ’ s C o l l e g ia te E di ti on 13 54 (11 thed. 2 00 3) ( re fe rr in gto th e fo urthli st ed d ef in it io n) ). Sierra Club also points to lan guag e in the NSR Manu al that su g g es tsPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 62

“‘ so ur ce ty

pe ’ is d is ti nc t f

ro m a p arti cu lar so ur ce b ec au se i t l oo k s to sim ilar facilities with sim ilar phy sical a nd chem ical em ission c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s an d n ot to t h e s pe c i f i c qu a l i t i e s of

th e pa rt i c ul a r

de s i gn put fo rward

by the applicant.” Id . ( c i t i ng NSR Manu al at B

. 18 ). The B oard

a g rees w ith S ie rr a C lu

b’ s g en er al c onte nt io n th at , unde r the languag e of the N S R M a n u al , “source ty

pe” refers to a categ ory or class, a nd n ot a specific desig n. Id

. a t 1 5. Th is d oe s no t, how ev er, m ean that the categ ory m ust be as broad as Sierra Club im plies. Moreov er, the B oard does not f ind th at the Reg ion c onstrue d “s ource ty pe” in this case as n arrow ly as Sierra Club contends it did. The a dm in is tr at iv e re co rd cle ar ly ind ic at es that the R eg io n di d n o tc o n s i d e r

a l l p o w e r

p l a n t s t o b e th e “ s o ur c e ty p e ” i ni ts step 2 feasibility

ana ly sis. Instead, as describe d ab ov e, the R eg ion d efined the relev ant “s ource ty

pe” as a peakingand

load

- shapin gfacility , o ne th at c o u l d p r o v i d e b e t w e e n5 0 an d 3 0 0 M W o f

p o w e r. See F ac t S he et

& A A Q I R a t 1 , 3 , 10 n . 4, 16

- 19 ; R TC at 28 , 5 3; see a lso R eg ion R esp. at 1 9 (s t a t i ng that “th e ty

pe o f source under rev iew is a peakingand load

sh ap in guni t” ). The NSR Manu al

do es n ot pro v ide a definitionof “source ty pe” in the context o f the s t e p 2 a naly sis. The NSR Manu al , h owe v er, does cont a i n e xa mpl e s of

BAC T an a l yse s su gges t i ng t ha tdi f f e r e nt operational characteristics of pow er plants ca n p o tentially

distinguish them

and place the m int o dif fe re nt “s our ce t ype” cat egori es f or pu rpo ses of a BACT analy sis. See NSR Manu al a t B

. 57

- B

. 75

. In il lu stra ti ngh ow to p er fo rm a B AC T analy sis, the NSR Manu al differentiates be t we e n thre e cate g or ie s or

“ ty pe s” o f st at io nary

g as turb in e pr ojec ts : as im pl e- cy cl e g as turb ine firingnatural g as, a com bined- cy cle g as turbine firingnatural g as, and a co m

bin e d-cyc l e g as turb ine firingdistillate oil. Id . at B .57

. Whi l e s o m e o f t h e t e c h n i c a l p o i n t s o f t h e s e 1 9 9 0 e x a m p l e s m a y be outdate d, this set of exam ples dem onstrates that the “source ty pe” unde r consid eration m ay

inclu de s om ethingless than all gas turbine facilities. Id

. Addi tionally , th ese three ex am ples in dicate that a perm itting authority m ay disting uish betwe en ty

pes of electric g eneratingplants and gro up th e m a s di f

f e r e nt “s ou r c e typ e s ” – f orex a mpl e , p e a kin g,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 63

Whi le the sta

te m ent s in t

hes e ca se s w er e m ade in the c onte x t of s te p 1, see , 45 e. g., Prair ieState , 13 E .A .D . at 25; Ke ndall , 11 E .A .D . at 51- 52 & n .1 4 , th ere is no re as on that t

hes e princ ip le s woul d not si m ila rly a pply to st ep 2 a s w el l. T he ques tions bein g a dd resse d in bot h steps go to the definitio n of “s ou rce.” interm ediate, and

bas e load f

a c i lities – whe n it determ ines th at the sig nificantly

different operatingscen arios o f eachty pe re quire such a di st in ct io n. Th e R eg io n’ s ap pr oa ch in th is ca se , th er ef or e, is g en er al ly consistent w ith thes e ex am ples. N otabl y, Sierra Club ’s defin ition o f “source ty

pe” is seem ing ly

so broad that it wo uld not

b e co ns is te nt

w ith these exam

ples. Not only is th e R eg ion’s analy sis co nsi s tent w ith A g ency g ui danc e, b ut

it is als o co ns on ant w ith B oard c as el awd is cu ss in gp lant s operatin gin different m odes. The Board has noted that p lants o perating in “p eak ingm ode” t ypi c a l l y rem ain id le m uch of the tim e, but c an b e s t a rt e d up wh e n p o w e r

de man d i nc r e a s e s , i .e ., at ti mes of “p e a k” dem and, and , unlik e ba se loa d p lants, ty pically use sim

ple- cy cle rath er than com bined- cy cle un its as well as sm aller turb ines. E

. g. , R us se ll Cit y , sl ip o p. a t 3 1 & n . 16 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ; In re Ken dall New

C entury Dev. , 11 E

. A

. D

. 40 , 50

- 52 (E A B 2 00 3) ; In re Rock Gen En ergy Ctr. , 8 E.A.D. 536, 53 7- 38 ( E A B 1 99 9) ; In re Com mon wea lth C hesap eake Cor

p. , 6 E .A .D . 7 64, 76 6 n .3 (EA B 19 97 ) . Bec ause of the se d ifferences, the B oard h as “ re co g ni z ed

that it [i s] app ro pr ia te for th e pe rm it ti ngautho ri ty to dis tinguish betw een electric g enerating station s desig ned to fun ction a s ‘b a s e lo a d ’ fa c i l i t i e s an d t ho s e de s i gne d t o f un c t i on as ‘p e a kin g’ facilities, and that this distinction affects how the facility is d esig ned and the p ollutant em issions control equip m ent that can be effectiv ely used by the fac ility .” In re Prairie StateG enera ting C o. , 1 3 E .A .D

. 1, 25 45 (EA B 2006 ), aff’d sub nom . S ierra Club v. EP

A , 4 99 F

. 3d

6 53 ( 7th C ir

. 20 07 ); see a lso In re Maui E l ec. Co. , 8 E. A. D. 1, 16

- 22 (EA B 1998 ) (discussin gk ey

distinc tions betw een t hr ee m odes of o perating com bustion turbine g enerators – sim ple cy cle, com

bined cy cle, and cog eneration

– and conclu dingthat techno log y app ropriate for one m odePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 64

T he Boa

rd ha s al so note d that a cha ng e f rom a ba se loa d to a pea

k ingf ac ili ty 46 co u ld be co n si d ere dar ed efin it io n o f t h e p ro p o sed faci li ty's d esi gn an dth u s co u ld ju st ify th e elimination of

the opti on in st ep 1 of

the BA CTanal y si s. Pr

air ieState , 13 E .A .D

. at25 (ci ti n g Ke ndall , 11 E .A .D . at 51- 52 & n.14) . H er e, the Re g ion a rgues that e v en if the Board a gree s w ith Sierra Club concernin g the Region’s BA CT step 2 a naly sis (w

hich the Boa rd doe s not), “ the re cor d in this c as e is c le ar ly s uf f ic ie nt t o jus tif

y e limination of the com bin ed-cy cle g as t u rb i n es as ‘redef inin g the source’ und er ste p 1 o f the BA CT an al y si s. ” Regi o n R e sp . at 20 . P io P ic o als o su ggest s th atth e Regi o n co u ld ha ve conclu ded th at a com

bin ed-cy cle gas turb ine plan t w ou ld be a redef init ion of the sou rce, the re by jus tif y ingit s el im ination at

ste p 1. P io P ic o Res p. at 11-14. W hile it m ay be tr ue that th e Re gion cou ld h av e d o ne so, th e Re gion d id n ot explicitly conclud e that co m b in ed -cycle gas t u rb in es wou ld b e a red efin it io n o f th e so u rce , an dth e ad m in is tr at ive re cor d doe s not c onta in a

ny anal y si s re f

le ct ingsuch a det er

m ination. Cons eque ntly , the Boa rd doe s not c onsi der

thi s ar g um ent

on a ppea l. m ay n ot b e ap pr op ri at e fo r an othe r)

. S im il ar ly , it is no t unr ea so na bl e 46 for pe rm ittingauth orities to d istinguish betw een electric g enerating stations desig ned to function as peaking/interm ediate load facilities an d those desig ned to fun ction as b ase lo ad fa cilities or ev en int e r med i a teonly load facilities. Furthe rm ore, in In re Car dinal FG C o. , a cas e sim ilar to this o ne that d ealt sp ecifi c a l l y wi th a step 2 techn ical feasib ilityana ly sis, the Board found no clear error w here the p erm it issuer had defined “so urce ty pe” to be a particular ty pe o f g la s s - produ cingfacility that m anu fa ct ure d high- qua li ty fla t glass usi ng a cer ta in pr oce ss. 12 E.A.D. 15 3, 16 4-66 (E AB 20 05 ) . T he r e , t he pe rmitis s ue r ha d e l i min a t e d o xyfuel fro m furthe r con sideration i n t he BA CT analy sis du e to conce rns re g ar di ngit s te chni ca l f ea si bil ity a t the g la ss - pr od

uc in gf ac il ity in questio n. Id

. I n p articular, the p erm it issuer had conclu ded that the te chno log y

w as n either “ dem onstrated ” no r “ap plicable” to that particular ty

pe o f g lass- pr od uc i ng facility

. Id

. a t 1 65

- 67

. Th e pe rm it issuer ack now ledg ed th at oxy

- fuel had been used in other ty pes of g lasspr od uc in gf ac il it ie s, b ut

n ot in o ne s pe ci fi c cate g or

y : th os e hi g h- qu al ity flat- g lass- produ cingfacilities that utiliz e the float p rocess, which was the ty pe of facility the applicant propo sed to co nstruct. Id . at 164

- 65. The perm it issuer had explain ed the technical difficulties that had prev ented oxy - fuel firingfrom

bein gused in this one categ ory of g lass- produ cing f a c i l i t ies. Id . at 165

. The perm it issuer also h ad a ddresse d an dPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 65 di st in g ui sh ed

th os e pl ants id enti fied b y c om m ente rs th at

a ll eg ed ly show ed th at ox y - fuel h ad b een success fully installed and op erated, i.e. , “dem onstrated .” Id

. On appea l, th e B oard conclu ded that the petition er had not s hown t hat th e pe rm it issuer’s “dem onstration ” an d app l i cability ” de term inations, which were based on a “source ty

pe” de fi ni ti on n ar ro w er th an “ al l g la ss - pr od

uc in gf ac il it ie s, ” w er e cl earl y erroneo us. Id

. a t 1 68 ; see a lso K na uf I , 8 E. A. D. at 1 41 (notingthat the perm it issuer failed to perfo rm a t e c hn i c a l feasibility

ana ly sis on

the control techno log ies em ploy ed at v arious ty

pes of fibe rg lass m anufac turingfacilities and indicatingthat there m ay be reasons to find th at c erta inte chno lo g ie s m ay b e in fe as ib le ). The f ac t that a s te p 2 te chni ca l fe as ib il ity ana ly si s ha s tw o part s is an im portant consid eration in determ iningwhat the app ropriate scope for sele cting“so urce ty

pe” shou ld be

. Beca

use the an aly sis is two- fold, if the perm ittingauth ority con clud e s that a co ntrol tec hnolo g y is n ot “de mons t rated,” the inquiry do es n ot en d the re. Thus, ev en if “source ty pe” is defin ed o n the narro wer s i de o f the spectrum , th e pe rm itting auth or ity w il l s ti ll n ee d to consi de r w he th er th at c ontr ol te chno lo g y

is “av ai la bl e” and “ ap pl ic ab le

. ” D ef

in ing“ so ur ce ty

pe ” m or e narr ow ly does not, there fore, allow applicants or perm it issuers to pav e an “autom a tic B AC T off- ram p” fo r a control techno log y , a s argued by Si e rr aCl ub . Si e rr a C l u b Pe t . a t16 (q uo t i ng N MU , s lip op . at 26- 27, 14 E.A .D . at __). I t m erely place s the control techno log y into the se cond parto f th e st ep 2 ana ly si s, w he re th e ap pl ic ant and p erm itis su er

w il l hav e to p er fo rm

ad et ai le d as se ss m ent o f th e te chno lo g y ’s av ai lability and applicab ility

. Conv ersely , if “source ty pe” is defin ed too br oadly, a control techno log y

w ill autom atically

be shun ted into step s 3 and 4, thereby by pa ss in gth e de ta il ed

con si de ra ti on

o f it s te chni ca l f

ea si bi li ty th at p art 2 of step 2 wou ld hav e req uired. B ecause ste p 4 c on s iderations do no t ty pically inclu de t e c hn ical feasib ility , a control technology

that is no t tr ul y f ea si bl e fo r a part ic ul ar

sourc e co ul d en d up b ei ngin ap pr op ri at el y selected as the top control option in step 5

.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 66 The p re se nt

c as e de m on stra te s ho wth e tw o- parts te p 2 an al y si s work s. H ere, ev en th oug h the R eg ion c onclud ed th at com bined- cy cle g as turb in es w er e no t a “d em on stra te d” contr ol tec hn ol ogy , the R eg io n st il l pe rf or m ed ad et ai le d co ns id er at io n of c om bi ne d- cy cl e g as turb in es in it s “applica bility ” de term ination. I n its applicab ilityana ly sis, the R eg ion, in ex ercisingits tec hn i c a l judg m ent, determ ined that the re w ould be se v er al s ig ni fi cant

o pe ra ti on al p ro bl em s w i th e m p l o y i n g c o m b in ed

- cy cl e gas tu r bi ne s at th e Fa c i l i t y. Su mma r i zi ng t he Re gio n’ s key fi nd i ngs describe d a b o v e , th e R e g i o nf

o un d th i s c o n t r o l t e c h n o l o g y t o be “inapp licable” becau se: (1) it wo uld n ot pro duce enou g h p owe r w hen larg er qu antities are ne eded aftera “ c old s tart” (16 0 MW v ersus 300 MW in the sam e tim e), see F ac t S he et & A A Q I R

a t 1 6; ( 2) it

w ou ld tak e m uc h lo ng er

to p ro du ce f

ul l l oa d po w er

( 30 0 MW) f

ol lo w in gac ol d st art ( 3- 1/ 2 ho ur s v er su s 30 m inut es ), and th e purp os e of

p eak in gp lant s is to p ro du ce p ow er r elat iv el y q ui ckly , e sp ec ia ll y

whe n th ey

are supp ortingrene wa ble energ y , see id

. at 1 6- 17 ; R TC a t 2 7; and

( 3) it c o u l d o n l y p r o du c e s u f

f i c i e n tp o w e r

( 3 0 0 M W ) i na n a

p p r o p r i a t e t i me fr am e if a sub st anti al ly

lar g er fac il ity (atle as t 4 00 MWin

s iz e) is b ui lt , but at least 25 percent of a larg er plant’s capacity would lik ely

nev er be used and such an operation w ould be s ig nificantly

less efficient, see R TC at 30

. The Reg ion a lso co nclude d that one of the p ropose d co mbinedcy cle g as turbine units wou ld no t hav e a flexible enou g h o peratingrang e, es pe ci al ly a t the lo we nd

o f the rang e (i

. e. , th at

uni t c an o nl y o pe ra te do w n to 16 5 MWas op po se d to 50 MW ). R TC a t 5 3- 54 ; see a lso Fa ct S he et & A A Q I R

a t 1 6 (s ta ti ngth at

th e F ac il ity

n ee ds to b e “h ig hl y flexible”). Im

portantly , a ll of these re asons – tim e to produ ce req uired e l e c t r i c i t y, a

bi l i t y to pr oduc e th e ap pr op r i a t e amou nt o f el e c t r i c i t y, s i ze of th e turb in es –

are “ ope ra tingp ro bl em s re la te d to s pe ci fi c circum stances of the source” o r prob lem s w ith “t he s i ze o f the unit,” whic h are exam

ples th at the NSR Manu al

exp licitly inclu des within

thos e “unreso lv able te chnical difficult[ies] w ith apply ingthe control” that dem onstrate “inapp licability ” an d thu s technical in feasibility

. NSR Manual a t B

. 19

. Th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s un der part 2 o f st ep 2 is therefore entirely

con sistent w ith the NSR Manu al

. I n li g ht o f th es e co ns id er at io ns , the Bo ar d co nc lu de s th at S ie rr a C lu b ha s no t d em on stra te d th at th e R eg io n’ s ap pr oa chw as c le ar lyPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 67

erroneo us. Moreov er, decision s as to what th e ap propriate “source ty pe” shou ld be for a g iv en s ector is the kind o f techn ical judg m ent to which the B oard ty

pically defe rs. I n lig ht of this d eference, Sierra Club h as n ot presente d p ersuasiv e ev idence that the Reg ion clearly erred in e xercising it s te chni ca l jud g m ent by co ns id er in g “s ourc e ty pe ” he re a s le ss th an

“ al l g as - fi re d el ec tr ic g en er at in gp lant s. ” In ad di ti on , a s no te d ab ov e, in cases whe re a perm it issuer has ev aluated and rej e c t e d a control techno log y

as the R eg ion did here, “those fav oringthe option m ust sh ow th at the ev id en ce ‘ fo r’ c le ar ly o utw ei g hs th e ev id en ce ‘ ag ai ns t’ it s applicatio n.” Car

dinal , 12 E.A .D . at 167 (citation s om itted). Pe titioner ha s no t d on e so . Wh il e th e R eg io n pr ov id ed a de ta il ed expl an at io n as to why the techno log y shou ld be rej ected, Sierra Club has only pr ovi ded g eneralized

statem ents s uppo rtingits u se. See, e. g., S ie rr a C lu b P et

. at 16

. Sierra Club has failed to de m onstrate that the ev ide nc e for co m bi ne d- cy cl e g as tur

bi ne s cl earl y

ou tw ei g hs th e ev id en ce a g ai ns t i ts applicatio n. C onseq

uently , th e B oard denies rev iew of this issue. Alth oughthe Board d oes not a g ree w ith S ierra C lub th at the R e g i o n d e f

i n e d “ s o ur c e t y

p e ” t o o n a rr o w l y , S i e rr a C l ub ’ s f e a r that applicants and

perm it issuers could so n arrow l y d e f i ne the source ty

pe they con sider in

ste p 2 a s to m ak e all other control techno log ies in fe as ib le is w el l t ak en . It w as in p art d ue to th is c on ce rnth at

th e B oard co ns id er ed

th is is su e on

a pp ea l. U po n rev ie w , h ow ev er , th e B oard co nc lu de s th at

d ef in in g“ so ur ce ty

pe ” so m ewhat narr ow ly

is n ot f at al to th e g en er al r eq

ui re m ent o f pe rf

or m in gabroa d ove ra ll B A C T ana ly si s becau se o f the constru ct of the NSR Manu al ’s s te p 2 an al y si s. E v en if a perm it issuer defines “source ty pe” on the n arrowside in the first p art of t he st e p 2 te c hn i c a l fe a s i bi l i t y an a l ysi s , t he r e by e l i min a t i ng ate c hn ol ogy th at argua bl y is “ de m on stra te d, ” th e pe rm itis sue r st il l w il l h av e to re co ns id er

s uc h te chno lo g y

in th e se co nd parto f th e te chni ca l f ea si bi li ty analy sis when it exam ines whether that technology is av a i l a ble (which itis li k el y to b e, a s itw as in

th is c as e) and

a pp li ca bl e. Th is s ec on d part of the s te p 2 te st , e sp ec ia ll y th e “a pp li ca bi li ty ” an al y si s, w il l the re fo re be a ble to “reca

pture” techno log ies that m ay fall o ut in the first part o f step 2 a nd t ha t should b e co nsidered at le ast on e step furthe r in the BA CT analy sis.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 68

T he Re g ion c la im s that t he po wer p u rch ase a g re em ent (a nd RF O) are not 47 “pa rt” of the adminis tra

tiv e re cor d. See

, e .g. , Region Supp l. Br. in Resp. to Board Order at 7, 9. T hat

c la im is not cor

re ct . Under

the pe rm it ti n g r egulations , a ll docum ent s the perm it issuer cites in the f act s heet are inclu ded in the adm inistrative record. 40 C.F.R. § 124.9( b)( 4); acc ord In re Dom inion Ene rgy Br ayton Poi nt, LLC , 12 E.A .D . 490, 516 (EAB 2006) ; se e als o In re M ayague z Re g’l Sew age Treat

me nt P lant , 4 E.A .D . 772, 776 n.7 ( EAB 1993) (“ T he Re port w as c ite d on pa ge 3 2 o f t he Re g ion’s re spons e to com m ent s * * * and the re f

ore be ca m e par t of the a dm inis tra

tiv e re cor d.” ), aff’d

sub no m. P.R . Aque duct

& Se we r Auth. v . EP

A , 35 F.3d 600 (1s t C ir. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S

. 1148 (1995) . Th e Regi o n c ited bot h doc um ent s in i ts Fa ct

She et , see Fa ct

She et & AA QI R a t 16, and thus is requi re d to inc lude them in the rec ord. Furthe rm ore , the RFO is in f ac t c urr ent ly

in the a dm inis tra

tiv e re cor d, a s an atta chm ent to a le tte r f

rom Pio Pico’s consul ta

nts to EPAaddre ss ingG HG BA CTc once rns . See L ette r f rom Ste v e Hi ll, Sie rr a Re se ar ch, to G er ar do Ri os, Chi ef , A ir Permits O f

f ic e, U .S. EPARe g ion 9, atta ch. 1 (A pr. 13, 2012) (A .R. I. 56). I n the future , th e B oard will continue to closely scrutiniz e step 2 an al y se s to e ns ur e th at

a pp li cant s and

p erm itis su er s do n ot

und ul y narrowthe “source ty

pe” they con sider i n decidin gwhether a co ntrol te chn ol ogy

h as b ee n “d em on stra te d” o r is “ ap pl ic ab le

. ” Th e B oard expe ct s a th or ou g h an al y sis in the s eco nd p art o f th e st ep 2 ana ly si s in those c ases where the p erm ittingauth ority defin es “so urce ty

pe” narrow ly

. The Bo ard w ill not hesitate t o r e m and in cas es where the perm it issuer’s definitionof source t ype is so narrow that it does not fairly co nd uc t the first part of a step 2 ana ly sis, e.g ., whe re the source type i s e s s e n t i a l l y

ac a t e g o ry

o f o n e , un l e s s th e p e rm i ti s s u e r f ul ly expl ai ns th e te chni ca l re as on s, s up po rt ed b y th e re co rd , why

th e cate g or

y canno t be larg er w ithout m ak inga c hi e v em ent o f the project purpo se im possib le. 5. The Regio n’s R eferences to thePo wer Purc hase Agre emen t and RFO in Its BA CT

An al ysis D o N

ot N ecessitate a Rem and in L ight o

f the Recen t C

PU C Decis ion The Reg ion re ferred to the RF O and the p owe r purchase agre em ent a

num be r of ti m es thro ugho ut

th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd in conn ection with its G HG B AC T analy sis. See , e.g . , F ac t S he et & 47 AA QI R at 16 ; R TC at 2 7- 28. P etitioners conten d tha t , i n l i g ht of the C P U C d ec is io n – w hi chess enti al ly pro hi bi ts SD G & E fro m

e nt er in gintoPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 69 a lo ng - te rm

p ur ch as e agre em ent at thi s ti m e – th e m ul ti pl e re fe re nc es to those potentially

inap plicable d oc um ents re quire a rem and so th at the Re gio n may r e c on s i de r it s BAC T an a l ysi s . M or e sp e c i f i c a l l y, Mr. S im pson , in his petition, claim s that the Reg ion erred by rely ingon the p owe r purchase ag reem ent requirem ents in concludingthat a simplecy cle rath er than

a combi ne d-cy cle co nfiguration was neede d an d that this relian ce is especially pro blem atic in lig ht of the C PU C decision

. S im ps on P et

. at 7. S ie rr a C lu b, in it s su

pp le m enta l br ie f, sim il ar ly asserts th at, b ecause the Reg ion s et its o peratin g lim its base d o n the pow er purchase ag reem ent an d d eterm ined that c om bined- cy cle g as turbines were incom

patible with those lim its, “ in the abs ence of tho se found ational elem ents, the R eg ion m ust rec onside r its BA CT analy sis.” S ie rr a C lu

b S up pl

. Br

. in

R es p. to B oard

O rd er a t 5 ; se e al

so id . (“ [T]he C PU C ’s d ec is io n fund am enta ll y a lt er s th e pu

rp os e of th e fa ci li ty

. ”)

. Petitione rs reiterated

these argum ents duringthe status conferen ce. See, e.g. , Statu s C onf. Tr. at 41- 43, 51

- 54, 64

. The Bo ard c onclud es that the Reg ion d id not clearlyerr o r abu se it s di scret ionf

or s ev er al r ea so ns . F ir st , in r es po ns e to th e B oard ’s qu es ti on s co nc er

ni ngth e ram if

ic at io ns of th e C P U C d ec is io n on P io P ic o’ s pl an s, P io P ic o ha s av er re d th at it s ti ll inte nd s to b ui ld

th e F ac il ity as d es cr ib ed

in it s ap pl ic at io n. P io P ic o’ s S up pl

. B r. in R es p. to B oard Orde r at 2 & Ex . 1 , ¶ 7, a t 2 ( De c l. o f G ary R . C hand ler). Pio Pico has also s tated that it plans to produ ce pow er as describe d in its app lication either to sell on the o pen m ark et (thereby acting as a m erchant plant) or t o s e l l to SDG &E us i ng s ho rt

- t e rm po we r a gre e men t s i ns t e a d o f a l on gterm one. Id. at 2. T hus, there is no indic ation that the bas ic des ig n o r the b asic p urpose o f

t he F acility

(prov idingup to 300 MW of p eak ing and/o r i nt e rm ediate load- shapin gpo wer) has chang ed. The m ere fact that S DG &E m ay

no t enter into a long

- term pow er purchase ag reem ent wi t h Pi o Pi c o t o pu r c ha s e p ow e r f r om th e Fa c i l i t y do e s no tpe r se ch a nge the F acility ’s bas ic desig n or its purpo se. Moreov er, the P SD regulations re qu ir e th at

th e F ac il ity

b e bu il t i n ac cordan ce w ith th e pe rm itPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 70

Sierra Club also con tend s that it is no t credible that Pi o P ico w ill con struct

48 the s am e ty

pe of pla nt now , Si er

ra Cl ub Suppl. Br

. in Re sp. to Boa rd Or der at 1-2, and that i t is uncl ea

r w hat k ind of pla nt w ill be c onst

ruc te d, id . at 3-4. T he Board d isagre es. Pio P ic o m

ust c onst ruc t a f ac ili ty s ubject to t he te rm s and condi tions in the Permit. 40 C. F.R . § 52. 21(r )( 1). If P io P ic o de si re s to bui ld a pla nt w ith a dif

f er ent s et of PSD perm it term s and c on diti on s, it w ill have to apply f or andobt ain appro val of the c hange. See id . F urthe rm ore , i nsof

ar a s Sie rr a Cl ub is now

que st ioningthe m ax im

um num ber of hou rs of ope ration al low ed by

the pe rmit, se e, e .g., Sie rr a Cl ub Suppl. Br . i n Re sp. to Boa rd O rde r a

t 3- 4, s uch a cha lle ng e w as not pre se rv ed f or r ev ie w . S ie rr a Cl ub did not ra is e this is sue in its c o mm ent s on the dra f t pe rmit, nor did i t r ai se thi s is sue in its petitio n. S i e rr a

C l ub m ay

no tr a i s e i tf

or the f i r s tt i m e i n r e pl y

or s up pl e m e nt a l br i e f

s. See Knauf I , 8 E.A.D. at 12 6 n.9 (n ew i ssues raised in reply

brief s are equivalent to latef ile d appe al s and m

ust be de nie d a s untim el y); se e als o Russe ll Ci ty , sli p op. at 45 n.35 (e xpla iningthat i ss ue m ay not be ra is ed f or t he f irs t t im e in a

re ply bri ef ); Dom inion , 12 E.A .D . at 595. app li cat ion (orthe t er m s of t he ap pro val to co nst ruc t)

. 40 C.F.R. 48 § 5 2.2 1(r)(1). Petitione rs argue th at the “purp ose” of the Fa cility is to m eet SD G& E’s RF O/P PTA. Pe titio ne rs, h owe v er, are fram ingthe PSD an al y si s in co rr ec tl y . F or

p ur po se s of aP S D ana ly si s, th e qu es ti on a s to the “p urpose ” and “desig n” of a facility go es to wh at ty

pe o f source an ap pl ic ant i s pl anni ng to bu il d. H er e, P io P ic o’ s bu si ne ss “ purp os e” is to build a highly

flexib le peak ing/interm ediate load- shapin gpo wer plant th at p ro v id es up to 30 0 MW to s up po rtr en ew ab le e ne rg y and to s up po rt San Dieg o’s sh ort- term

and long

- term

ene rg y nee ds. See, e. g., R ev ised App lication at 2. 1 (“[The Facility ] is d esig ned to dire ctly satisfy the S an Dieg o are a de m and f

or p e a k ingand

load

- shapin gg eneration , n ear an d longterm .”). B oth the Reg ion, throu g hout the a dm inistrativ e reco rd as de sc r i b e d ab o v e , a n d P i o P i c o , i n i t s ap p l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l s , m a d e th is clear. See , e.g. , F act S heet & A AQ I R at 3, 4 n.1 0, 16, 18- 19; R TC at 6 , 23, 28 ; Rev ised App lication at 2. 1, 2.3 , 2 .55 , 3 .9. A lthough the reaso n be hi nd th e co m pany ’s dec is io n to bu il d a 3 00 MWp eak in g /i nt erm ed ia te loa d- sha pin g pla nt was the ne ed San Die go des cr ibe d in i ts RFO/PPT A, this facto r does not conv ert the RF O/P PTA into the purpo se of the plant pe r se . Im

po rt antl y , th e fa ct

th at an ap pl ic ant s el ec ts a ty

pe of so ur ce to bu il d ba se d on

what i t b el ie v es c ur

re nt m ark et n ee ds ar e – or , in

th is ca se , what the lo ca li ty

s ta te s it s ne ed s ar e – do es n ot c hang e th e ba si cPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 71

Inth e F a c tS h e e t , th e R e g i o n n o t e dth ata l th o u g h c o l l e c t i v e l y th e r e ar e s ix 49 gas es s ub ject to regulatio n a s G HG po llut ants un der the CAA (carbon dio xide, m ethane, nitro us oxide, sul f

ur hexaf luo ride, hy dro f

luo rocarbo ns, a

nd perf luo rocarbo ns), th e GHG
2 BA CT emission lim i t i n t h i s perm it is ex pressed as a CO lim it because the GHG
2 emis si ons f

rom the g as tur

bine s ar e ov er

w hel m ing ly

in the f orm of CO . F ac t She et

&
2 AA QI R a t 21 n.15 ( CO e m is si ons ca use d by the c om bust ion of

natura l g as re pre se nt
2 99.9 pe rc ent

of CO -e quiv al ent

e m is si ons on a

ton per y ea r ba si s ev en af

te r a cc ounting f or t he w ar m ingpote ntia l of

m et hane and nit ro u s ox ide e m is si ons) ; see also 40 C.F .R. § 52.21( b)( 49)( i); RT C a

t 11 n.4. For cons is te ncy , the Boa rd r ef er s to t he BA CTli m it
2 f or GHG s in t

his s ec tion as the CO BA CTli m it.
Hea t rate increases (and thus therm al ef f iciency decreas es) as loaddecrea ses. 50 See Le tter f

rom Steve Hill, Sierra Resea rch, to G erardo Rios, Chief , A ir P erm its Of

f ice, (c ontinue d...) pu r po s e an d d e s i gn o f

th e p r o po s e d f

a c i l i t y. T he pu r

po s e an d d e s i gn behind m ost p owe r plants are lik ely inform ed by

the perceiv ed n eeds of the m ark et either becau se of m ark et analy ses, pow e r purchase ag reem ents with a m

unicipa lity

or other g ov ernm ent o r priv ate sec tor enti ty , and

/o r co rp or at e jud g m ent. 6. Con clusion I n sum , th e B oard conclu des that ne ither S ierra C lub n or Mr. S im psonhas dem onstrated

that the R eg ion c learly

erred in de clining to co nsi dercom

bin ed- cycle g as t urb ine s pas t st ep 2 of the BACT analy sis. A lthough the R eg ion d efined the so urce ty pe for purposes of step 2 of its BA CT analy sis m ore narrow ly than the entire class of all g as turb in es , S ie rr a C lu

b ha s no t d em on stra te d that thi s w as c le ar ly erroneo us. P etitioners hav e also failed to de m onstrate that the recent C P U C d ec is io n ne ce ss it at es a re m an d of th e G H G B A C T ana ly si s. A ll other claim s are proced

urally barred

. Acco rding ly , the B oa r d d enies rev iew of this issue.

2 F. C ha ll enges to C O B

A C T E m is si on L im it S ie rr a C lu

b ne xt cha ll en g es the Re g io n’ s B A C T e m is si on li m it

2 for C O

. In its petition, Sierra Club asserts th at the Reg ion’s decision

49 to sele ct a BA CT em ission lim it based on 50 perc ent lo ad e fficiency at 50PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 72

(.. .c ontinue d)

50 R e g i on 9, U .S

. EPA at 14 & f i g . 5 ( J an. 5, 20 12 ) ( A .R

. I .3 3) ( e xpl a i ni ng that turb ines oper at e le ss e f

f ic ie ntly at l ow er loa ds) ; L ette r f

rom Ste v e Hi ll, S ie rr a Re se ar ch, to G er ar do Ri os, Chi ef

, A ir Permits Office, U .S. EPARe g ion 9, at 1 (A ug . 22, 2012) (A .R. V I.48 ) (sam e). Con vers ely , the higher the load , the m ore ef f iciently the turb ines w ill ope rate , r es ulti ng in f ew er poll uta nt e m is si ons. al l t im es th e turb in es op er at e co ns ti tute s cl ear er ro r be caus e th e P erm it

2 co nt ai ns ale ss s tr in g ent C O B A C T li m ita s co m par ed to the dra ft perm it. Sierra Club also asserts th at the Reg ion c l e a r l y erred by includin g safety factors, also referred to as com pliance m arg i ns , i n t he

2 CO BA CT lim it that lack factua l supp ort in the ad m inistrativ e reco rd.

2 The R eg io n co unte rs that the C O B A C T li m itand c or re sp on di ngs af

ety factors are fully

exp lained and supp orted by the adm inistrativ e reco rd, and thus, the Board sh ould deny rev iew of the se issu es. The qu estion the Board m ust an swer then i s whether the R eg ion u sed its “co nsidered

2 j udg m ent” to select the P e r mit’s CO B AC T em ission lim it and co rr es po nd in gs af

ety f ac to rs and

wh ethe r th e R eg io n’ s expl an at io n of it s decision is rational in

lig ht of all of the inform ation in the record. See, e.g. , In re Shell Offsho re, Inc

. (“S hell O ffshore 2012 ”) , O CS Appeal Nos. 11

- 05 thr ough 1 1- 07, sl ip op . at 8 (EAB M ar . 30, 2012 ), 15 E.A.D. at _
__ ( ci ti ngc as es ); R us se ll

Cit y , s lip op . at 58, 15 E. A. D. at _ __. The Bo ard n otes at the outset that S ierra C lub’s challeng es to the

2 R eg io n’ s C O B A C T li m itand the a cc om pany in gs af

ety f ac to rs are inherently

technical. As explained abov e in Part I I I , th e B oard accord s substantial d e f

e r e n c e to a pe rm it issuer on fundam entally techn ical issu es as lon gas t he d e term ination reflects th e pe rm it issuer’s consid ered j udg m ent as do cum ented in the reco rd. See, e. g. , R us se ll Cit y , s l ip op

. at 58 , 15 E.A .D

. at ___. The Board ad dresses Sierra Club ’s cha lleng es
2 to bo th the CO BA CT lim it and the safety factors incorpo rated into that li m it in tu rn be low.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 73

gr os s T he 9,196 B tu/k

Wh hea

t rate Sie rr a Cl ub re f

er s to i s the ini tia l he at

ra te 51 that a ppea rs in the propos ed per

m it and the c orr es pondingFa ct She et , w hic h is s epa

rate
2 f rom the ong oingCO e m is si on li m it inte nded to a pply for the l if e of the Fa ci lit

y . See
2 Fact Sheet & AA QIR at 20 (“[CO ] BA CT w ill in clud e a heat rate lim it tha t a p p l ies at init ia l s ta rtup in a dditi on to a se par at e emis si on li m it that a pplie s on an ong oingba si s. ”) ; U. S. E PARe g ion 9, Propose d PSD Per m it f or PP EC (PSD Permit No. SD 11-01) at 7 (J une 2012) ( A .R. IV.1) (“ Propose d Permit” ) ( spe ci f y ingin Condi tion IX.D .4 that w ithi n a c ertain perio d of tim e, “ea ch [ turb ine] shall achieve an init ial heat rate at f ull load that

gr os s does not ex ce ed 9,196 B tuhhv /k Wh ”)

. T he hea t r at e at 50 pe rc ent

loa d under In te rn at iona l O rg ani za tion f or 52 Sta n d ard iz at ion ( “I SO ”) c onditi ons is 10,576 B tu/k Wh. See L ette r f

rom Ste v e Hi ll, Sie rr a Re se ar ch, to G er ar do Ri os, Chi ef , A ir Permits O f

f ic e, U .S. EP A Regi on 9, at 5 t bl.1B (A pr. 13, 2012) , ci te d in RT C a t 16. Whe n m

ulti plie d by

the s af et y f ac tors the Re g ion i ncl uded, see infra P art VIII.F .1. a, the rates are a s f ollo w s: 10,576 B tu/k

Wh * .014 =148 10,576 B tu/k

Wh * .03 =317 10,576 B tu/k

Wh * .03 =317 10,576 B tu/k

Wh + 148 +317 +317 =11,358 B tu/k Wh. 1. Sierra Club Has Not Dem onstra ted Tha t the Regio n F ailed

2 to Use Its Consi der ed Ju dgmen t in Choosi ng a CO BACT Em ission Lim i t

Th at Co rr es po nd s to th e Fa c i l i t

y ’ s Ope r at ion at F ifty Pe rcent Loa d

2 S ie rr a C lu

b ar g ue s th at

the Pe rm it ’s CO BA C T e m is si on li m it is b as ed on th e “w or st

- ca se op er at in g co nd it io ns ” an d co nf li ct s bo thw ith the d efinition of BAC T and EPAprecedent. Sierra Club Pe t. at 18- 20. I n p articular, Sierra Club contends that the “significant chang e” in heat rate, from

9, 196 British therm al un i t s pe r k ilowatt hour- g ross
gross gr os s (“ B tu/k Wh ”) in

th e dr af t p erm itto 1 1, 35 8 B tu/k

Wh inth e P erm it , 51 in di cate s th at

“ th e R eg io n as sum ed

whe n es tabl is hi ngth e B A C T li m it that [the Facility ] wou ld operate at all tim es at 50 percent load ,” resulting

gross inth e 11 , 35 8 B tu/k

Wh heat ra te and

a c or re sp on di nge m is si on

r at e 52

2 of 1 ,32 8 p ound s pe r m e gaw a t t ho ur (“lb /MWh”) for CO

. Id. at 1 9.

2 Sierra Cl ub f

ur t her a sserts th at the CO B AC T em ission lim it in th e Perm it ensures that the facility w ill only

be subject to “B AC T- lev el em ission lim its,” duringth e r e l a tiv ely fewop eratingho urs when thePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 74

Sie rr a Cl ub a ls o s tate s that be ca use the Fa ci lit

y w ill only

ope rate at 50 53 per ce nt l oad f

or a porti on of the 720-hour roll ing av er ag ingpe riod (e quiv al ent to thir ty day s) , e v en w

hen the pla

nt i s oper at ingat 50 per ce nt loa d, it ca n e m it m ore tha

n 1,328
2 lb/h r of CO because “tho se periods w ill be ave rage d ou t w ith th e other ho urs of higher oper at ingra

te s, w hen emis si ons ar e nec es sa ril y low er .” Si er

ra Cl ub Pet. at 20.
T he hea t r at e at 100 pe rc ent l o ad u n der

IS O condi tions is 8,738 B tu/k Wh. 54 See L etter f

rom Steve Hill, Sierra Research, t o G erardo Rios, Chief, A ir P erm its Of f ice, U. S. E PARe g ion 9, at 5 tbl. 1B ( A pr. 13, 2012) (A .R. I. 56), ci te d in RTC at 14

. W hen m ulti plie d by

the s af et y f ac tors , see infra P art VIII.F .1. a, the correspon din g ra tes a re: 8,738 B tu/k

Wh * .014 =122.33 8,738 B tu/k

Wh * 1.03 =262.14 8,738 B tu/k

Wh * 1.03 =262.14 8 ,7 3 8 Btu/kWh + 12 2 .3 3 + 26 2 .1 4 + 2 6 2 .1 4 = 9, 3 8 5 Btu/kWh (r ounded to t

he nea re st w hole num ber). facility is at 50 perce nt loa d. Id. at 20. Sierra Club asserts th at when 53 t h e F a c i l i t y i s o p e r a t i n g a t f u l l l o a d t h e h e a t r a t e i s 9 , 3 8 5 B tu/kwh, 54 w hi chtr an sl at es to an 18 p er ce nt lo w er em is si on ra te o f 1, 09 7 lb /MW h

2 fo r C O

. S ie rr a C lu

b co nt en ds th at ev en th ou g h th e F ac il ity w il l o pe ra te at rates abov e 50 percent load during“m any , if not m ost” o f its o perating

2 hours, duringwhich lowe r CO em ission rates are ac hiev able, “the fin al perm it establish es a B AC T- lev el em ission rate for only thos e ho urs when the unit op erates at a 5 0 p ercent load. ” Id. The Reg ion counters that it prov ided a clear, de tailed

2 expla nation for se ttingthe Perm it’s C O B AC T lim it for th e life of the facil i t y to corresp ond to em issions at 50 perc ent lo ad. R eg ion R esp. at 23

. The Reg ion n otes th at it m ust en sure th at B AC T is achiev able at all tim es, and the F acility is d esig ned to op erate anywhe re be tween 100 percent to 50 percent load during norm al op eration. Id. The Reg ion furthe r expl ai ns th at si nc e th e F ac il ity w il l no t us e ad d- on con tr ols to

2 achiev e C O B AC T, and will in stead achiev e B AC T usingg ood combust ion and m ai nte nan ce pr act ic es, thi s si tua ti on warra nts a BACT em ission lim it that can be m et in a v ariety of operatin gcon ditions consistent w ith the project’s desig n. Id. at 2 3- 24.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 75

One m etric ton is equal to 10 00 kilo gram s. The U.S. equi vale nt, also ca lled 55 a shor t t on, e qual s 2000 pounds , or 0.907 m et

ric tons (approx im at el y

907 kilogra

m s)

. Me rr iam W ebs te r’ s Col le g iate D ic tiona ry 733 ( ci tingm et

ric s y st em

m ea sur es ), 1341 (c ontinue d...) a. Back grou nd Prior to issu ingthe propo sed PSD perm it, the R eg ion p erform ed

2 a fi ve- step to p- down B AC T analy sis for CO em issions, con sidering pot e ntially

av ailable c ontrol techno log ies at step 1 that include d reciprocatinginternal com bustion eng ines, com

bined- cy cle g as turb ines, energ y - efficient s imp le- cy cle g as turb ines, and carbon cap ture an d seque stration. See Fa ct Sh ee t & A A Q I R a t 1 5- 16 ; see a lso supra P art VI I (pr ov id in gd et ai le d de sc ri pt io n of to p- do w n B A C T ana ly si s)

. The Re g io n el im in at ed

bo thcom bi ne d- cy cl e turb in es and

c ar bo n ca pt ur e an d se qu es tr at io n as te chn ic al ly in fe as ib le a t s te p 2. F ac t S he et & AA QI R at 16

- 19. A lthough rec iprocatingintern al com bustion eng ines hav e a l owe r heat rate than energ y - efficient s im ple- cy cle g as turb ines, and thus were t he top- rank ed c ontrol techno log y at s tep 3 , th e R eg ion ultim ately

elim inated reciprocating internal com bustion eng ines at step 4 due to c ol l ateral env ironm ental im pacts. Id. at 1 9- 20 (notingthat reciprocating

i nt e r n a l c o m b u s t ion e ng ines w ould em it roughly 70 perc ent

x m ore o xides of n itro gen ( “ NO ”) at full load than sim ple- cy cle g as turb in es , whi chwou ld

h av e a de le te ri ou s im

pa ct o n S an D ie g o’ s nonattainm ent status fo r the 8- hour oz one NA AQ S). Thus, at ste p 5 of

the BA CT analy sis, the R eg ion s elected th erm al ly e ff ic ie nt s im pl e- cy cl e co m

bu st io n turb in es c om

bi ne d w ith g ood com

bustion an d m aintenan ce p ractices to m aintain optim um
2 ef fi ci enc y as BACT forCO . In st ep 5, th e Region not ed th atGE LMS1 00 g as turb i nes propo sed by the applicant hav e a m axim um efficiency of 44 percent unde r I SO con ditions, which is at the h ig h en d of th e ef f i c i e nc y ra nge fo r

si mpl e - c ycl e gas t urbi ne s i n t ha ts i ze c a t e gor y. Id. at 20 & n.15 (citing prod uct docum entation for v arious turbines and hig hlig htingthe GE LMS 100 produ ct info rm ation, which states th at w he n runn in ga t f

ull cap acity , th e L MS 10 0 av oi ds o v er 3 4, 00 0 m etri c
2 tons of CO em issions ov er the course of a p e a kingseaso n co m pared 55PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 76

(.. .c ontinue d)

55 (c iti ng U .S. w ei g hts and m ea sur es ) ( 10th e d. 1999) . The al te rnate sp el lingof “ tonne ,” w hich the Reg ion ref

ers to in the Fact Sheet, is u se d t o den ote the m etric m easure, w her ea s “t on” connot es the U .S. m ea sur e. See U. S. G ov er nm ent Printi ng O f

f ic e, Sty le M anual 237, 257 (2008) (di st inguis hingthe s pel lingof tonne and ton)

. P io P ico’s com

m ents also no ted that the Region never s pecif ied in th e Fac t 56 Sheet the in itial op erating ef f iciency , or “ heat rate,” that form ed the basis f or th e prop osed
2 2 net ong oingCO em is si on lim it of 1,181 lbs CO /MW

h

. See Pio Pic o Jul y 24 Cm t. at 3; see also Fa ct

She et & AA QI R a

t 20- 21 (r ef

er enc inge m is si ons dat a prov ide d in the pe rmit appl ication and turb ine perform ance d ata bu t never specif y ing the heat rate lim it to which
2 the six perce nt compliance m argin w ou ld b e a dd ed in order to c alculate the pro po sed CO BA CTe m is si on li m it) . N onet hel es s, w hat ev er the he at ra te lim it is that w ould r es ult in
2 2 ne t gr os s a p ro p o sed o n go in g C O e m is si o n l imito f 1 ,1 8 1 lb s CO /M Wh , i .e ., 9, 1 9 6 Btu/kWh

gr os s o r so m eth in g els e, itw o u ld sti ll be lo wer th an t h e h e a t r at e o f 11 ,3 5 8 Btu/kWh
2 cont ai ned in t

he Permit. Si nce Peti tione rs re ques t r ev ie w of the f ina l C O e m is si on li m it, w hic h is ba se d on a

dif f er ent and higher

he at ra te , the abs enc e of

the he at rat e inf orm at ion
2 that f orm ed the basi s f

or the ongoingCO em is si on lim it in the propos ed pe rmit does not af f ec t a ny of the c hal le ng es Peti tione rs ra is e in t hes e appe al s. to a ty pical s im ple- cy cle sy stem ). The Reg ion also explained its d ecision

2 to us e safetyfactors t o calculate th e C O B AC T em ission lim it. Base d on the em issions data the applicant prov ided as w ell as the sa fety factors , see in fra Pa rt VI I I .F. 2.a, .b, t he R e g ion p ropose d an em ission lim it of

2 2 1,1 81 lbs C O per m eg awatt hour (“lbs C O /MWh” ) n e t output w ith a rolling8, 760 operatin gho ur av erag ingperio d. See F a c tS h e e t& AA Q IR at 21

. Durin gthe public com m ent p eriod, Pio Pico sub m itted

2 com m ents s tatingthat the R eg ion’s propo sed CO BAC T lim it resulted in em ission restrictions that the Facility could not m eet, in part beca use
2 the p ropose d C O em ission lim it failed to take into account turb ine operation at partial lo ad, a ne cessary op eratingscen ario fo r a peaking f a c i l i t y. See Letter from Stev e H ill, S ierra R esearch, to Gerard o R ios, 56 Chie f, A ir Perm its O ffice, U.S . E PAR eg ion 9 , at 3 (J uly 24 , 2 012) (A

. R

. V I

. 1 0 ) ( “ P i o P i c o J u l y 2 4 C mt

. ” ) ; R T C a t7

- 8 , 1 4

. Ini ts
2 co m m ents , P io P ic o pr op os ed an al te rn at iv e C O B A C T em is si on li m it ba se d on an es ti m at ed

h eat r at e ca lc ul at io n at

75 p er ce nt

lo ad , e ss enti al ly av erag ingth e h e a tr a t e s f o r 5 0 an d 1 0 0 p e r c e n tl o a d s . R TC a t1 4

- 15

2 (propo singperm it languag e that wou ld l i mit C O em issions whe n thePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 77 Facility is operatingat o r abo v e 75 perc ent lo ad). A lthough the R eg ion

2 agre ed w ith P io P ic o th at

th e in it ia l p ro po se d C O B A C T emis si on li m it failed to acco unt for Facilityoperations at partial loads and thus ag reed

2 th at th e C O B A C T li m its houl d be r ev is ed , th e R eg io n re ject ed P io

2 Pico’s propo sal to apply

the CO B AC T em ission lim it only to loads at or abov e 75 perc ent. Id. at 15

- 16

. The Re g io n h ig hl ig ht ed the lac k o f a technica l justification for why the lim it should be based on heat rate at
2 75 p er ce nt lo ad an d th e su g g es ti on th at th e C O B A C T li m its ho ul d on ly ap pl y to lo ad s at

o r ab ov e 75 p er ce nt

a s re as on s fo r re

ject in gP io P ic o’ s propo sal. Id. at 1 6.

2 I n se tti ng the C O B AC T em ission lim it for th e P erm it, the Reg ion e xplaine d its reasonin gas follow s: EPAm ust e ns ur e B AC T is achiev ed at all tim es. The pe rm itr ec or d is c le ar

th at e ac h turb in e is d es ig ne d to operate from

10 0% do wn to 50 % load during no rm al op er at io n. A s su ch , w e m us t s et ali m itth at

is achiev able at all t i m es, includin g50 to 75% loa d. N ei th er th e P ro po se d P erm itli m itn or th e li m it su g g es te d by

[Pi o P ic o] wo ul d ac hi ev e th is r eq ui re m ent. * * * * As discuss ed in

the Fact Shee t ( see p p. 20), B AC T for GH Gs for eac h turb ine h a s b e en d eterm ined to be efficient e quipm ent desig n an d d oes not in clude add- on co ntro l e qu ip m ent. A s a re sult , B A C T is a ch ie v ed in the sam e m anner at 50 % load as it is at 75% an d 1 00% load (and any

other load l ev el), e v en th oug h the actua l GHG emissi ons re sul ti ng fr om the ap pli cat ion of BACT m ay v ary at d ifferent lo ads. Our

deter mina tion m ust ac co un t f or th e fac t t ha t t hetu rb in es c an o

pe ra te a t a num ber of differ ent lo ad levels w ithin o ne p eri od of op erat io n an d w ithi n th e averag in g pe ri od u se d to determine c omp liance. The re fo re , in o rd er to e ns ur e that the em ission lim it resulting from ap plication ofPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 78 BA CT for GH Gs is se t at a lev el that can be a chiev ed from the turbines at all tim es, the final B AC T lim it has been set at a lev el achiev able during the “w orst- case” of no rmal o pe r a t i ng c on di t i on s – 50 % lo a d. T hi s wi l l give the fa ci li ty the abi li ty to oper at e wit hin i t s BACT e mis s i on li mitan d w i t h i n i t s de s i gne d o pe r a t i ng r a nge at all tim es. Id . (e m phasis added ). With this back ground in m ind, the B oard now
2 tur ns to Sie rr a Club ’s s ubs ta nti ve ch al le nges to t he Per m it ’s CO BACT li m it

. b. A na ly si s Contrary to Sierra Club ’s asse rtions, the Reg ion’s decisionto set
2 th e C O B A C T e m i s s i o n l i m i t t o c o rr e s p o n d w i t h a l o a d t h a t h a s a higher , les s ef

fi ci ent heat rat e is cons is te nt wi th t he de fi nit ion of BACT and EPAprec edent. The Board has an establishe d h istory of deferring to a perm it issuer’s well- docum ented decision to set a BA CT lim it that i s ach iev able fo r a g iv en fa cility un der a ll ope ratingscen arios, and has pre viousl y st at ed th at“per m it writ er s re ta in di scr et ion to se t BACT lev els that ‘do not n ecessarily reflect the h ig hest possible control efficiencies but, rather, will a llow perm ittees to achiev e co m pliance on a consistent basis. ’” In re New mon t N ev. Ener gy In v., LL C , 12 E.A.D. 429, 44 2 (E AB 20 05) (quotin gS te el D yn am ics II

, 9 E. A. D. at 1 88 (E A B 2 00 0) ); ac co rd

R us se ll Cit y , sli p o p. at 7 8, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ; In re Prairie StateG enera ting C o. , 1 3 E .A .D . 1 , 5 4 (E AB 20 06), aff’d su b nom . S ierra Club v. EP

A , 49 9 F

. 3d

65 3 (7 thC ir

. 2 00 7) ; In r e Ma so ni te Cor p. , 5 E. A. D. 55 1, 560- 61 (EA B 1994 ). The Bo ard further explained in New mon t : I n es sence, A g ency guidanc e an d o ur p rior decision s reco g niz e a distinct i on between, on the one hand , m ea sure d

“ e mi s s i o n s r at es , ” w hi chare n ec es sari ly datao bt ai ne d fr om

a parti cu lar fa ci li ty

a t a s pe ci fi c tim e, and on the o ther h and, the “em issions lim itation” de te rm in ed

to be B A C T and

s et f orthin th e pe rm it ,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 79

T he Re g ion’s r eas oningf or c hoosi ng a

long er -te rm

av er ag ingpe riod is 57 suppor te d by EP A guida nce pe rta iningto PSD pe rmitt ingf or GHG s. See A ir Qua lit y Policy D iv ., O f f ic e of A ir Qu al it y

P la n ning& Sta

ndar ds, U .S. EPA , PSD an d Tit le V Permitting Guid

an ce for Greenhou se Gases 46 (M ar. 201 1). The guid ance sta tes that “s inc e the e nv ironm ent al c once rn w it h GHGs is w ith the ir cum ulativ e im

pac t i n the env ironm ent , m et

ric s shoul d f

ocus on l ong er -te rm

av er ag es (e .g ., 30- or 365-da y rol ling (c ontinue d...) whic h the facility

is r e quired to c ontinu ously m eet thro ugho ut

th e fa ci li ty ’s life

. St at ed s im pl y , if th er e is unco ntrollable fluctuation or v ariability in the m easured em is si on r at e, th en

th e lo w es t m ea sure d em is si on r at e will n ecessarily

be m ore strin g ent th an th e “em issions lim itation ” that is “ach iev able” for that pollution c ontrol m ethod ov er the life of the fac ility

. 12 E.A .D . at 442 , qu oted in R us se ll

Cit y , sli p o p. at78- 79, 15 E.A.D. at _
__ ; ac co rd

Pra ir ie S ta te , 1 3 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 4- 55 ; In re Gen esee Pow er Station LP , 4 E

. A

. D

. 8 3 2 , 8 5 8 , 8 6 2 ( E A B 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ I t i s c us to m aryto establish em issions lim itations based on realistic op eratingparam eters, r a t he r t ha n on r e s ul t s t ha ta r e o nl y o c c a s i on a l l y ac hi e vab l e .” (c i t i ng In re Penn sauke n C

ty., N

. J. , R es
. R ec ov er

y F ac il it y , 2 E

. A

. D

. 7 6 8, 769- 70 (Adm ’r Apr. 20, 19 89))). When j uxtapo sed wi t h l on gst a nd i ng Bo a r d p r e c e de nt tha t afford s perm it issuers discretion

to set B AC T emis s i on lim its that are n ot the m ost strin g ent achiev able em ission lim its, Sierra Club’s challeng e to the

2 Reg ion’s decision

to set the C O B AC T e mis s i on lim it to c orrespo nd w ith em is si on

r at es a t 5 0 p er ce nt

lo ad m us t f ai l. A s an

in it ia l m atte r, Sierra Club fails to exp lain why the Reg ion’s explan ation for its choice of the B AC T em ission lim it falls sh ort. A lthough S ierra C lub c ites the respon se to com

m ents d ocum ent in

its p etition, it fails to a dd r e ss the R eg io n’ s st at ed

e xp lanati on

f or c ho os in gt he BACT e m is si on li m itto correspo nd with heat rates at 50 percent load. Sierra Club ass e r t s that “rather than establishin g a lim it that accounts fo r the fact that heat rates, and therefore em ission rates, chang e to correspo nd with load chang es, th e R eg io n to ok

th e dr as ti c st ep of est ablis hi ngaB A C T li m itth at w il l apply on a lon g [- ]term

(30 day s or g reater) av erag ingbas is bas ed o n the 57PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 80

(.. .c ontinue d)

57 ave rage ) rather than sho rt-term av erag es (e .g., 3- or 2 4-h r rollin g a vera ge).” Id. Sierra Club also ave rs that the Region “ass um ed w hen establishin g th e BA CT 58 limit that t

he [Fac ili ty ] w ould ope rate at a ll tim es at 50% l o ad ,” and c ontinue d that, “now her e in t he re cor d is the re a

ba si s to a ss um e cont inuous – i.e ., a ll 720 ope rating hours in ea ch 720-hour

rol lingav er ag e – ope ration at 50% load. ” Sier

ra Club P et . at 19. Contra ry to Sie rr a Cl ub’s a ss er

tion, the re cor d is cle ar

that the Reg ion under st ood that the Fa cili ty wou ld operate at v ar ious loa ds bet w ee n 50 a

nd 100 pe rc ent

. See RT C a t 16 (“ T he per m it re cor d is c le ar

that ea ch tur

bine is des ig ned to oper at e f rom 100% dow

n to 50% loa d duri ng norm al ope ration. A s suc h, w e m ust s et a li m it that i s ac hie v abl e at a ll tim es, includ ing 50 to 75 % lo ad.”); Fact S heet & A A QIR at 16 (no ting that P io P ico m ust be abl e to pr ov ide highly f le x ible unit s that c an prov ide re g ulation duringm orningand ev eni ng r a m p s be ca use output

f rom re new abl e sour ce s v ar ie s) ; R ev is ed A pplic at ion at 2. 1 (“ T he L MS100 i s des ig ned f or c y cl ic a

pplic at ions with 10-m inute s ta rts that pr ov ide f le x ible pow er g ene ration f or pea k ing and inte rm edi at e sol utions v ita l t o s upport v ar ia ble dem and and v ar ia

ble re new abl e ene rg y

s ourc es * * * .” ). hi g he st heat ra te and

e m is si on r at e. ” S ie rr a C lu

b P et

. a t 1 9. H ow ev er ,

58 Sierra Club does not confront the R eg ion’s explan ation in the respo nse to c om m ents d oc um ent that i t c on si de re d se tt in galt er nati v e B A C T li m it s to c ove r d i f

f erent lo ad rang es. See R TC at 1 5 (agreeingw ith the com m enter that “it is n ot po ssible to pred ict the extent of p art load operatio n duringeve ry

year for the life of the facility”), 16. The Reg ion explain ed th at up on “further exam ination of the load rang es, turbine efficiency , and operatin gparam eters, we find no j ustification for settin g mul t i pl e l i m its base d o n an arbitrary load lev el.” Id. at

1 6; see a lso Reg ion R esp. at 24 (notingthat to esta blish BA CT em ission lim its base d on t he achiev able e m ission rate at the v arious operatin grates at which the pl a nt pro poses to op erate w ould be “ im practical if not altog ether im possib le sinc e the plant m ay operate at 50 % load, 10 0% load , o r any of the countless p oints in be t ween ”). A s explained in Part I I I .B , th e Board h as freq

uently stated that a petitioner m

ust su bstantiv ely

con front th e pe rm itis sue r’ s re spo ns e an d expl ai n w hy , in li g ht o f th e pe rm it issuer’s stat ed rationale, the perm it is cle arly erron eous or o therw ise warrants rev iew. I n this instance , Sierra Club canno t prev ail when it has no t a d dr e s s e d t h e R e g i o n ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e s p o n se to com m ents d ocum ent.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 81 Sierra Club ’s use of the term “B AC T- le vel em ission lim its” tw ic e init s pe ti ti on

a pp ears to r ef

er en ce th e m os t s tr in g ent e m is si on li m it

2 th e R eg io n co ul d hav e ch os en for C O B A C T, nam el y

to c or re sp on d to the h eat rate at 10 0 p ercent load. Sierra Club Pet. at 20 (arguingthat the Perm it li mit “ will nev er en sure th at the plant is requ ired to em it at B A C T

- l e v e l e m i s s i o nl i m i t s , ” an d f urt h e r c l a i m i n gth a tth e R e g i o n ’s

2 decision to establish the CO B AC T em ission lim it base d o n w orst- case operatin gcon ditions “ensures that duringm ost periods the source is not su bject t o BACT- le v el e m is si on li m it s” ). S ie rr a C lu

b ag ai n fa il s to ad dr es s th e R eg io n’ s expl an at io n se t f orth in th e re sp on se to c om m ents docum ent. See R TC at 1 6 (“B AC T is achiev ed in the sam e m anner at 50% loa d as it is at 75% an d 1 00% loa d (an d any othe r load

lev el), e v en tho ugh t he ac tua l GHG em is si ons res ult ing fro m appl ic at ion of BACT m ay v ary at d ifferent lo ads. ”). Sierra C lub’ s a s sertions reg ardingthe “BA CT- lev el em ission lim it” do no t acco unt for P io P ico’s o perationas a pe ak ing facility , whic h anticipates operatio n at v arious loads as p art of the fac ility ’s inherent desig n and purpo se. In ad dition, any assum ption that a “BA CT- lev el emis sion lim it” on ly occ urs at 100 percent load ig nores the Board ’s extensiv e prior precedent set forth at the beg inning of this section, whic h states that a BA CT em ission lim it need no t be the m ost strin gen t e m ission lim it. E.g

. , New mon t , 1 2 E .A .D . at 441

- 42, qu oted in R us se ll

Cit y , sl ip op . at 78

- 79 , 15 E

. A

. D

. at

__ _. A s th e B oard has prev iously

ack now ledg ed, whe re the t e c hnolo g y ’s efficien cy at c on t rollingem issions is k nown to fluctuate, “settingthe em issions lim itation to reflect the hig hest control efficiency would m ak e v iolations of the perm it unav oidable .” Ma so ni te , 5 E

. A

. D

. a t5 6 0 , quoted in New mon t , 1 2 E .A .D . at 442

. Sierra Club ’s petition

also conta ins a calculation of the em ission lim it and corres pond ingheat rate at 100 pe rcent lo ad, whic h S ierra C lub av ers w ould translate to an em ission rate 18 perc ent lo wer than whe n the em ission limit a nd correspond ingheat rate is calcu lated at 50 percent lo ad

. S ie rr a C lu

b P et

. at 20

. Si er

raC lu b st at es th at

a ltho ugh th e F ac il ity will o perate at rates abov e 50 percent load during“m any , if not m ost” o f

2 its op eratingho urs, wh ich will result in lo wer achiev able C O em ission rates due to m ore efficient heat rates that occur at h ig her lo ads, “the final perm it establish es a B AC T- lev el em ission rate for only thos e ho urs whenPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 82

2 the unit op erates at 50% l oad.” Id. Althou gh the Permit’ s CO BACT em ission lim it is n ot the m ost string ent em ission lim it av ailable, as expl ai ne d ab ov e, it

is w ithi n a pe rm itis su er ’s d is cr et io n to s et ali m it som ewh atlo we r

th a n o pt i mal ef

f i c i e nc y to en s ur e co nt i nu e d c ompl i a nce. E.g

. , Ma so ni te , 5 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 60

. F urth erm or e, s im il ar to th e pe rm it issued in Ma so ni te , th e P erm it establis he s g ood com bustion and m aintenan ce p ractices a s part of the B ACT l i m it. Permit at 5 (“The Pe rmit t e e sh a l l al s o p e r f or m a ny n e c e s s a ry op e r a t i on s to m i ni mize em issions so th at em issions are at or belowthe em ission lim its spec ified in t his permit. ”) , 8 (“T he Per m it te e sha ll p r e p ar e andfol low a Maintenan ce P lan fo r e ach [com bustion turbin e- g enerator]. The Maintenan ce P lan sh all * * * pro v ide, to the extent practica ble , for the m ai nt en an ce and

o pe ra ti on

o f the t urb ine inam anne r co ns is te nt w ith g ood air po llu t i on c ontrol practice for m inim iz ingem issions. ”). The Board n otes , a s i t d i d in Ma so ni te , th at if th e eq uipm ent is capab le of ach i e vin ga hig her c ontrol efficiency , e nhan ced efficiency w ill be ac hi ev ed r eg ar dl es s of

whe th er th e em is si on

l imit inth e P erm it contem plates such efficiency

. Se e Ma so ni te , 5 E

. A

. D

. at 5 62 ; see a lso L ette r fr om

S te v e H il l, S ie rr a R es earc h, to G er ar do R io s, C hi ef , Ai r Perm its O ffice, Reg ion 9 , U .S. EP A, at 14 (J an. 5, 2012 ) (A .R . I .33 ) [hereinafter J anuary

20 12 Letter] (“I t is im

portant to no te that while the L MS 10 0 co nf

igur at io n pr ov id es th e fl ex ib il ity to op er at e ac ro ss th e fu ll rang e of loads betw een appro xim ately 50 MW and 300 MW, it w ill m ost li k el y b e di sp at ch ed

to o pe ra te a t the m or e ef fi ci ent l oa ds of 100 M W, 20 0 MW, o r 30 0 MW. ”)

. Sierra Club has not m et the particularly high thresh old re quired to de m onstrate that rev iew of the R eg ion’s fundam entally techn ical

2 de ci si on to e st ab li sh the CO B A C T e m is si on li m itto c or

re sp on d to 50 percent load efficiency is w arranted. Se e R us se ll Cit y , slip. op. at 1 5, 15 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ; I n r e P eabo dy W

. C oal C o. , 1 2 E .A .D . 2 2, 33- 34 (EA B 2005 ). The Bo ard n ow turns to the R eg ion’s decision to include

2 sa fe ty f ac to rs in th e P erm it ’s C O B A C T e m is si on li m it

.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 83 2. Sierra Club Has Not Dem onstra ted Tha t the Regio n F ailed to U se It s C on si de re d Ju dg

m en t W he n It I nc or po ra te d Sa

fe ty
2 Fact ors , or Compl ian ce M arg ins , Int o t h e CO BACT E m is si on L im it S ie rr a C lu b n ex t ch al le ng es the Re g io n’ s de ci si on to in co rp or at e three s afety

factors , to ta l i ng a 7. 4 p ercent com pliance m arg in, into th e
2 C O B A C T e m is si on

li m it , a ll eg in gth at

th e re co rd la ck s th e fa ct

ua l b as is to su pport the Reg ion’s decisionto include them

. Sierra Club Pe t. at 21- 22

. Th e R e g i o nc o un t e r s th a tn o to n l y w a s th e n e e d

t o i n c l u d e s af

et y
2 factors in the CO BA CT em ission lim it explain ed in the Fact Shee t and re sp on se to co m

m ents do cum ent, but al so th at in cl us io n of the s af ety fa ct or s w as a re as on ab le ex er ci se of th e R eg io n’ s di sc re ti on to ensure

2 that the C O B AC T em ission lim it can be m et ov er the lifetim e of the F ac il ity . R eg io n R es p. a t 2 4- 26

. P ri or to addre ss in gS ie rr a C lu b’ s
2 al l eg ations, the Board ex am ines th e R eg ion’s CO B AC T analy sis an d correspo ndinginform ation in the adm inistrativ e reco rd r e g ardingthe Reg ion’s decision

to include safety

factors

.
a. Back grou nd A s th e B oard ha s expl ai ne d in earl ie r de ci si on s, “a ‘s af ety f ac to r’ is inten ded to allow

the pe r mit t i ngauth ority flexib ilityin settingthe perm it lim its w here there is som e de g ree o f un certainty regar dingthe m axim um degree o f em issions reductio n that is a chiev able.” Pra ir ie State , 1 3 E .A .D . at 55, qu oted in R us se ll C it y , s li p op. at 75, 15 E.A.D. at __ _. The R e g i o n f

i r s t d i s c u s s e d s a f

e t y f a c t o r s i n t h e s t e p 5

2 explan ation of its C O B AC T analy sis co ntained in the F act S heet th at it issued con currently

w ith the propo sed draft p erm it in June 2012

. See Fact Shee t & AA QI R at 20- 21. As stated in P art VI I I .F. 1.a, at s tep 5 of it s B A C T an al y si s th e R eg io n se le ct ed th erm al ly

e ff ic ie nt s im pl e- cy cl e com bustion turbin es co m

bined with g ood com

bustion and m aintenan ce
2 practices as the control technique to lim it the Facility ’s C O em issions.

2 After explain ingthat the BAC T em ission lim it for C O w ould include a heat ra t e l i m i tth a ta

p p l i e s a ti n i t i a l s t a rtup i na d d i t i o nt o as e p a r a te,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 84

Mr

. Sarv ey ’s com m ent at f irs t appe ar s to addr es s the propos ed init ia l he at ra te 59 limit, wh ic h the Re g ion e xpla ine d in the Fa ct She et c onta ine d a

3 pe rc ent s af et y f ac tor to a cc ount f

or v ar iations in m anuf

ac turi ng , as se m

bly , cons truc tion, and per f orm anc e of the ne w tur bine s. Fa ct

She et & AA QI R at 2 0 . Y et

his c om m ent a ls o re f er enc ed the
2 6 pe rc ent s af et y f ac tor that the Re g ion a

pplie d to the ong oingCO BA CTe m is si on li m it, rathe r t han the propos ed init ia l he at ra te li m it. See

id. at 20- 21. ong oingem ission lim it (t he o ne S ierra C lub c halleng es) that app lies for the life of the facility , th e R eg ion s tated: B oth th e in it ia l h eat r at e li m it and th e on g oi nge m is si on

li m it m ust ac count for a nu mber of factors includin gv arious tolerance s in the m anufac turingand con struction of the equipm ent as w ell as actual am bient operatin gcon ditions. * * * * Where th e lon g - term

em ission lim it is con cerned , E PA is * * * a cc ount [i ng ] fo r unre co v er ab le losses in ef fi ci en cy th e pl ant w il l e xp er ie nc e ov er it s enti re li fe t i m e a s w e l l a s s e a s o n a l v a r i a t i o ni ns i t e - s p e c i fi c factors t ha t affect turbine perform ance such as t e mpe r a tur e an d hu mid i t y. In t hi s in s t a nc e , we be l i e ve a m arg in of 6% is a

pprop riate. Fact S h e e t & A A Q I R a t 2 0

- 2 1

. U s i n g th e 6 p e r c e n t m arg in of com pliance alongw ith em issions data p rov ided in the perm it ap p lication,

2 net th e R eg io n p ro po se d th e 1, 18 1 lb s C O /MW h o ut put e m is si on

li m it

. See U

. S

. P ro po se d P erm ita t 6 ; see a lso Fact Shee t & A AQ I R at 21

. D ur in gth e pu

bl ic c om m ent p er io d, ano th er c om m ente r, Mr. S arv ey , contested

the Reg ion’s inclusion

of a 6 percent com

pliance
hhv gross m arg in. See R TC at 5 2- 53 (referencingthe 9,1 96 Btu /k Wh initial hea t ra te li m it inc lud ed in the pr opos ed pe rmit andFact Sheet “as BACT f or G HG for the [F acility ],” and continu ingthat “this rep resents a 6% m ar g ino v er

th e g uarantee d he at

r at e” f or th e turb in es c ho se n)

. In it s 59 respon se, the R eg ion e laborated on its d ecisio n to use a co m pliancePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 85

m arg in ba sed on t he lik elihood that em issions m ay

v ary from the m anufac turer’s stated h eat rate: I t is esp ec ia ll y

im po rt ant to no te th at

th e m anuf

ac ture r’ s st at ed h eat ra te is at I S O c on di ti on s, whi chare s tand ar d re fe re nce condi ti ons fortempera tur e andpres sur e. As di sc us se d ino ur

Fa ct Sh ee t, tur

bi ne e ff ic ie nc y is h ig hl y depen dent up on actua l am bient operatin gcon ditions, whic h are no t nece s s arily the sam e as I SO referen ce co nd itio ns. I t i s pr ec is el y f or th is r ea so n th at

it is ne ce ss ar y to a dju st th e he at r at e li m itin

o ur p erm itto account for the ac tual o peratingcon ditions at the plant location. Id . at 53. The R eg io n al so e la

bo ra te d on

it s de ci si on

to in cl ud e sa fe ty
2 fa ct or s inth e C O B A C T e m is si on li m itwh il e re sp on di ngto th e pe rm it

2 app li can t’ s comm ent that the Fa ci li ty would be unable to m eet the CO em ission lim it prop osed in the draft perm it. See id. a t 1 4- 17 ; see a lso P io Pico J uly 24 C mt. at 3. I n its respon se to Pio Pico, the Reg ion e xplaine d inm or e de ta il the cal cu la ti on of th e re v is ed

heat ra te th at

w ou ld le ad to
2 2 a po unds of CO per m eg awatt hour (lbs CO /MWh) em ission lim it and

2 th e re as on s fo r in cl ud in gsaf ety fac to rs in th e C O B A C T e m is si on li m it : Table 1B of the ap plicant’s Ap r il 13, 20 12 letter indicates that the heat rate at 5 0% l oad unde r I SO con dit ion s is 10,576 BTU/ kWh (HH V , gros s) . As stated in the com

m ent an d i n our Fact Shee t, turbine per for m anc e varie s wit h am bie nt co ndi ti ons , and we agre e w ith th e com

m ente r th at

a1

. 4% a dju stm ent i s appro priate. This re s ul t s in an a djusted heat rate of

H H V gross 10, 724 BTU /k

Wh

. We fur t her a g ree w ith the com m enter th at it is necessary to adjust the heat rate for v ar ia bil it y in th e ne wuni t and

d egra dati on

in per f or m ance ov er tim e. We h av e furth er ad j usted the heat rate by an addition al 3% fo r eachof these factors.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 86 As noted by Sierra Rese arch elsew here in its com m ents, there are onl y a lim ited num ber o f LMS 100 installations, which m ak es it difficult to pred ict the m ag nitude of all of

t hese effects o n turb ine perform ance. We appli e d sim ilar adjustm ents when initially pro posing the perm it (see Fact Shee t at p p. 20- 21 ) an d w e be li ev e th ei r co nt inu ed u se is a pp ro pr ia te g i ven the uncertainty

inv olv ed in

estab lishingan efficiency

- based lim it for this ty pe o f source, resulting

H H V gross in a final h eat rate of 1 1,3 58 BTU /k Wh

. RTC at 16

. b. A na ly si s To det e rm i n e wh e t h e r

th e u s e o f

as a f e t y f a c t o r i s a p p r o p r i a t e, the B oard’s inquiry

m ust b e cas e- and

fact- specific. Prai ri e State , 13 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 5 (e xp la in in gth at th e “a pp ro pr ia te a

pp li cati on of

as af ety factor in settingan em ission lim it is inherently fact- specific and uniqu e to th e part ic ul ar

c ir cum st an ce s of

the s el ec te d te chno lo g y , th e co nt ex t i n w hi chit w il l b e ap pl ie d, and

av ai la bl e datar eg ar di nga ch ie v ab le em issions lim its”), qu oted in R us se ll

Cit y , sli p o p . a t 8 0 , 15 E.A.D. at _
__ ; accor d In re M i s s
. Lim e C

o. , P SD Appeal No. 11

- 01, slip. op . at 2 7 (E A B Au g . 9, 20 11 ), 15 E. A

. D

. at __ _. I n g en er al , s af

ety f ac to rs al lo wth e pe rm itis su er

to acc ount fo r v ar ia

bi li ty and f lu ct uati on s in pe rf or m an ce o f th e em is si on

c ontr ol te chno lo g y , lac k

of lo ng - te rm

d at a for the control technology , and uncertainty reg ardingthe deg ree to whic h the co ntrol tec hnolo g y

w ill be effectiv e when settinga BA CT em ission lim it. See, e. g. , New mon t , 1 2 E.A .D . at 442 ; R us se ll Cit y , s lip op . at 78, 84 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ; accor d P ra ir ieS

ta te , 1 3 E .A .D . at 55. Con t r a ry to Sierra Club ’s contention, the safety factors the

2 Re gio n c h o s e to in c orpo r a t e in th e CO BAC T emi s s i on li mitha ve adequ ate factu al supp ort in the rec ord. The Reg ion s tated in its res pons e to c om m ents d oc um ent that i t h ad includ ed , b as ed

o n co m m ents it receiv ed, a 1.4 % safety factor to account for the v ariability in turbine perform ance due to ch ang es in am bient cond itions, a 3% safety factor forPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 87

A s th e B o ar dn o t e di n Pr a ir ieState , “[v] ariability in th e observed 60 per f orm anc e of

a c ontrol te chnol og y

is an a ppropr iate c irc um st anc e f or t he per m itt ing aut horit y to use a s af et y f ac tor in s etting the per

m it’ s BA CT limit. ” 13 E. A .D . at 75- 76; accord In re M

asoni teCor

p. , 5 E .A .D . 551, 560-61 ( EAB 1994)

. v ar ia bi li ty in th e ne wunit , and

a3 % s af

ety f ac to r fo r de g ra dati on

in pe rf or m an ce o v er

ti m e, f or at ota l of 7. 4%

. R TC a t 1 6. A s se t f orth abov e in Part VI I I .F. 2.a, at an early stag e of the p erm ittingp r oc e s s the

2 Reg ion e xplaine d that its ch osen control techno log y for CO em issions

2 ne ce ss it at ed

th e us e of sa fe ty fa ct or s in th e C O B A C T e m is si on li m itto ensure the F acility ’s com

pliance ov er its life span, a nom inal thirtyy ears. See RTC at 7 (citingestim ated life of Facility ). The Reg ion noted in the Fact Shee t that unreco v erable losses in efficiency ov er the life of the pl ant, v ar ia

bi li ty in th e turb in es th em se lv es , and s ea so na l v ar ia ti on

in site- specific factors such as tem perature and hum idity

w ould affect th e
2 Facility ’s ability

to m eet the C O em ission lim it, an d further explained in the respo nse to co m

m ents th at the lim ited num ber of sim ilar LMS 100 installations, and

corres pond ingperfo rm ance data fo r such installatio ns, m ade it difficult to pre dict the m agnitude of all of the se effec ts on turbine perform ance. F act S heet & A AQ I R at 20

- 21; R TC at 1 6. The R eg io n’ s an al y si s of th e ne ed

f or s af ety f ac to rs is

2 par ti cul ar ly reas onable here , wh e re the co ntr ol t ech niq ue fo r th e CO BA CT em ission lim it is g ood com bustion and m aintenan ce p ractices a s oppo sed to ad d- on techno log y , a s the e f f e c tiv eness of this control techniq ue c ould lik ely

v ary acro ss s ources. See R us se ll Cit y , s lip op

. 60 at 84 , 1 5 E .A .D . at ___

(upholdingthe perm it issuer’s decisio n to use a
2 com pliance m ar gin in the B AC T em ission lim it for N O em issions duringstartup and shutdo wn of a pow er plant and noting that the ch osen control techniq

ue o f “be st w or k p ractices” is “a control techniq ue th e Board expects wou ld m ore wid e l y v ary acro ss so urces”). The Reg ion adequ ately

exp lained the reasons why the safety

factors inclu ded in the

2 CO em ission lim it are necessary and pro v ided adequ ate su

pport for ea ch

2 one g iv en th e ne ed to m eet the C O em i s s ion lim it ov er the lifetim e of th e F ac il ity

and in li g ht o f the li m it ed

d at a curr entl y

av ai la bl e to de m on stra te th e B A C T li m itc an b e m et o v er ti m e. A s su ch , th is c as e is distinguishab le from those the Board has rem anded for failure to pro v idePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 88

S i err a C l ub ’ s re p l y b r i ef ch al l en ge s th e Re gi o n ’ s c i t at i o n , fo r th e fi r st t i me 61 in t he Re g ion’s re spons e brie f , t o T abl e 3.5-2, w

hic h is loc at ed on pa g e 3.18 of the Re v is ed App li cat ion. Sie rr a Cl ub Re ply Br . at 4- 5; see supra Part VI. T he Re g ion appa re ntly inc lude d T abl e 3.5-2 in i ts resp o nse bri ef to ill ust rate , a lbe it w ithout ar tic ulatingit

in w ords , the sour ce of

the 1.4 pe rc ent

s af et y f ac tor the Re g ion i ncl uded in
2 the CO BA CTlim it. T he dif f er enc e bet

w ee n the he at

ra te at pe ak ope ratingc onditi ons (7,964 Bt u/kWh ) and the he at

ra te duri ng w inte r c onditi ons (7,856 Bt u/k Wh) t ota ls 10 8 Btu /kW

h, which is equivalent to a 1.4 percent diff erence in expected emission s based on am bie nt c onditi ons suc h a s te m per at ure and hum idit

y . Not w iths ta ndingthe Re g ion’s ci tation to T abl e 3.5-2 in i ts re spons e brie f , a nd the Boa rd’ s ac ce pta

nce of Sie rr a Cl ub’s re ply brie f on this is sue , the Boa rd’ s ana ly si s of Sie rr a Cl ub’s pe tit ion f

or r evi ew

and the argum ent s the re in i s uncha ng ed by the ar g um ent s in Si er

ra Cl ub’s re ply

brie f

. In par tic ula r, Sie rr a Cl ub’s re ply

bri ef a ppea rs to cha lle ng e the us e of

T abl e 3.5-2 to e xpla in t he 1.4 pe rc ent

s af et y fact or i ncl uded f

or varia tion in am bien t cond itio ns. Howe ver, the c hallenge to thi s docume nt is late, and as the Boa rd has st at ed m any tim es bef ore , is sue s ra is ed f

or the f irs t tim e in a re ply

bri ef are dee m ed untim el y

f ile d pe tit ions f

or r ev ie w . See

, e .g. , In r e Do mi nion E

ner gy Brayton Point , LL C , 12 E.A .D . 490, 595 (E A B 2006) (de cl iningto cons ide r a n is sue that c ould hav e b ee n ra is ed in a

ti m el y pe tit ion f or r ev ie w but w as ins te ad ra is ed in a s ubse quent re spons e brie f

); Knauf I , 8 E .A .D . at 126 n.9 ( “N ew is sue s ra is ed f

or the f irs t t im e at

the reply stag e of the[ ] proceedin gs are e qu ivalent to late f iled a pp eals and m

ust be denied on the basis of

t im eliness.”). The rem aind er o f S ierra Clu b’s reply

b rief t hat addresses (c ontinue d...) an a de qu at e just if

ic at ion f or safety f ac to rs in aB A C T e m is si on

li m it

. See, e. g. , In re V

ulcan Con str. Materials, LP, P S D Ap p e a l N o . 1 0

- 11, slip o p. a t 36 (EA B Mar. 2 , 2 011), 15 E. A. D. __ _ (rem andingbec ause pe rm itis su er

f ai le d to d is cu ss th e ne ed f or c om pl ianc e m ar g in s init s BA CT analy ses o r othe rwise prov ide a rationale as to why com pliance m ar g in s w er e ap pr op ri at e) ; Mi ss. Lime , s li p op . a t 3 0- 33 , 1 5 E

. A

. D. at __ _ (sam e). To dem onstrate that rev iew of an issue is warranted, a pe titioner m us t s ub st anti v el y

c on fr ont the p erm itis su er ’s r esp on se and e xp la in w hy , in li g ht of th e pe rm it is su er ’s s ta te d ra ti on al e, th e pe rm itis c le ar ly erroneo us o r otherw ise warrants rev iew. See supra P art I I I

. N owhe re in its petition

do es S ierra C lub a ddress the R eg ion’s explan ation in the F act Shee t or the response to com m ents d ocum ent o f its d ecision to inc lude

2 safety factors in the C O B AC T emis s i on lim it, n or d oes Sierra Club re fe r to an y of t he Boa rd’ s pri or pr ece den t re gardi ng saf et y fa ct ors . As

61PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 89

(.. .c ontinue d) 61 sa f et y f ac tors e xpounds upon argum ent s al re ady pres ent ed in t

he pet iti on f

or r ev ie w , a

nd thus the Boa

rd doe s not c onsi der

the m in its anal y si s of

thi s is sue .

T he thre e f

ac ili tie s th e Region ev al uat ed ar e: O ra ng e Grov e; El Ca

jon 62 Ene rg y ; a nd Ca ny on Pow er . F ac t She et

& AA QI R a

t 14 tbl. 7-5. a re su lt , S ie rr a C lu

b’ s ch al le ng e to th e R eg io n’ s in co rp or at io n of s af ety
2 f a c t or s in t o t he CO BAC T emi s s i o n l i mitfa l l s we l l sh or tof th e hi gh thre sh ol d pe ti ti on er s m

us t m ee t t o de m on stra te th at r ev ie wo f a pe rm it issuer’s technica l determinatio n is warranted. Se e, e
. g. , Pra ir ie S ta te , 13 E

. A

. D

. a t 7 2; New mon t , 1 2 E .A .D . 4 58- 59.

2 The Reg ion’s CO B AC T analy sis an d the corres pond ing em ission lim it the Reg ion establishe d are reasona ble in lig ht of all of the inf orm at io n inth e re co rd

. Thus , r ev ie wo f S ie rr a C lu b’ s ch al le ng es to
2 bo thth e stri ng en cy

o f th e C O BACT em is si on li m itand th e R eg io n’ s
2 decision to incorpo rate safe ty

factors into the C O lim it is d enied. G. The Reco rd D oes Not Reflect the P ermit Issuer’s Con sidered J ud gm e nt in Selecting

the BAC T L imit fo r Particulate Matter ( “PM” ) 1. Overview of P ermit Con dition PM i s o n e o f t h e p o l l u t a n t s t h e P e rm i t r e g u l a t e s . A fter identify ingav ailable c ontrol techno logi e s for PM, their technical feasibility

and cos t effect i ven e s s , th e R eg ion id entified the u se o f low sulfur natural g as and g ood com bustion prac tices as the to p an d p referred control opt i o n . F a c tS h e e t& A A Q I R a t1 3

- 1 5

. T o d e t e rm i n e the appro priate e m ission lim it achiev able b y this control option , the R eg ion ev aluated perform ance test data from “sim ilar sim

pl e c y cle plants” l ocated in so uthern Californ ia. Id

. a t1 4

. S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e R e g i on ev aluated data from tests cond ucted in 2010 and 2011 on G E L MS 6 000 turbines from

three different facilities. The perform ance test data from 62 th es e fa ci li ti es sh owed PM em is si ons rangin g bet ween 0.0008 lb /MM B tu and 0.0 049 lb/MMBtu. Id

. B ased on its top- down B AC T analy sis, thePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 90 Reg ion p ropose d as B AC T in the dr a f t perm it “the use of low

sulfur
2 .5 pipeline quality natural g as, g ood com bustion practices, and a P M, P M , 10 and PM [em ission] lim it of 0.0 065 lb/MMBtu on a 9

- hr av erag e” as BA CT. Prop osed Perm it at 6 ( s pe c i a l con d. I X.B. 1). The R eg ion explain ed th at the em ission lim it “repres ents th e expected PM em issions based on the eng ineeringdes ig n o f the specific m odel (GE LMS 10 0) o f natural- g as fired turbine. ” Fact Shee t & AA QI R at 14. The R eg ion a lso propo sed that the sulfur content o f t he n atural g as n ot be g reater than 0. 25 g ra in s pe r 10 0 dr

y stand ar d cu

bi c fe et ( “d sc f” ) on

a tw el v e- m onth rollingav erag e an d 1 .0 g rain per 1 00 dscf at any tim e. Id . at 15; P ro po se d P erm ita t 6 ( sp ec ia l c on d. I X. B

. 1)

. I n co m m ents o n the draft perm it, Pio Pico raised concerns about its ability

to com

ply w ith the propo sed em ission lim it of 0.0 065 lb/MMBtu whe n o peratingat lo w- load lev els. See R TC at 6

. P io Pico explain ed th at the facility can com ply w ith the propo sed em ission lim it wh en operatin g at full load, but “that at lowload this lev el m ay

no t be a chiev able at all tim es.” Se e id

. I n resp onse to P io P ico’s c oncern , th e R eg ion re v ised th e propo sed e mis s i on lim it. App ly inga load- based app roach, the Reg ion created a tw o- tier em ission lim it with0. 0065 l b/M MBtu as the applicab le em ission lim it when the plant operates abov e 80 percent loa d, and with 5.5 lb/hr a s the em ission lim it for a ll ope rations below 80 percent load

. See Pe rm it at 6 (con d. I X.B. 1); R TC at 6

. 2. Cha llenges on App eal Sierra Club t a kes issue withthe rev ised e m ission lim it and as se rt s th at th er e is no ba si s in th e re co rd fo r th e de te rm in at ion that: (1) 0. 0065 lb/MMBtu is an app ropriate lim it for o peration s g reater than 80 percent load ; (2) 80 percent load repres ents th e op eratingrang e be low w hi ch 0. 00 65 lb /MM B tu is no t ac hi ev ab le ; an d (3 ) 5. 5 lb /hr re pr es ents th e lo w es t a ch ie v ab le e m is si on r at e fo r al l l oa ds low er

than 80 p er ce nt

. See Sierra

C lub P et. at 23- 29.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 91

Sie rr a Cl ub ra is ed si m ila

r c om m ent s duringthe publi c com m ent pe riod. See 63 RT C a t 25. A cc ording to Sie rr a Cl ub, the re cor d on the dra f t pe rmit did not

e xpla in how the Re g ion de riv ed the 0.0065 l b/MMB tu e m is si on li m it f rom the pe rf ormanc e te st

data the Re g ion e x amine d a s par t of the BA CTanal y si s. See id . at 26 (noti ng that 0. 0065 lb/M MBtu represents m ore than eight time s t h e avera ge f rom the f acility w ith lo w est em ission s – 0.00 08 lb/M MBtu – a nd is higher than the m axim um ob serv ed at the three f ac ili tie s ex amine d – 0.0049 lb/M MBt u). Sie rr a Cl ub s ug g es te d the BA CTlim it shoul d hav e bee n c los er

to 0.0008 l b/MMB tu. Id

. I n su pp ort o f it s as se rt io ns , S ie rr a C lu b argues th at

th e re co rd fa il s to d es cr ib e “h ow the R eg io n co nc lu de d th at 0

. 00 65 lb /MM B tu represents B AC T” based on the perform ance test data the Reg ion ev aluated. Id . at 23- 27. Si e rra C lub s ug g ests that B AC T for PM

63 em issions s hould

hav e be en s im ilar to the em ission data fro m the test facilities the Reg ion e xam ined as p art of its B AC T analy sis. Id . a t 24. With respe ct to the selection of 80 percent load , S ierra C lub arg ues that the rec ord does n ot s upport the Reg ion’s conclu sion that 8 0 p ercent defines the point whe re 0.0 065 lb/MMbtu is no long er ach iev able. Id . at 28. Finally , with respect to the inclusion of 5.5 lb/hr as BA CT for loads be lo w8 0 pe rc ent, S ie rr a C lu b cl ai m s th at

th e R eg io n di d no t c on du ct a BA CT analy sis and instead only noted that 5.5 lb/hr wa s de m onstrated to p ro te ct

am bi ent a ir q ua li tys ta ndard s an d to b e ac hi ev ab le a t a ll operatin grates. Id . at 9; Sierra Club R eply B r. at 6- 7. Help ing Han d Tools also challeng es, although on different g r ou nds, the 5.5 lb/hr em ission lim it. Help ingH and Tools claim s that th is li m itis le ss r es tr ic ti v e th an what i s curr ently b ei ng ac hi ev ed in pr ac ti ce a t o th er

f ac il it ie s. H el pi ngH an d Too ls P et

. a t 4 3. A na ly si s I n li g ht o f th e ch an g es be tw ee n th e dr af t pe rm it an d th e pe rm it as issu e d, whic h allo w hig her lb /MMBtu e m issions than contem plated in the draft perm it to a

pply at a ll loads belo w 80 percent, an d the challeng es S ier r a C l ub and H elpingH and Tools raise, the Board m ust determ ine whether the rec ord reflects the perm it issuer’s exercise of co ns id er ed

jud g m ent ins el ec ti ngB A C T fo r P M. In do in gs o, th e B oard w il l e xam in e w he th er

th e re co rd

s up po rt s th e sel ec ti on o f:PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 92 (a) 0. 0065 lb/MMBt u a s B AC T for load s ab ov e 80 perc ent; (b ) the selection of 8 0 p ercent as the defin ingcriterion for apply ing d ifferent em is si on li m it s; and

(c) 5. 5 lb /hr as BA C T for loa ds b el ow8 0 pe rc ent. The Bo ard’s analy sis be g ins w ith the selection of 0 .00 65 lb/MMBtu.

a. Selection of 0.0 065 lb/MMBtu as BA CT for Lo ads Abo ve 80 Perce nt I n it s re sp on se to S ie rr a C lu b’ s co m m ents o n the d ra ftp erm it qu e s t ioningthe selection of 0 .00 65 lb/MMBtu as rep resentativ e of BA CT, th e R eg ion e xplaine d that: (1) b ecause this is a natural g as- fired co m bu st io n turb in e, E P A m

us t s et ali m it th at is te chni ca ll y f ea si bl e to m eet on an ong oing basis; (2) the Facility m ig ht no t be able to m eet the lo w es t e m is si on

r at e ob se rv ed

a t the te st

f ac il it ie s on

an on goingb as is becau se the turbines Pio Pico plans to ins tall w ill not hav e ad d- on control equipm e nt , and therefore PM em issions will v ary dep endingon

sulfur con t ent in

natural g as, the b urningoff of lub ricant o ils, and turbine m ai nt en an ce c y cl es ; ( 3) whi le th e su lf ur c onte nt of the n at

ur al g as P io Pico will u se is lim ited to 0.2 5 grain per 100 dscf o n an ann ual av erag e, the su lfur co ntent of the fuel used at the tes t f acilities is unk

nown; (4) ach iev i ng a n em ission rate duringa sing le source test does not g uarantee that the em ission unit w ill achiev e that r a t e on an ong oing ba si s; ( 5) P M e m is si ons vary e v en o n id enti ca l t

ur bi ne m od el s du e to different operatin gcon ditions; and (6) the turbin es at the tes t facilities’ and at Pio Pico’s are different both in size and m odel (i.e., G E L MS 6 000 at test facilities an d G E L MS 100 at Pio Pico). RTC at 26- 27. I n lig ht of th is and b ec au se of th e la ck of

te st d at a fo r th e sp ec if

ic turb in e m od el , th e R eg io n co nc lu de d th at setti ngthe em is si on

lim itat 0. 00 65 lb /MM B tu – the exp ected PM em i s s i on s ba sed on the en g ineeringdes ig n o f the specified m odel of

natural- g as fired

turbin e (i.e ., GE LMS 10 0) – w as appro priate in

this case. See id. ; Fac t Sh eet & A AQ I R at 14

. The B oard

d oe s no t d is agre e w ith th e pr in ci pa l fa ct or s th at f or m th e ba si s of

th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s. It i s w el l e st abl is hed t hat a pe rm it is su er m ay a pp ro pr ia te ly

c on si de r th e ex te nt

to whi chav ai la

bl e datain the rec ord ev idence the ability to consistently achiev e certain em ission rates o r control effectiv eness of the selecte d technology . S ee, e.g. ,PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 93 New mon t , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 4 40

. A s no te d inP art V I I I

. F

. 1, “ pe rm itwri te rs retain d iscretion to set BA CT lev els that ‘do not n ecessarily reflect the hi g he st p os si bl e co ntro l ef

fi ci en ci es bu t, rathe r, wi ll all owp erm it te es to achiev e com

pliance on a co nsistent basis. ’” New mon t, 12 E.A .D

. at 44 2 ( qu ot i ng St e e l

D y n a m i c s I

I , 9 E

. A

. D

. a t 1 88 ); see also Part VI I .F. 2 (d is cu ss in gu se of sa fe ty fa ct or s as a w ay to tak e in to ac co unt v ar ia bi li ty an d fl uc tu at io ns in th e pe rf or m an ce of th e se le ct ed

c ontr ol te chno lo g y ). A t the s am e ti m e, th e pe rm itis sue r ha s an o bl ig at io n “t o adequ ately

exp lain its rationale for sele ctinga less string ent em ission li m it , and th at

r at io na le m

us t b e ap pr op ri at e inli g ht o f al l the ev idence in the reco rd.” New mon t, 12 E

. A

. D

. at 4 40 ( em ph as is a dd ed ); c

f. In re Vulca n Con s t r
. Materials, LP, PSD Appeal No. 10

- 11, slip op. at 3 2 (E A B Mar. 2, 20 11 ), 15 E

. A

. D

.

__ (“ S el ec ti on of a re as on ab le s af ety factor is no t a n opportun ity for the p erm ittee to argue fo r, o r for the perm it issuer to set, a safety factor that is not fu lly

sup port ed b y

the re co rd , or th at do es no t re fl ec t th e ex er ci se of th e per m it issue r’ s consid ered j udg m ent in determ ining that the em issions lim it, inc luding the saf et y fa ct o r , c o nst it ute s BACT .”) . Thi s is beca use “BACT determ inations are o ne o f the m ost critical elem ents in the PSD perm ittingprocess.” In re Miss. L ime Co. , P S D App ea l N o. 1 1- 01 , s li p op. at 1 7 (E AB Aug . 9 , 2 011), 15 E. A. D. __ (citing I n re D esert R ock Ener gy Co. , L LC ., PSD App eal Nos

. 08- 03 through 0 8- 06, slip op. at 5 0 (EA B Sept. 24 , 2 009), 14 E. A. D. __). As such, “the determ ination of what repres ents BA CT for a specific facility m ust reflec t the consid ered j udg m ent o n the p art of the p erm it issuer, and m ust b e w ell do cum ented in the adm inistrativ e reco rd.” Id

. I n th is p arti cu lar ca se , whi le th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s m ay e xp la in why the Reg ion s elected a less string e nt lb/MMBtu lim it than the perform ance lev els ob serv ed at thethreetest facilities , why the em ission lim it for th e P io P ico F acility sho uld tak e into acco unt v aria bi l i t y an d fl uc tu at io ns in

c ontr ol e ff

ic ie nc y , and

ho wthe 0. 00 65 lb /MM B tu f igur e cam e ab out, th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s fa il s to co ns id er al l of th e ev id en ce in the rec ord. A s explained m ore fu lly

belo w, it ap pears t ha t the Reg ion di sm is se d or

ov er lo ok ed

h ig hl y r el ev ant i nf

or m at io n inth e re co rd w itho ut ade qu at e expl an at io n. The ov er lo ok ed inf or m at io n inth e re co rdPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 94

See Sie rr a Cl ub’s Re ply Br

. at 6 n.8 (a rguingthat Panoc he dat a did not f orm 64 the ba si s of

the Re g ion’s dec is ion and cl ai m ing that the Re g ion’s de sc ript ion of the data is m is le adi ng ). ap pe ar s to d ir ec tl y

c on fl ic t w ith parto f th e R eg io n’ s un de rl y in gr at io na le for sele cting0. 0065 lb/MMBtu a s t he e m ission lim it represe ntativ e of PM B AC T for the Facility

. The Reg i on cites the lac k of test data for the sp ecific turb ine m odel being ev aluated as one of the m ain rea sons for de v iatingfrom the em ission rates o bserv ed at the test facilities and for sele cting 0.0 065 lb/MMBtu as B AC T. See RTC at 27 (“Co nsideringthe lack of test data for the sp ecific turb ine m odel we are ev aluating , w e do no t believ e there is sufficient ev idence to set a PM B AC T lim it low er than the 0 .00 65 lb/MMBtu and 5.5 lb/hr in the Pe rm it.”); P io P ico R esp. at 2 2 (“ th er e is n o ex is ti ngte st in gd at a fo r th e L MS 1 00 m od el turb in e” ). Th is rationale, ho wev er, fails to reflect all of the inform ation in the reco rd o f this ca se. First, at t he R eg ion’s request, Pio Pico pro v ided PM em ission test resu lts from

the Pano che Energy

C enter P roj ect (“P anoch e”), an e l e c t r i c gen e r a t i ng f

a c i l i t y, a l s o p e a kin g, l oc a t e d i n F r e s no Co un t y, Californ ia. S

ee gen eral lyJ anu ary 2012 Lett er . Panoch e uti li zes fourGE L M S 1 0 0 n a tur a l ga s -f

i r e d c o mb u s t i o nt u rb i n e g e n e r a t o r s – th e s a me m odel turbine that P i o Pi c o plans to ins tall. I n January 20 12, sev eral m onth s be fo re th e R eg io n is su ed th e F ac t S he et

and th e re spo ns e to co m m ents d oc um ent, P io Pic o p ro v id ed PM em is si on

dat a fr om

20 09 to 2011 for the fo ur t ur bines at P anoch e. Inexp licably , n one of the docum ents th at form

the basis of the R eg i on ’ s BAC T analy sis disc uss thi s in for m at ion or expl ai n why thi s inf ormati on is not par t of the BACT analy sis. 64 The first and

seem ing ly

only place where the R eg ion re ferences this in f or mat i on is a c ursory

foo tnote in the R eg ion’s respon se to the petitions. See R eg io n R es p. a t 2 8 n. 15

. Th e R eg io n st at es :PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 95

See, e.g., In re Indeck-Elwood , LLC, 13 E.A .D . 126, 162 n.68 ( EAB 2006) 65 (no ting t h at a perm it issuer m ust articulate the reasons f or its con clusion and m

ust ade quat el y

doc um ent

its dec is ionm akingas par t of the pe rmit dec is ion i ts el f and not f or the f irs t t im e on a

ppea l); In re Chem. W

aste Mgmt , 6 E .A .D . 144, 151 -5 2 (EA B 1995) (declini ng to rely

on ratio nale perm it issuer raised f or th e f irst tim e in respon se to an appe al ); In re Am oco Oi l C o. , 4 E.A .D

. 954, 964 (EAB 1993) (r em andi ng iss u e whe re per m it is sue r’ s rationa le w as arti cul at ed f or t he f irs t t im e on a

ppea l); In re Waste Techs. Indus ., 4 E .A. D. 106, 114 (EAB 1992) (r ej ec tingpos t-hoc argum ent ra is ed by pe rmit is sue r i n re spons e to a

n a ppea l). See, e.g., Miss . Lime , slip op. a t 25 , 15 E.A.D. at

__(rem andi ng f aulty BA CT 66 ana ly si s to a llow

publi c com

m ent s) ; Knauf

I , 8 E .A .D at 175 (r em andi ng inc om ple te BA CTanal y si s and re quiri ng that ne w anal y si s be m ade av ai la

ble f or publ ic c om

m ent s)

. I n it s re ce nt

rev ie wof th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd f or th is m atter, the Reg ion noted that p erform ance test data for LMS1 00 turbines at the Pano che Energy C e nter * * * was subm itted to the R eg ion b y the App licant on J anuary 12 , 2 012. This [sic] data, w ith P M e m is si on s in th e ra nge of

0

. 00 1 to 0

. 01 2 lb

/MM B tu , shows consid erable v ariability in em issions from the LMS1 00 turbines. T hese results are generally co nsistent w ith the Reg ion’s conclu sion t ha t the 0.0 065 lb/MMBtu PM li m its el ec te d fo r th e [P io P ic o fa ci li ty ] w as r ea so na bl e * * *. Id

. ( em ph as is a dd ed ). The R eg io n’ s po st

- ho c an al y si s com es t oo late ; the ana ly si s sh ou ld h av e be en parto f th e re co rd av ai la bl e fo r pu bl ic c om m ents b ef or e the R eg ion d eterm ined the fin al PM BA CT limi t s . Moreov er, the 65 R eg io n’ s po st

- ho c sum

m ar y la ck s a de ta il ed expl an at io n of al l th e data and it s s i g n i f

i c a n c e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e R e g i o n , P M e m i s s i o n s from

66 Pano che rang e between

0.001 lb/MMBtu and 0.0 12 lb/MMBtu, sho wing consid erable v ariability

in em issions from

LMS 10 0 turb ines. Id

. W hi le th e P an oc he d at a do s ho wv ar ia bi li ty , th e m ajor ity

o f th e av ai la

bl e data are b elow0. 0065 lb/MMBtu

. Out of the thirty- six data po ints av ailable, onl y tw o s h o we m i s s i o nr a t e s a b o v e 0

. 0 0 6 5 l b / M M B tu( i

. e ., 0.0 12 lb/MMBtu and 0.0 07 lb/MMBtu). See January 20 12 Letter at 13 ;PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 96 Reg i o n R e s p . e x c e r

p t E t ab

. 3

. Th e r e s t o f t h e d a t a p o i n t s are below 0. 00 5 lb /MM B tu , e xc ep t f or tw o datap oi nt s, o ne a t 0

. 00 60 5 lb /MM B tu and ano t her at 0.0 06 lb/MMBtu, which are still s lig htly un der 0. 00 65 lb /MM B tu

. Th e R eg io n’ s fo otno te d oe s no t anal yz e th es e data in de ta il nor ex pla in ho w, if at all , t h e y a f f e ctthe Regio n’s PM BACT determ ination for P io P ico, and m ore im portantly, ne ither d o the Fa ct S he et n or th e re sp on se to c om

m ents d oc um ent. The record

also show s that anothe r facility , t he C PV Sentinel Pr oj ect (“CP V Sentin el”), also utiliz es the GE LMS 100 turbines. See R TC at 50

. Mr. S arv ey

b ro ught th is f ac il ity to th e R eg io n’ s atte nt io n in his co m m ents o n the draft perm it. Se e id

. ( no ti ngth at th is fac il it y

is pe rm it te d at 5 lb /hr)

. I n re sp on di ng to th is co m m ent, th e R eg io n m er el y explain ed th e differe nce betw een an e m ission lim it with one sig nificant fi g ur e an d one w ith tw o si g ni fi cant f igur es ( i. e. , 5 lb /hr v s. 5

. 0 lb /hr ). Se e id . at 51. The record, ho wev er, does not d em onstrate that th e R eg ion factored the d a t a of this facility into its B AC T analy sis or determ ined that the facility

w as ina pprop riate to use for co m parison

. Se e id

. As the NSR Manu al st at es , “[ i] n th e ab se nce of a sh owing o f differences betw een the p r oposed so urce and prev iously perm itted so ur ce s ac hi ev in glo w er e m is si on s li m it s, th e pe rm ita g en cy s ho ul d conclu de that the lowe r em issions lim it is representativ e for that co ntrol a l t e r na t iv e.” NSR Manu al at B .24 (em

phasis added ). The perm itting ag en cy h as an ob li g at io n to investig at e an d ex am in e re ce nt r egul at or y de te rm in at io ns , e sp ec ia ll y if , a s inth is c as e, e xam

pl es are b ro ught

to it s attention. Mi ss. Lime , s lip op . at 23, 15 E. A. D. at _ __. The existenc e of a sim ilar facility

w ith a lowe r em issions lim it creates an o bl i gat i on for the perm it app licant an d p erm it issuer to consid er a nd docu men t

whether the same e mis s i on lev el can be achiev ed at the propo sed facility

. Id

. Sim ply statingthat PM em issions v ary ev en o n ide ntical turbine m odels, witho ut co nside r i ngand

do cum entingB AC T lim its and em ission rates fr om ex is ti ng fa ci li ti es w ith th e sam e turb in e m od el , is n ot s uf fi ci ent t o satisfy this oblig ation. Cf. M

is s. Li me , s lip op . at 3 3, 15 E. A. D. at _

_ (n ot in gim

po rt an ce o f careful ly ev al uati ngm ul ti pl e so ur ce s an d data points as w ell as inform ation such as rece nt pe r mit lim its at s im ilar fa ci li ti es ).PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 97

N ei the r doe s Pio P ic o. A s ex pla ine d e ar lie r, the Re gio n modif ie d the 67 propos ed emission limit f or PM in re spons e to Pio Pico’ s com m ent s ra is ingc once rns about the Fa ci lit

y ’s a bili ty to m ee t t he emis si on lim it propos ed in the dra f t pe rmit during low loads. The Region w as persuaded by inform ation P io P ico pro vided in a Dece m ber 2011 s ubm is si on. See Lett er fro m St eve Hi ll , Si err a Res ear ch , to Gerard o Ri o s, Ch ie f, A ir P erm its Of

f ice, U.S. EP A

Reg ion 9 (Dec. 8, 20 11 ) (A .R. I.31) [herein af ter Dec em

ber 2011 L ette r]; RT C at

6 n.3. Pio Pico’s subm is si on expla ine d that: (1) it ha d ori g ina lly propos ed a com

plia nce li m it of

5.5 l b/hr, ra

the r t han a limit e xp re ss ed in l b/MMB tu;

(c ontinue d...) The R eg io n had an ob li g at io n to inv es ti g at e an d ev al uate Pan o c h e an d

C P V S e n t i n e l , p a rt i c u l a r l y c o n s i d e r i n gth e f

a c tth a tthe R eg io n ha d in fo rm at io n about the m in th e re co rd

and w as th er ef

or e aware of their existenc e. The Reg ion also had an o blig ation to explain, as it d id w ith th e thre e te st

f ac il it ie s ite xam in ed

in th e F ac t Sheet , whet herther e ar e dif

fe re nce s bet ween the Fa ci li ty and the se t wo addition al facilities, and/ or whether source- specific factors exist th at j ustify the selectionof an e m ission lim it that is higher th an th at ach iev ed by , o r perm itted at, these particu lar sources. The R eg io n’ s fa il ur e to adequ at el y c on si de r at

th e ap pr op ri at e ti m e what appe ar s to be si gnifi can t inf ormati on cas ts d oubt o n the BACT ana ly si s an d on

th e ad eq ua cy o f 0. 00 65 lb /MM B tu

a s em is si on

li m it re pr es enta ti v e of

B A C T fo r th is F acility . Th er ef or e, th e B oard co nc lu de s th at

th e re co rd

d oe s no t r ef

le ct th e ex er cise of the p erm it is su er ’s c on sidered

jud g m ent i n de te rm in in gth at th e em is si on s li m it selected constitute s B AC T.

b

. Selection of 80 Perce nt L oad as th e D efining C ri te ri on fo r A

pp ly in g D if

fe re nt E m is si on L im it

s E xam in at io n of

th e re co rd

a ls o sh ow s a gap in

a de qu at el y explain ingthe selection of 8 0 p ercent load as the criterion for de fining w he n d if fe re nt em is si on lim it s ap pl y . N ei th er

the r es po ns e to c om

m ents do cum ent n or

th e R eg io n’ s re spo ns e to th e pe ti ti on s expl ai n w he th er a tw o- ti er a pp ro ac h, li k e th e on e ad op te d inth is c as e, is ty pi ca l for th is ty pe o f facility , o r w hy

80 perc ent, rather tha n a ny other potential percentag e, was selected as the thresh old. 67PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 98

(.. .c ontinue d)

67 (2) the propos ed limit w as int ende d to appl y unde r a ll ci rc um st anc es ; ( 3) i n it s “a chi ev edin-pr ac tic e” e m is si on ra

te anal y si s, it

c onsi der ed PM BA CTli m its f rom othe r sour ce s, but the m ost re ce ntly pe rmitt ed units had no oper at inghistor y ; (4) f or t he only f ac ili ty w ith an op erating histo ry , it w as no t po ssible to determ ine com plian ce w ith th e lim it express ed in l b/MMB tu, and init ia l c om plia nce te st ingre sul ts f

or t ota l PM s how ed that t

he f ac ili ty did not c om

ply w ith its PM limits . Pio Pic o c oncl uded that t her e is no “ ac hie v ed- inpra ct ic e” BA CT . D ec em ber 2 0 1 1 Let te r a

t 2- 4. N ota

bly , Pio Pico’ s le tte r doe s not sug g es t a ny s pec if ic loa d pe rc ent ag e as a

thr es hold. See RT C at 6 (e xpla ining that turbi nes are le ss f uel e f f ic ie nt at l ow er

loa ds 68 an dth atbe cau se t h ere is n o co n tr o l d evi ce forP M e m is si o n s th e ap p li can t can n o t t ake m ea sur es to im

prov e the lb/MMB tu PM e m is si ons at low er loa ds)

. See RT C a

t 6 (s tatingthat “ [t]he lb/MMB tu i s bei ng ap p li ed at high loa ds 69 because it re presents the testing cond itio ns that w ill be used to dem on strate c om plian ce du ringpe rf

orm anc e te st ing . C om

plia nce w ith the lb/MMB tu l im it at high loa ds dem on strate that the turbi ne s are m eeting BA CT by using goodcom

bu stion practices. T he 5.5 l b/hr limit is th e e m is si on ra te that w as us ed in t

he appl ic at ion t o de m onst rate
1 0 2 .5 com plia nce w ith the PM and PM N AA QS. Thi s li m it is a chi ev abl e at low er loa ds bec aus e PM e m is si ons per unit of ti m e w illbe le ss at l ow er

loa ds w hen le ss f uel is be ing use d.” ). For instance , the Reg ion’s respon se to co m m ents e xplaine d why a ch ang e in the p ropose d lim it wa s ne cessary , why em ission rates from 68 th e te st f ac il it ie s m ay

n ot a pp ly to th e P io P ic o F ac il ity , and why P io P i c o ’ s F a cilitysh o u l d

b e a b l e t o m e e tth e n e we m i s s i o nl i m i t s . R TC at 6, 26

. The Reg ion’s r e s po ns e t o co m m ents a lso explained

why the Perm it requ ires an

em ission lim it exp ressed in u ni t s of lb/MMBtu, the so ur ce of th e ne wem is si on lim itof 5. 5 lb /hr, and

why the lb/hr lim itis achiev able at l ow load s. Id

. The Reg ion’s respon se to com m ents, 69 how ev er, did n ot explain the b asis fo r selecting 80 perc ent as the thr es ho ld a bo v e w hi ch0

. 00 65 lb /MM B tu , and b el owwhi ch5

. 5 lb /hr, r e p r e s e n t s B A C T. I n its respon se to the p etitions, the Reg ion a sserts th at the se le ct io n of

8 0 pe rc ent l oa d is bas ed

on its bes t pr of

es si on al jud g m ent, reiterates th e reaso ns prov ided in the respo nse to co m m ents, and explain s why PM perform ance test data from othe r faciliti es are difficult to use for de term iningPM BA CT lim its. See R eg ion Re s p. a t 2 9- 30. ThesePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 99

One of the argum ents Sierra Clu b raises in its petitio n is that the record do es 70 not s how consi der at ion of

low -loa d e m is si on data , Si er ra Cl ub Pet. at 9, the im

plic at ion bei ng that t h e Re g ion s hould ha v e ev al uat ed low -loa d e m is si on ra te s f rom dif f er ent f ac ili tie s to de te rmine the loa d at w hic h 0.0065 lb/M MBt

u is no long er

a chi ev abl e. T he Re g ion’s re spons e to th e pet iti ons does not addr es s this argum ent . O n re m and, the Re g ion sh o uld e v al uat e low -loa d e m is si on data f rom othe r f ac ili tie s, if

av ai la ble , or ex pla in w hy it is unne ce ss ar

y or inf ea si ble to per for m

s u ch an anal y si s, and s hould ex pla in t he re as ons f

or se le ct inga s pec if

ic loa d a s the thr es hold f

or a pply ingtw o dif

f er ent BA CT lim its.

In its D ec em

ber 20 1 1 Let te r, Pio P ic o e xpla ins that t he ex pec te d e m is si on 71 rate at l ow

loa d is 0.01 l b/MMB tu. D ec em ber 2011 L ette r a

t 6.

2 N ota bly , i n s el ec tinga BA CTli mit f or C O that c orr es ponds to t he Fa ci lit y ’s 72 oper at ion at 50 per ce nt l oad, the Re g ion r ej ec te d Pio Pico’ s sug g es tion to s el ec t a li m it based on a heat rate calculation that correspon ds to 7 5 percent lo ad. T he Reg ion decided ag ai nst P io P ic o’s sug g es tion bec aus e of a lac k of te chni ca l j ust if

ic at ion f or w hy the li m it shoul d be ba se d at 75 per ce nt. RT C a t 16; see supra Part

VII I.F .1. U n li ke he re , the
2 re cor d re g ar dingthe sel ec tion of a BA CTli m it f

or C O e xpla ins the Re g ion’s ra tiona le f or s el ec tinga

li m it that c orr es ponds to t he Fa ci lit y ’s ope ration at

50 pe rc ent

loa d. assertions , h owe v er, are ins ufficient to co m pensate for om issions in the respon se to com

m ents docum ent. Lack of an ade quate explan ation of 70 the ratio nale fo r selectin g80 perc ent lo ad a bov e oth er load perc entag es c a n n o t b e d i s m i s s e d a s a t r i v i a l m a t t e r . A s S i e rr a C l ub p o i n ts ou t, th e newem ission lim it for operatio ns below 80 percent is less string ent th an 0. 00 65 lb / M M Bt u. Bec aus e th i s re pr e s e nt s a s i gni f i c a nt ch a nge 71 be tw ee n th e dr af

t and f in al P erm it , a t a m in im

um , th e re co rd

s ho ul d reflect the R eg ion’s technica l con sideration s for selectingthis particular lev el. Sim

ply statingthat the R eg ion u sed its best professio nal judg m ent to sele ct 80 perc ent, witho ut an articulatio n o f w hat w ent into that j udg m ent, is insufficien t and requires a rem and. E.g., Vulca n , s lip op

. 72 a t33

- 34 , 1 5 E .A .D . a t__ (r e man di ng i n p a rt be c aus e ad min i s t r a t i ve record did n ot inc lude any discu ssion of what an

appropriate com

pliance m arg in sh ould be, why

the m arg in sh ould be s et at a particular lev el, o r w hat d at a fr om

o th er fac il it ie s m ig ht

sup po rtthe pro po se d le v el ); In re Dom inion Ener

gy B rayton Po int, LLC, 12 E.A .D

. 49 0, 58 9- 90 (E A B 2 00 6) ( re m an di ngp erm itc on di ti on bec au se per

m itiss ue r fa il ed

to pr ovi de ra t i on a l e ex pl a i ni ng “ pr e c i s e l y why i tul t i ma t e l y se l e c t e d f i ve day s (a s oppo se d to any

o th er num be r of d ay s, s uc h as s ixo r se v en )” );PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 100

In i ts pe rmit appl ic at ion, Pio P ic o propos ed a PM com plia nce li m it of 73 5.5 l b/hr appl ic abl e under all ci rc um st anc es (inc luding ful l l oad, s ta

rtup, and s hut dow

n). See Re v is ed A

pplic at ion at 4. 32 tbl .4-17.
A no ther argum ent Sierra Club raise s is that the rec ord appears to show that 74 the e m is si on ra

te s in l b/MMB tu at l ow

loads for at lea st one other fa ci lit y are s ig nif ic ant ly (c ontinue d...) In re Ash Gro ve C

emen t C o. , 7 E. A. D. 38 7, 417 (EA B 1997 ) (exp laining that the perm it issuer “m

ust articulate with reasona ble clarity the reasons for [its] conclu sions and the significance of the cru cial facts in reac hing th os e co nc lu si on s” ).

c. Selection o

f 5 .5 lb/hr as B

AC T fo r L oads U

nder 80 Perce nt Sim ilarly , th e selec tion o f 5. 5 lb/hr as BA CT for loads unde r 80 pe r c e nt is no tad e qu a t e l y ex pl a i ne d i n t h e re c or d. T he re c or d l a c ks a for m al BACT a nal ysis demonst ra ti ng th at5 .5 lb/ hr co nst it ute s BACT fo r lo ads un de r 80 p er ce nt

. H er e, th e re co rd e st ab li sh es th at : (1 ) 5. 5 lb /hr is th e co m pl ianc e li m itP io P ic o re qu es te d init s app li cat ion as re pre sen ti ng exp ec t e d PM em is si ons fro m the GE 73 L MS 1 00 turb in es bas ed o n th ei r en g in ee ri ngd es ig n, F ac t S he et & AA QI R at 14 ; (2 ) P i o Pico used this fig ure to dem onstrate com

pliance with the N AA QS , R TC at 6 ; and (3) 5.5 lb/hr is eq ui val e nt to 0.00 65 lb/MMBtu m easured

at or near peak

turbin e load , January

20 12 Letter at 12

. Th e r e c o r d a l s o s h o w s t h a t t h e R e g i o n w a s i n t e r e s t e d in an em ission lim it exp ressed in un its of l b/ M M Btu of h eat inp ut an d thu s requeste d that P i o Pico prov ide ad ditional analy sis to supp ort su ch an em ission lim it for P M. Dece m ber 2 011 Letter at 2 (explai ni ng that Reg ion re quested

that t he proposed lim it be express ed a s anem ission rate in units of lb/MMB tu in order to facilitate com parison with oth er fa ci li ti es ). While the record e xp l a ins h ow the 5 .5 lb/hr and 0.00 65 lb /M MBt u fi gure s we re deri ved, ther e is no for m al BACT analy sis pro v idingsup port fo r the determ ination that 5.5 lb/hr c onstitutes BACT forload s bel ow 80 pe r c e n t. Notabl y, the Region’s BACT 74PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 101

(.. .c ontinue d) 74 low er tha n the lb/M MBt

u at low loa ds w ith a 5.5 l b/hr limit. See Sier ra Cl ub Pet. at 9, 29. The Re g ion doe s not a ddre ss thi s spe ci f ic argum ent ; t

her ef ore , th e Region shoul d addr es s this argum ent

on r em and. an al y si s fo cu se d o n co m

pari ngper fo rm an ce tes t dataexp re ss ed in uni ts of lb/MMB tu of heat in

put fro m sim ilar sim

ple- cy cle plants. Fa ct Sh eet & A A Q I R

a t 1 4; see a lso D ecem

ber 2 011 Le tter at 2 , tb l. 1 (exc luding certain facilities from

furthe r ev aluation becau se P M lim it wa s no t exp re sse d in l b/M MBt u). The Region, however , did not com par e BACT lim its, p erform ance test data, o r em ission rates at different loads in lb/hr from sim ilar sim

ple- cy cle facilities, or explain why these ty pes of an al y se s are ei th er

unf ea si bl e or unn ec es sary

in th is c as e, n or

d id it cond uct any othe r ty pe o f ana ly sis to establish t he 5 .5 lb/hr lim it as BA CT. Fact Shee t & A AQ I R a t 1 4. As noted ab ov e, witho ut an articulation in the reco rd o f the BA CT analy s i s , t he Board cannot perform any rev iew of that analy sis an d, therefore, cannot c onclud e that it m eets th e req

uirem ent o f rationa lity

. See In re Gov ’t of D. C. Mun. Sepa rate S

torm Sew er S

ys. , 1 0 E .A .D

. 323, 34 2 (E AB 20 02) (notingthat perm it issuer failed to com m it its an aly si s t o writingand rem anding pe rm itto p ro v id e or de v el op re co rd su pp ort fo r it s pe rm itd et erm in at io n)

. T he r e f or e , e ven i f 5. 5 lb /hr i n f

a c tre pr e s e nt s PM BAC T fo r th e Fa c i l i t y, th e B oard c anno t, o n th is r ec or d, pro pe rl y rev ie wthe Re g io n’ s an al y si s or d eterm ine whet he r t he R eg ion c learly erred in sele cting5. 5 lb/hr as BACT for loa ds below 80 per cen t. As not ed ear l i e r , BACT determ inations are critical elem ents o f the PSD perm ittingpro g ram and m ust b e w ell do cum ented in the adm inistrativ e reco rd. 4. B ec au se t he R ec or

d D oes N ot R ef le ct th e P er m it I ss ue r’ s Con sidered

Jud gme nt in Selecting

BA CT Lim its for PM, a Rem and Is in Ord

er To c o rr e c t t h e r e c o r d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i d e n t i f i e d ab o v e a n d the lack of adequ ate su

pp or t and exp lanation for the newload

- based PM em ission lim its, th e B oard rem ands this perm it cond ition to the Reg ion so th at the Reg ion m ay

prep are a rev ised BA CT analy sis an d m ak e a new BA CT d e t e rm i n a t i o nf

o r P M b a s e d

o nth e e x e r c i s e o f

i t s t e c h n i calPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 102

Bec ause the Board is rem andi ng the perm it to th e Re gion for additi on al

75 ex amination of

the BA CT e m is si on li m its f or PM, t he Boa rd ne ed not a ddre ss the argum ent Helpin g H and Tools raises a bo ut 5 lb/h r being a mo r e r es t rictive lim it than 5.5 lb/hr, and the R eg ion’s c orr es pondingre spons e. See He lping Ha nd T ools Pet. at 4; RT C a t 50. j udg m ent afte r con sideration of all of the rele v ant in form ation. S pe ci fi ca ll y , o n re m an d th e Reg io n sh ou ld : ( 1) c on si de r em is si on d at a an d B A C T li m it s fr om

P an oc he and C P V S enti ne l in it s B A C T ana ly si s and docum ent whether the lim its or em ission rates ob s e r ved at thes e facilities can

or canno t be achiev ed at t he Facility ; (2) explain whether a tw o- ti er lo ad

- ba se d ap pr oa chis ty pi ca l f or sim il ar fac il it ie s, and

if n ot , why suc h an app roach i s a pp r opriate in this case. I f a load- based ap pr oa chc onti nu es to b e th e R eg io n’ s ch oi ce , th e R eg io n m us t: (1) pro v ide a rationale exp lainingany spe cific load

lev el selec ted; an d (2) prov ide record s uppo rt for the em ission lim its selected as BA CT for hig h an d low

load s co nsistent with t hi s dec ision. In ad dition, the 75 Reg ion is directed

to reopen

the public com

m ent p eriod to pro v ide th e public with an o pportunity to rev iew and com

m ent o n this ana ly sis. H. H el pi ng H an d T oo ls H as N ot D em on stra te d T

ha t th e R eg io n Cle ar ly Erred by Relying

on Fe derally Enfo rceab le P ermit Term s Inclu ded in theSD APC D’s Fina l D eterm ination of C omp liance to C

onclud e Tha t the Facility’s Poten tial to Em it Ca rbon Monoxide W ill No t Excee d theSign ificant E missio n T hresho ld T

hat W ould Othe rwise Requ ire C

omp liance with the P

SD Prog ram Help ingH and Tools argues that the R eg ion c learly erred whe n itc on cl ud ed

th at th e F ac il ity ’s car

bo n m on ox id e (“ C O ”) e m is si on s fa ll be lo wth e 10 0 to ns p er y ear (“tpy”) t hr es ho ld

th at w ou ld r eq ui re com pliance with the P SD pro g ram , and urg es the B oar d to rem and the Per m it to the Reg ion to reca lc ula te the Fac il it y’s pot ent ia l to e mi t CO and to conduct a B AC T analy sis for CO

. Help ingH and Tools Pet. at 3

- 4. H elpingH and Tools asserts that the Reg ion incorrectly assum ed th at C O em is si ons w er e g re at es t at the F ac il ity ’s m ax im um lo ad , whi chinPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 103

Ca rbon m onox ide e m is si ons re sul t f rom incom ple te c om bust ion a nd thus 76 occ ur at hig her rate s w

hen turbi nes oper at e at low and m edi um

loa ds. See Of

f ic e of A ir Qua lit y , Planning& Sta

n d ard s, U .S. EPA , I Com pilat ion of

Ai r Pollutant Em is si on Facto rs AP-42: S tati on ary P oin t an d Area So urces at 3. 1-4 ( 6th e d. Se pt. 1998) ( “AP-42 G uida nce ”) , ci te d in H e l p i n g H an d s T o o l s Pe t

. a t 3 and R T C a t 75; see also Rev ised A pplic at ion at 4. 7; supra note 50. turn c aused

the Reg ion to un derestim ate the Fa cility ’s em issions. Id. 76 at 3

. In part ic ul ar , He lp in gH an d Too ls c ha ll en g es th e R eg io n’ s conclu sion that m axim

um C O em issions at 10 0 p ercent and 50 percent lo ad s ar e expe ct ed

to b e th e sam e, and

a ll eg es th at

th e R eg io n “f

ai ls to explain ho w the o xidation

c a t a l yst control e fficiency leads to identical em ission rates at different loads. ” Id. F in ally, Hel ping H an d Too ls al le g es th at

th e R eg io n cann ot

r el y o n th e 96

. 4 tp y

C O e m is si on

li m it include d in t he Final Determ ination of Com pliance that S DA PC D issued to the Fa cility

as “an eff

ectiv e fed erally

enfo rceable CO perm it lim it.” Id. at 4 ( ci ti ngR TC a t 7 6) ; se e ge ne ra ll yFin al D eterm ination of Com pliance, San Dieg o Air Pollutio n Control District (Ma y 4, 2012) (A

. R

. V. 33 ) [h er ei na ft er

S D A P C D P erm it ]. The Reg ion s tates that the SD AP CD P e r mi t r e q uires e ach turbine to be equ ipped with an oxidatio n cataly st to control CO em issions from the F acility , such that em issions from the turbines at any load will e qual 4. 0 part s pe r m il li on

dry v ol um e (“ pp m

v d” ) per h our co rr ec te d to
2 15 percent oxy g en (“ O ”), 0.00 88 lb/MMBtu, and 7.9 7 lb/hr reg ardless of l oa d. See R TC a t7 5 ( c i t i n gR e v i s e d Ap p l i c a t i o na t4

. 3 2 , 1 .51 tbl.1C .1); Rev ised A

pplica t i o n at 1

. 53 tbl.1C .3 (detailingcalcu lations for m axim um ho urly , daily , and annu al criteria pollutant em issions); Reg ion R es p. a t 34

. The o xi dati on c at al y st is ap os t- co m

bu st io n, o r ad d- on

a ir pollution control techn ol ogy, throu g h which exhau st g as em itted from each of the turbin es p asses. T he ox idation cataly st redu ces th e
2 co nc entr at io n of

C O in th e ex ha us t gas t o 4.0 p pm

v d at 1 5 pe rc ent OPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 104

S p e c i fi c a l l y:

77
T he CO ox idation ca

ta ly st is an a dd-on de v ic e that i s pla ce d in the turbi ne exhaus t duc t. It p rom ote s the ox idation of hy droc ar bon co m p o unds to c ar

bon diox ide (C O2) a

nd w at er (H 2O) a s the emis si on s tre am

pa ss es thr oug h the c at al y st be d. T he ca

taly st is u su al l y a p r ec i o u s me t al su ch as p l at i n u m, p al l ad i u m, o r rh o d i u m. * * * T he ox idation proc es s tak es pla ce s ponta neous ly , w ithout

the requi rem ent f

or in trod ucin g re actants. T he perfor man ce of a CO ox idation ca

ta ly st is a f f ec te d by f ac tors s uch as ope rating t emp er at u r e an dth e p r es en ce o f p o i so n s i n th e e mis si o n st r ea m. L ette r f rom Sim s Roy , Emis si ons Sta ndar ds Di v ., C om

bust ion G roup, Of f ic e of A ir Qua lit

y , Planning& Sta

ndar ds, U .S. EPA , t o D ock et A-9 5 -51, Re : H az ar dous A ir Pollutant ( HAP) Em is si on Cont rol T ec hnolog y

f or N ew Sta tiona ry Com bust ion Tur b in es, a tt ach

. A, at 1 ( Aug. 2 1, 2001) , a vai lable at http: //de q.s tate .m s. us/MDE Q.n sf/p d f/ep d

_ CT_ HAP _T EC HN IC A L_GUI DA NC E/$F il e/ CT _HAP.pdf

?O penE le m ent

. A s ex pla ine d be low

in m o re d eta il, the s ig nif ic ant e mis si on ra

te f or C O is 78 100 tpy , 40 C.F .R. § 52.21(b) (23) (i) , w her ea s the Fa ci lit

y ’s pote ntia l to emit is 96.4 t py of CO

. See Fa ct

She et & AA QI R a

t 6- 7 (not ingthat each t u rb in e is e xpec te d to emit appr ox im at el y

32.1 t py of CO ). before it is relea sed into th e atm osph ere. SeeR ev ised App l i c a tion 77 at 3

. 33 ; see a lso Fa ct Sh eet & A AQ I R at 4. The Reg ion m aintains that b ecause the S D A P C D P e r m it requ ires the o xidation

cataly st, re g ardless of loa d, the annu al m ass em issions of CO w ill equa l 96. 4 tpy

. R T C a t 75

. The Reg ion further as serts that becau se the term s of the S DA PC D Perm it are federally enfo rceable, the F ac il ity ’s p ot enti al to e m itC O is n ot “s ig ni fi cant , ” an d thus th e F ac il ity 78 is no t sub j ect to PSD requ irem ents. R TC at 7 5- 76; Reg ion Resp . at 24. The ques tion th e B oard m ust a ns wer is whether the R eg ion cl earl y e rr ed b y r el y in go n th e S D A P C D P erm itto e st ab li shaf ed er al ly en fo rc ea bl e C O e m is si on

li m itth at

e ff ec ti v el y pre cl ud es th e F ac il ity f r o m t h e n e e d t o c o m

p l y w i t h P S D r e qu i r e m e n t s f o r C O

. T o be g in it s analy sis of this q

uestion , th e B oard first br i e f l y rev iews the ru les that det e r min e un der what circ um stances PSD requ irem ents a pply to a part ic ul ar p ol lutant

.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 105

Beg inn ing in July 20 11 , new stationary

so urces th at em it or have the po tential 79

2 to e m it 100,000 t

py or m ore of

CO -e quiv al ent

are s ubje ct to re g ulation under the PSD prog ra m . See 40 C.F .R. § 52.21(b)( 49)( v ); se e gene ral ly O f f ic e of A ir Qua lit

y Planni ng & Standa rds , U.S. EPA , PSD an d Tit le V Perm ittin g Guid an ce for Greenhou se Gases 1-5 (Ma r. 2011) ( ex

pla iningre le v ant

ba ckg round r eg ar dingre g ulation of G HG s)

. A s ourc e’ s po te nt ia l t o em itr el at es to its inh er ent ab il ity to e m it air po llutants. Shell Offs ho r e 2012 , s lip op . at 17, 15 E. A. D. at _ __; Shell Offsho re 2 007 , 1 3 E.A .D . at 365 ; In re P eabo dy W . C oal C o. , 12 E. A

. D

. 2 2, 3 0 (E A B 2 00 5)

. Th e P S D r egul at io ns d ef in e po te nt ia l t o em it as: [T] he m ax im

um ca pa ci ty of a st at io nary so ur ce to e m it a po llutant under it s p hysical and operatio nal d esig n. A nyp hy si ca l o r op erat io na l l im itat io n on th e ca pa ci ty of the sou rce to em it a pollutan t, in cluding air pollution contro l equ ipme nt

and restriction s on

ho urs o f op eration or o n the ty

pe o r am ount of m aterial co m busted , s tored, or p rocessed , shall be tre ated as part of its design if the li m itat io n or

th e effect

it w ou ld h av e on e m is si on s is fe de ra ll y en fo rc ea ble . Seco ndary

em i s sions do not co unt i n de te rm in in gth e po te nt ia l t o em ito f a st at io nary source. 40 C. F.R . § 52 .21 (b)(4) (e m phase s ad ded). I n g eneral, EP A ev aluates a source’s po tential to em it to d eterm ine whether the so urce is “m aj or,” and thus subject to regulation unde r the CA A. See C A A § 1 65 (a ), 42 U. S.C

. § 7475 (a) (requiring PSD perm its for any “m aj or em itting fa ci li ty” on whic h cons truct ion is comm enc ed) ; 40 C.F.R. § 5 2.2 1(b)(1)(i) (defininga “m aj or statio nary source,” in part, as “any stationary source which emit s , or h as the po tential to em it, 2 50 tons or m or e pe r y e a r

o f ar e g u l a t e d

N S R p o l l u t a n t ” )

. “ T hu s , [ p o t e n t i a l to

79 em it ] is ate chni ca l d et erm ina ti on th at ‘ is jur is di ct io na l i n nature . ’” Peab ody , 12 E.A .D . a t 30 (quotingA la

. P ow er C o. v
. C os tl e , 6 36 F.3 d 32 3, 3 52 ( D

. C

. C ir

. 1 97 9) ); acco r d Shell O ffshore 2012 , s lip op . at 17, 15 E.A .D . at ___

.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 106

T he re g ulations de f ine “ re g ulate d N SR pollut ant ” as any CA A poll uta nt f or 80 w hich a NAA QS has been pro m ulgated, any

pol lutan t subj ect to standards pro m ulgated under s ec tion 1 1 1 o f t h e CA

A , a Cl as s I or

Cl as s II s ubst anc e subj ec t t o ti tle VI of the CAA , or any

pol lutan t that is oth erw ise subject to regul at ion und er 40 C.F. R. § 52.21( b)( 49). 40 C .F.R . § 52. 21(b) (50)

.

x

T he le v el of

s ig nifican ce is , f

or e x am ple , 40 t py f or N O , 40 t

py f or s ulf ur 81 dio xide, 10 0 tp y

f or CO, and 4 0 t p y fo rv o l atile organic c om po un ds. 40 C.F.R. § 52 .21 (b)(2 3) (listin g v ariou s air pollu tants a n d levels of e m ission s deem ed “s ig nif ic ant ”)

. I n this instan ce, the F acility is a newm aj or source c ov ered unde r th e P S D p r o g r a m

b e c au s e i tw i l l h a v e th e p o t e n t i a l t o e m i tm o r e than 10 0 , 0 0 0 tpy of greenh ous e gases as provide d in 40 C.F.R. § 5 2.2 1(b)(49 ). See Fact Sheet & AAQ I R at 5- 6 & tbl. 6- 1 (estim ating

2 annu al m as s C O e m is si on s to b e 62 3, 29 9 tp y ); see a lso Rev ised App lication at 1. 1, 4.4 9. A s the Reg ion explained in the F act S heet, once a so ur ce is c on si de re d m ajor f or a t le as t on e re g ul at ed

N S R p ol lutant , 80 the P SD pro gram

also applies to any

othe r regulated pollutant that the f a c i l i t y ha s t he po t e nt i a l t o emit i n si gni f i c a nt amou nt s , i .e ., at orab ove the significant em ission rate. See 40 C .F .R . § 52 .21 (b)(23)(i) (noting th at “ si g ni fi cant

m eans , in re fe re nc e to * * * th e po te nt ia l of as ourc e to em it,” th at a source wo ul d em it at a rate eq ual to or in ex cess o f the po ll ut ant- sp ec if

ic e m is si on ra te s se t f

orthin th e ru le ); F ac t S he et

& 81 AA QI R at 6 & tbl. 6- 1 (noting the Facility ’s estim ated a nnua l em issions, m aj or source threshold , and sig nificant em ission rate for regulated NS R pollutants); R ev ised A

pplication

at 4 .11

- .12

. Conc ur re nt w it h th e R eg ion ’s PSD permitt ing proc ess , SDAPCD receiv ed an ap plication for a Determ ination of Com pliance from

Pio Pico and unde rtook

a rev iew of the air q

uality i mp acts o f the propo sedPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 107

At the sam e tim e it subm itted an app lication to SDA P CD, P io P ico also 82 submitted an A

pp lication f

or Certific ation (“AFC”) to the CEC. Pro jects that require an A FC m u s t a l s o o b t a i n a d e t e rm i n at i o n o f c o m p l i an c e f r o m th e l o c a l a i r d i s tr ic t. T he Di st ric t f urthe r e xpla ine d it s role w hen it is sue d the SD A PCD Per m it in Ma y 2012: T he [Fac ili ty ] is subj ec t t o the a pprov al of

th e [CEC ] bec aus e the propos e dp o w e r

p l an th a s a

n o m i n a l r at i n g g r e at e r

th an 5 0 M W

. T he appl ic ant

fi le d an [ A FC] w ith the CE C i n Fe brua ry 2011 ( CE C Doc k et N o. 11- A FC- 01). Th e [SDAPCD] is c onsi der ed a re spons ible a g enc y

for thi s appr ov al and is re quire d to submit a P relim inary

Dete rm inatio n of Com

plian ce (P DOC) a

nd a Final De te rmination of Com

plia nce (FD OC ) to the CE C. Pursua nt to Di st ric t R ule 20.5, the Fina l D et er

m ina tion of Com plia nce re v ie w

is f unct iona lly

e quiv al ent

to an A uthori ty to Cons truc t. SD A PCD P er

m it at 1; see also Rev ised A

pp lication at 4.19 (ex

plain ing that new po w er plan t pro jects re view ed un der the CEC A FC pro cess m ust ob tain an FDOC f

rom the local ai r di st ric t t hat , w hen al l of the condi tions f rom the FD OC are inc orpor at ed into a CE C Fina l D ec is ion, cons tit

ute an A uthori ty to Cons truc t); SD A PCD Per m it at 28-29 (noti ng that t he FD OC is e quiv al ent

to an aut horit y to cons truc t a

nd w ill be su b m itt ed to t he CE C)

. Fac il it y. SDAPCD Per m it at 1. Am ong ot h e r th ings, th e SDAPCD

82 P erm it re qu ir es P io P ic o to in st al l ox id at io n cata ly st te chno lo g y to co nt rol em is si ons of bot h CO and v ola ti le organi c compounds (“V OCs”). S D A P C D P erm it at 1, 4, 20 (n ot in g th at th e ox id at io n cata ly st ad d- on a ir po l l ut i on co nt r ol sys t e m “ i s t he on l y po s t

- c ombu s t i on te c hn ol ogy curr entl y av ai la bl e to c ontr ol C O , VO C s, and toxic em is si on s” ). W ith this b ack g round

in m ind, the B oard nowturns to the s ub s tance of Help ingH and Tools’ challen g es to the R eg ion’s CO perm ittingdec ision. Help ingH and Tools first as s e rts that the R eg ion e rred b y un de re st im at in gth e F ac il ity ’s p ot enti al to em it C O b ec au se it b as ed it s cal cul at ion on the Fac il it y’s ope ra ti on at 100 perc ent loa d, wher eas CO e m i s s i o n s g e n e r a l l y

i n c r e a s e a s l o a d

d e c r e a s e s d

u e t o i n c om

pl et e c o m b u s t i o n . H e l p i n gH a n d

T o o l s P e t

. a t3

- 4; s e e also Le tter from J ohannes Epk e, Help ingH and Tools, to R og e r K ohn, U .S. EP A R eg io n 9, at 1- 2 (Jul y 24 , 20 12 ) [h er ei na ft er H el pi ngH an d Too l C mt. ]. The R eg io n re sp on de d to H el pi ngH an d Too ls’ comm ents o n th e dr af t pe rm it :PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 108 Wh il e E P A ag re es th at unco ntrolled C O em issions from the en g ines w ill v ary

betw een 50% an d 1 00% loa d, th es e engi nes w il l b e eq ui

pp ed w ith ox id at io n ca ta ly

st s . Rega rdless of

lo ad , th e m axim

um C O em ission rates from the Project (exclud ingstartup s an ds shutdowns, whic h are accounted for sep arately ) are expec ted to be

2 4. 0 pp m v @ 15 % O , 0. 00 88 lb /MM B tu , an d 7. 97 lb /hr. These r at e s were ca lculated from em ission conce ntration rate s an d theexh aust flow rates from ven do r per form ance data, an d re flect the contro l efficiency expected

to be a chi eved by th e ox idation catalyst require d by the perm it issued to [ Pio Pico] by the SDAPCD

. EPAcon curs w ith the CO em ission data p resented by t he ap pl i c a nt . T he SDA PC D pe rmit c on t a i ns ef f e c t i ve federally enfo rceable CO em ission lim its * * *

. [The Fac il it y] does not have “si gnifi can t” em is si ons of CO, as that term

is d efined in the PSD regulations at 4 0 C FR [§] 52.21, and th er ef

ore it i s not sub

j ect to PSD re view. RTC at 7 5- 76 (em

phase s ad ded) (citations om itted). H elpingH and Too ls a ck no w le dg es the Re g io n’ s re sp on se in its pet it io n, sta ti ngthat i t was “unsatisfied b y

EP A’s explan ation that the m axim um CO em issions stated in the Pe rm it app l i e s t o a l l load s,” and also c halleng es sim ilar conclu sions in the R ev ised A pplication

that m axim

um CO em issions at all load s are expec ted to be th e sam e, statingthat “[t]he re asonin gbeh ind this claim is unk nown.” H elpingH and Tools Pet. at 3

. As explain ed a

bov e, a so urce’s potential to em it “is a techn ical determ ination that ‘is j urisdiction al in natu r e .’” Pe abod y , 12 E.A.D. at 30 (qu oting A la

. P ow er Co. v. Co st le , 6 36 F

. 3d

3 23 , 3 52 ( D

. C

. C ir

. 19 79 ))

. H er e, H el pi ngH an d Too ls ’ st at em ents th at it is uns at is fi ed

w ith the R eg ion’s explan ation and that the reaso ningfor the R eg ion’s decision is unk nown d o n ot de m onstrate that rev iew of this issue is w arranted g iv en th e hi g h thre sh ol d a pe ti ti on er m us t m eet to o bt ai n re v ie wo f a perm it issuer’s fundam entally techn ical de cision that is supp orted in thePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 109 record. E.g

. , In re Prairie StateG enera ting C o. , 1 3 E .A .D . 1, 1 00 (EA B 2006 ), aff’d su b nom. Sierra Club v. E PA , 4 99 F

. 3d

6 53 ( 7th C ir

. 2007 ) (“We g enerally

acco rd b road deferenc e to perm ittingauth orities with respect to issu es, such as this one, requ iring t he exercise of techn ic al jud g m ent and

e xp erti se . ”) ; accor

d In re BP Che rry P oint , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 2 0 9 , 2 2 8 ( E A B 2 00 5) ; Pe abody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 22. H elping Han d Tools has not s ubstantiv ely con fronted the R eg ion’s explan ation, whic h is particularly

im portant in technical mat t e rs, and has not explain ed why

the Reg ion’s decision

w as clearly

e r roneo us. See, e. g. , In r e Cit y of P al m da le , P SD A

ppeal No. 11

- 07, s lip op . at 33- 34 (EA B Sept. 17 , 20 12), 15 E. A. D. __ , appe al do cke te d sub no m. Simp son v. EPA , N o. 12- 7412 4 (9 th C ir. D ec. 18, 20 12). Sim ilarly , th e B oard rej ects H elpingH and Tools’ seco nd as se rt io n th at

th e R eg io n cann ot

rel y o n th e fe de ra ll y

e nf or ce ab le p erm it lim it contained in the SD AP CD Pe rm it. Help ingH and Tools m aintains that the unde rly ing calculation of 96. 4 tpy of C O em issions is flaw ed and states th e follo wingin supp ort of its assertio n: The 9 6. 4 tp y

is m ean t t o re pr es ent the f ac il ity ’s m a xi mum po t e nt i a l CO e mis s i on s ba s e d o n p hys i cal an d op er at io na l d es ig n. * * * I f th e pl ant c anno t e m itm or e t ha n 9 6. 4 tpy u nd e r

t he p hys i c a l an d o pe r a t i on a l de s i gn of th e fa ci li ty , th en

it is unn ec es sary

to re ly ona p erm it lim it of 96. 4 tpy . I f

E PA is attem

ptingto allow [the Facility ] to a voi d P SD rev iew for C O by rely ingon

a perm it lim it of 96. 4 tpy rather than a lim it based on the fa ci li ty ’s p hy si ca l an d op er at io na l d es ig n, th is s ynthe ti c m in o r C O s t a tu s m

u s t b e m a d e c l e a r a n d e x a m i n e d in m or e de ta il

. Help ingH and Tools Pet. at 4

. Help ingH and Tools’ objection to the Reg ion’s reliance on the CO em ission lim its in the SDA PC D Perm it m isconstru es the defin itions of b oth “ potential to em it” and “fed erally

enfo rceable” set forthin the PSD regulations. A s no ted ab ov e, any phy sical o r op erational lim itationPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 110

on the source’s capacity to em it a pollutant, includin g airpo llution control equipm ent, “shall be treated as part of [the source’s] d esig n if the li m it at io n or

th e ef fe ct it w ou ld h av e on

e m is si on s is f

ed er al ly enforcea ble.” 40 C .F. R. § 52. 21(b)(4 )

. T hu s , if a p erm it contains a federally enfo rceable l i mit , it is treated as part o f the source’s des ig n, and the so urce’s potential to em it canno t prope rly be c alculated witho ut that lim it. See Shell Offsho re 2 007 , 13 E.A .D . at 392 (no tingthat neither th e C A A n or

it s im pl em enti ngr egul at io ns r eq uire c al cu la ti on

o f a so ur ce ’s m ax im

um c ap ac ity to e m ita

bs ent f ed er al ly enfo rc ea

bl e li m it at io ns ); see a lso Shell Gulf of Mex. 20 12 , sli p op. at 35, 15 E.A.D. at _
__ . Th e P S D r egul at io ns d ef in e fe de ra ll y

e nf or ce ab le a s fo ll ow s: Fede rally enforceable m eans all lim itations and co nd it io ns whi ch ar e en fo rc ea bl e by th e A dm in is tr at or , in cl ud in gth os e re qu ir em ents d ev el oped p ur su ant t o 40 C. F.R . p arts 60 and

61 , re quirem ents w ith i n any ap pl ic ab le S ta te im

pl em enta ti on

p lan, a ny pe rm it requirem ents e stablished

pursuant to 40 C. F.R . 5 2.2 1 o r unde r re gulat ion s app roved pur sua nt t o 40 C.F.R. part 5 1, subp art I , in cludingop eratingperm its issue d unde r an EPA

- appro v ed prog ram that i s inco rporated into th e S ta te im

pl em enta ti on

p lan an d expr es sl y r e quires adhere nce to any perm it issued

un der su ch prog ram . 40 C. F.R . § 52 .21 (b)(17). The Board ag rees with the Reg ion that the Reg ion c a n r e l y o n the term s of the SDA PC D Perm it, which requires the oxidatio n cataly st to c ontr ol b oth C O and VO C e m is si on s, a s an e ff ec ti v e, f ed er al ly enf orceable lim it on CO em issions in the PS D perm it. See R TC at 7 6; s e e also J ohn S. Seitz , Dir. , EPA Office of Air Qua lity , Plan ni ng & Stand ards, Relea s e of Interim Po licy on Fe deral Enfo rceab ility of L im itat io ns o n P oten ti al

to E m it ( Jan

. 2 2, 1 99 6) (“ [T] he te rm ‘ fe de ra ll y enforcea ble’ sh ould nowbe read to m ean ‘federally enfo rceable or leg ally and prac ticably

enfo rceable by

a sta t e o r local air po llution control ag ency .’” (em

phasis exclud ed)), quoted in Peab ody , 12 E.A.D.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 111 at 31 n. 22. C alifornia establishe d local air pollution control districts and air quality m anag em ent districts with the principa l respon sibil i t y fo r regulatingair e m issions from all s ources other than m otor v ehicles. See ge neral lyC al. H ealth & Sa fety C ode §§ 4000 0- 4135 7 (A ir Po llution C ontr ol D is tr ic ts ); see a lso R ev is ed App li cati on

a t 4

. 15 ( de ta il in gh is to ry of state air pollution control). The propo sed Facility is unde r the local j u r is dic ti on of

the SDAPCD, an d thu s, compli anc e wit h SDAPCD re g ul at io ns w il l as sure co m pl ianc e w ith st at e an d fe de ral ai r qua li ty require men ts. See C al

. H ea lth & S af ety C od e § 40 00 1( a) ( “S ub

ject to the p owe rs and

duties of the state bo a r d, the districts sh all ado pt an d enfo r c e rules and regulations to ach iev e an d m aintain the state and federal am

bient air qu ality

stand ards in

a l l areas affected by

em ission so ur ce s un de r th ei r juri sd ic ti on , and s ha ll e nf

or ce a ll a

pp li ca bl e provisio ns o f st at e an d fe de ra l l aw . ”) ; see a lso Rev ised A pplication at 4. 51. The District has been deleg ated t he authority to im plem ent local, state, and federal air quality regulations in the S an D ieg o air basin. See SD AP CD R eg . I I , R . 2 0.1 (c)(26) (definingfederally enfo rceable for purpo ses o f perm ittingnewor m odified sources as anythingthat can be enfo r c e d b y t h e E P A t h r o u g h e i t h e r a s t a t e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p l a n o r

an authority to constru ct or perm it to ope r ate, includin g , am ongothe r thing s, “[ a ] ny t e r m

or cond ition o f an Auth ority to Con struct issu ed purs uant to th es e ru le s an d re g ul at io ns whi chte rm o r condit ionis im posedpur s u a n tt o 4 0 C F R P a rt s 6 0 o r

6 1 , 4 0 C F R

P a rt5 2

. 2 1 or 40 C F R P art 51 , S ub part I ”)

. Thu s, th e D is tr ic t’ s ru le s de si gned to address newsource rev iew poll ut a nt s are enforcea ble at the lo cal an d sta t e l e v e l , an d

f e d e r a l l y e n f o r c e ab l e i nt e rm s o f

th e F a c i l i t y ’ s P SD perm it. Help ingH and Tools’ petition do es n ot ad dr e ss the PS D regulations that define potential to em it or federal enforcea bi l i t y, nor do es it e xp la inwhy

th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on co ns ti tute s cl ear er ro r. R athe r, H el pi ngH an d Too ls e ss enti al ly cha ll en g es the Re g io n’ s de ci si on to r el y on th e te rm s of t he SDAP C D P erm ita s fe de ra ll y e nf or ce ab le p erm it term s w ithin th e P SD perm it, which is an inhe rently techn ical de cision. The federal PSD perm ittingschem e env isions coope ration with state an d local p erm ittingentities to ensure, as here, that new source constru ction does not h a v e a d e l e t e r i o u s i m p a c t o n l o c a l a i r qu a l i t y . G i v e nthePI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 112

The Boar d notes that Mr . Si m pson’ s pet iti on doe s not de m onst rate that he or 83 any othe r c om

m ent er ra is ed this is sue duri ng the publi c com m en t per iod. A s note d in Part II I, the f

ai lure to demonst

rate that an is sue w as pre se rv ed is a bas is for d enying re v ie w . E.g ., Pa lmda le, s lip op. at 31, 15 E .A. D. a t __ (noti ng that t he Boa rd i s not requi red to scou r the entire adm inistrative record to d etermine wheth er a n i ss ue w as ra is ed in c om

m ent s bel ow ); In re Conoc oPhil lips Co. , 13 E .A .D . 798, 801 (E A B 2008) (s am e)

. How ev er , bec aus e the Boa rd is aw ar e that Mr. Sa

rv ey ra is ed a si m ila

r i ss ue, the Boa rd w ill not deny

re v ie w of the is sue Mr . Si m

pson ra is es on a

ppea l on this ba si s. T he Boa rd, nonet hel es s, ta k es thi s opportu n ity

to re m ind pe tit ione rs of the im po rtance of

satisf y ing this requ irem ent and o f the new provisio n in part 12 4, which appl ies to petitio ns f

iled af ter March 26, 201 3, and reads a s f ollo w s: Petit ion ers m

ust de m onst rate , by prov idings pec if

ic c ita tion to t he ad m in is tr at ive reco rd , i n cl u d in g th e d o cu m en t n ame and pa ge num ber , that e ac h is sue be ingra is ed in t he pet iti on w as ra is ed during the publi c com

m ent pe riod (inc ludingany

publi c hea

ring ) t o the exte nt r equired by

§ 124.13. For

e ac h is sue ra is ed that w as not ra is ed pre v ious ly , the pet iti on m ust e xpla in why

such is sue s w er e not requi red to b e rais ed du ring the pu blic com m ent perio d as provided in § 124.13. A dditi onal ly , i f the pe tit ion r ai se s an is sue tha t t he Re g iona l A dm inis tra

tor addr es se d i n t he re spons e to c om m ent s docum ent is sue d purs uant

to § 124.17, the n petit ione r m ust prov ide (c ontinue d...) Reg ion’s thorou g h resp onse to this issue, H elpingH and Tools has not carr ie d th e he av

y b ur de n re qu ir ed

to dem on stra te that r ev ie wo f a pe rm it issuer’s technica l decis ion is w arranted. E.g

. , P ra ir ie S ta te , 13 E.A.D. at 1 00 ; Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 22. Thus, the Board denies re v iew of the CO em ission lim it in th e F acility ’s PS D perm it. I

. Mr. Simp son Has Not Dem onstra ted Tha t the Regio n C learly Erred in A llowin g theU

se o f D ata from an Air Q uality Mon itor L ocated N in e K il om et er s fr om th e F

ac il it y The B oa r d n ow exam ines Mr. Sim pson ’s cha lleng e to the location of the air q

uality m onitors. Mr. Si mps on claim s that “EP A failed to utilize the correct m onitors” and “allow ed the [perm it] app licant to utiliz e a distant m onitor instead of the nearly adjacent o nes includin g the o ne at the prison. ” Si mps on Pet. at 8. Mr. Sarv ey raised a sim ilar argum ent d ur i ng the p ublic com m ent p eriod. See R TC a t 6 5. Th er e 83PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 113

(.. .c ontinue d) 83 a ci tation to t

he re le v ant com

m ent and re spons e and ex pla in w hy the Re g io n al A dm inis tra

tor’ s re spons e to t

he com m ent w as c le ar ly err o n eo u s o r

o th erwi se warr an t s r ev i ew. 40 C. F.R . § 124. 19(a )( 4)( B) (ii ). Mr. S arv ey

claim ed th at the m onitoringsite selected “is no t representativ e of the am

bient air con centration s currently enco untered ne ar th e pr ojec t si te be caus e it do es no t ca pt ur e th e ai r qu alit y imp ac ts from the Otay Mesa Pow er plant and

is lo cated 9 [ki l ome t e r s ] aw ay .” Se e id

. The Reg ion fu lly add ressed Mr. S arv ey ’s com

m ent, explain ing w hy th e lo cati on

o f th e m on it or in gs it e se le ct ed (t he C hu laVi st a m onitoringstation ) w as appr op r iate an d clarify ingthat the em issions f r o m th e Ot a y M e s aPo w e r Pl a n t we r e mod e l e d

a s e mi s s i o n s f

r o m a nearby source in the cum

ulativ e im

pacts analy sis. Id . a t37 (e xp l a i ni ng, am on go th er th in g s, w hy

s it e- sp ec if

ic m on it or in gw as n ot

r eq ui re d in th is case, why i t w as n ecessary to identify

a representativ e ba ck g round conce ntration, and

why the use of th e C hu l a Vista m onitor was ap pr op ri at e to s at is fy

r egul at or y r eq ui re m ents ); id . at 65 (explain ingthat

2 .5 the closest PM m onitor is in fact the Chu la Vista m onitoring st a t ion,

2 .5 and that the cum

ulativ e im pact analy sis w as o nly

required for PM and

2 N O ). Mr. S im

ps on d oe s no t c on fr ont the R eg io n’ s re spo ns e to co m m ents b y e xp la in in gwhy

th e R eg io n’ s expl an at io n is c le ar ly erroneo us. In fac t, Mr. Sim psondo es n ot ack

now ledg e that the R eg ion re sp on de d to as im il ar

c om m ent. Again, pe ti ti on er s m ay n ot s im pl y reiterat e co m

m ents m ade duringthe public com m ent p eriod, but m

ust substantiv ely

con front the perm it issuer’s subseq uent explan ations and expl ai n wh y

th e pe rm itis su er ’s r es po ns e to c om m ents is c le ar ly erroneo us o r othe rwise warrants con sideration

. S e e s u p ra P a rtI II

. Failure to do so is a basis for de ny ingrev iew. In re Indeck -Elw ood, LLC, 13 E. A

. D

. 12 6, 14 3, 17 0 (E A B 20 06 ). Be caus e Mr. S im ps on f ai ls to co nfront the Reg ion’s respons e to com m ents and dem onstrate that the R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in a ll ow in gth e us e of

d at a fr om

th e C hu laVi st aPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 114

m on i t o r s , t h e B o a r d d e n i e s r e v i e w o f M r . S i m p s o n ’ s c h a l l e n g e to the location of the air q

uality m onitors. J

. Mr. Simpson Has Not Dem onstra ted Tha t the Regio n Clea rly E rred by F ailing to R equire Mit igation of Air Pollutants Thro ugh the U se of E m is si on R ed

uc ti on C re di ts Mr. S im ps on argue s th at “[ t] he E P A fa il ed to r eq ui re a de qu at e m it ig at io n, a s de ta il ed

in Apr il S um er ’ [s ic ] comm ent [ th at ] th e [a ]i r pol lution c re di ts are inv al id

. ” S im ps on P et

. a t 8

. Th e co m

m ents Mr. S im psonreferen c es ad dress the D eterm ination of C om pliance procee din gs condu cted b y the SD AP CD

. Se e ge ne ra ll ySo m m er SD AP CD C mt. The Reg ion c ounters that Mr. S im psonfailed to m eet the thre sh ol d pr oc ed

ur al r eq ui re m ents to o bt ai n B o ar d re v ie wb ec au se h e di d no t e xp la in“ ho wo r where inc om m ents o n th e P ro po se d P erm itth is issue was raised, whether the R eg ion re spon ded to any suc h co m

m ents, and, if so , o n what b asis h e disa g rees w ith the Re g ion’s respon se.” R eg io n R es p. a t 3 8. In ad di ti on , th e R eg io n no te s tha t the cr ed it s Mr. Sim psonreferen ced, also k

nown as em ission reduction credits, are used inn on atta inm ent n ews ourc e re v ie w pe rm it s, and thus are n ot

p ro pe rl y before the Bo a r d i n t his P SD pro ceeding

. Id. a t3 8

- 3 9 ( qu o t i n gR TC at 61 ). The Bo ard’s analy sis of this issu e w ith resp ect to proced ural re qu ir em ents is sim il ar

to its ana ly si s inth e im

m ed ia te ly p re ce di ngp art whe rein Mr. Sim

psonchalleng es the locatio n o f the air qu ality m onitor used in the air q

uality ana ly sis. Mr. Sim

pson ’s petition

do es n ot inc lude any s ta te m ents id enti fy in gwh er e he or any oth er com m ente r ra is ed

th is i s s ue du r i ng t he publ i c co mm e nt pe r i odof t hi s PS D pe rmitpr oc e e di ng; h e o n l y r e f

e r e n c e s M s . S o m

m e r ’ s c o m

m e n t s o n t h i s p o i n t , w h i c hw er e m ade duringthe SD AP CD pro ceeding

. As the B oa r d noted abov e, f a i l ur e to dem onstrate that an issue has bee n p reserv ed fo r rev iew is a ba s i s f or d eny ingrev iew. See supra P art I I I ; see a lso n o t e 8 8

. The B oard , h ow ev er , is aw ar e th at Mr. Sa rvey

r ai se d a si m il ar

is su e in com m ents o n the env ironm ental j ustice analy sis for this P SD perm it, an d thus the Board will not deny rev iew on this b asis. See Sarv ey Cmt. at 7; RTC at 56

.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 115

Ms. Somm er’s c omm ents, which Mr. Simpson ref erences , also dis cuss 84 emis si on re duct ion c re dits and of f se ts , a lthough Ms . Som

m er m ade her com

m ent s in t he cont ext of

nonatta inm ent

ne w s ourc e re v ie w p er

m itt ing

. See Som

m er SD A PCD C m

t. at 5-7. I n hi s July

2 4, 2 01 2, c om

m ents o n th e pr op os ed

P S D p erm it , Mr. S arv ey

c om m ente d th at , “ [t ]he m it ig at io n fo r ai r im pa ct s fo r th is project are not real tim e em ission reduction credits but worth less p aper credits fro m

pas t em ission reductio ns whichhav e no v alue in redu cing the ex istingem issions fr om the m ultitude of p oint s ources near the project.” See Sarv ey

C mt. at 7. In resp onse, the Reg ion s tated:

84 The com m enter a ppears to sug g est that m itig ation m ay be re quired or sh ould be further co nsidered in the contex t of env ironm e nt a l justice im pacts, but doe s no t explain why he believ es that is the case. EPAdo es n ot believ e that m itig ation for env ironm ental justice im pacts is nec essary or a pprop riate in this ca se g iv en th at E P A ’s P S D p erm it ti nga ct io n w il l n ot r es ult in disprop ortionately

high an d ad

v erse hum an h ealth o r envir onmenta l ef

fe ct s on m ino ri ty popu la ti ons and lo win co m e po pu la ti on s as e xp la in ed ab ov e. W e al so n ot e t ha tth e co mm e nt e r ’ s as s e rt i on ab ou temi s s i on reduction credits fo cus on m atters that are not regulated unde r the PSD perm it. Non attainm ent p ollutants are ad dressed by th e S ta te and

D is tr ic t ap pr ov al s an d co m pr eh en si v e ai r quality planning process es, and thus are best a ddresse d by the State/loca l air q

uality pro g ram s. R TC a t 6 1. M r. S im

ps on d oe s no t c on fr ont the R eg ion ’s r es po ns e to c ommen t s by ex pl a i ni ng wh y i ti s e rr on e ou s , n ordo e s he ac kno wl e dge inh is p et it io n th at

th e R eg io n re sp onded to a s im il ar c om m ent. Th is Board h as p rev iousl y mad e clear that in order to ob tain rev iew, “the petitioner m

ust ad dress the p erm it issu e r ’s resp onses to relev ant co m m ents m ad e duri ngthe pro ce ss of pe rm itdev el op m ent” and e xp la in w hy , in li g ht o f th e pe rm itis su er ’s r at io na le , th e pe rm itis c le ar ly erroneo us o r ot herwise w arrants rev iew. Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 33.PI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 116

T he Re g ion m ad e cl ea r i n it s re spons e to c om

m ent s that t

he SD A PCD i s 85 respon sible f

or no nattain m ent new

source rev iew

perm ittin g, and in thi s instance the San Di eg o A ir Di st

ric t i s a f ede ra l nona

tta inm ent are a f or oz one. See RT C a

t 61; see also SD A PCD R eg . I I, R. 20.3(d) (5) (di sc uss ingthe r eq uire m ent to prov ide of

f se ts on a pollut ant -s pec if

ic b a s i s f o r e mi s s i o n i n c r e as es of

nonatta inm ent

a ir cont amina

nts and the ir pre cur sor s) ; R ev is ed A

pplic at ion at 4. 53. A s this Boa rd ha s pre v ious ly

note d: T he PSD re v ie w

proc es s is not an open f

orum f or co n si der at ion of ev er y e nv ironm ent al asp ect of a propos ed proje ct , or

e v en ev er

y is sue that be ar s on a ir qual ity . I n f ac t, cer ta in iss ues are e xpre ss ly ex cl uded f

rom the PSD pe rmitt ingproc es s. T he Bo ard w ill de ny re v ie w of is sue s that a

re not g ov er

ned by the PSD r egu la ti o ns bec aus e it la ck s juri sdi ct ion ov er the m . Knauf I , 8 E .A .D . at 127; a c c o rd S h e l l G u l f o f M e x
. 2012 , s l ip o p. at 47 , 15 E.A .D. at ___; Rus se ll Ci ty , s lip op. at 134, 15 E. A .D . at ___. F ai lure to d o so is ab asi s for de ny in gr ev ie w . M r. S im ps on f ai le d to confront the Reg ion’s respon se to comme nts an d d em onstrate that the Reg ion c learly

erred by dec liningto address em ission reductio n cre dits. 85 The Bo ard th erefore denies rev iew of this issue.

I X. CO NC LU SION & O RD ER For all the foreg oingreasons, the Board den ies rev iew of all the issues excep t for PM B AC T. A ccordin g ly , th e B oard r e man ds th e Perm it in p art and directs th e R eg ion to correc t the record incons istencies re gardi ng th e B A C T ana ly si s fo r P M and th e la ck o f ad eq uate s up po rt and explan ation for the new load- based PM em ission lim its. The Re g ion is h er eb y d ir ec te d to p re pare ar ev is ed B A C T a nal ysis c on si st ent w ith Part VI I I .G .4 of this decision , and to reo pen the p ublic com m ent p eriod to p ro v id e th e pu

bl ic w ith an op po rtun ity

to r ev ie wand

c om m ent o n th is analy sis. Onc e the Reg ion issues a final perm it decision fol l ow i ng the pu bl ic c om m ent p er io d re qu ir ed

b y th is r em an d, th at

f in al p erm it decision and the Board’s d ecision in th i s c a se b ecom e final ag ency action subject to j ud i c i a l rev iew. 4 0 C .F. R. § 124. 19( l). Altho ug h an appea l to the Board is a prerequ isite to j udicial rev iew of an initial fin alPI O PI C O ENER GY CEN TER 117 perm it decisio n, id . § 12 4.1 9( l)( 1) , s uc h an a pp ea l i s no t a

p re re qui si te to ju d i c i a l r e v i e w o f a f

i n a l p e rm i t d e c i s i o n f

o l l o w i n g a B o a rd rem and of a perm it decisio n unless the B oard “specifically pro v ides that app eal of t h e re man d d e c i s i on wi l l be re qu i r e d t o e xh aus tad min i s t r a t i ve rem edies. ” Id . § 12 4.1 9( l)( 2) (i ii ). The B oard is n ot r eq ui ri ng , and

w il l not a ccept, an appea l to the B oard on the fin al perm it decisio n fo llowin g rem and in this case. So ordered

." 

## " "



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I 

### hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Order Remanding in Part and Denying Review in Part in the matter ofPio Pico Energy Center, PSD Appeal Nos. 12-04 through 12-06, were sent to the following persons in the manner indicated:
By 

### First Class Mail Return Receipt Requested: Robert Simpson 27126 Grandview Avenue Hayward, CA 94542

David C. Bender MCGILLIVRA Y 

### WESTERBERG 

### & BENDER, LLC 211 S. Paterson St., Suite 320 Madison, WI 53703

Jim Wedeking Attorney for Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC Sidley Austin, LLP 1501 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C., 20005
By 

### Pouch Mail: Julie Walters Office of Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 (MC ORC-2) 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901



## /), "1 

## 1/J/!J Dated:I1 U 

# r t:7,

## ~ Johannes Hubert Epke Attorney for Helping Hand Tools 1108 Fifth Ave. Suite 202 San Rafael, CA 94901

SIERRA CLUB Joanne Spalding Travis Ritchie 85 Second St. San Francisco, CA 94105

By 

### Interoffice Mail: Kristi Smith Air and Radiation Law Office Office of General Counsel (MC 2344-A) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 PemlSylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20460

Annette Duncan Secretary