GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

District Department of the Environment 

*** 

Air Quality Division 

July 9, 2015 

Diana Esher 

Director, Air Protection Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III (Mail Code 3APOO) 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, P A 19103 

Re: District of Columbia Negative Declaration to Address Interstate Transport Requirements 

for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS 

Dear Ms. Esher: 

On September 21,2009, the District of Columbia (the District), through the District Department 

of the Environment (DDOE), submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to meet requirements of the 2006 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submittal addressed the 

following infrastructure elements in Clean Air Act (CAA) section 11 O(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA proposed to approve the September 21, 

2009, SIP revision for these elements on May 17, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 275212), and EPA granted 

approval to that SIP revision for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on April 12, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 

20237). However, the September 21, 2009, SIP revision did not address interstate transport of 

pollution for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). DDOE is submitting this negative declaration as a SIP 

revision to address the interstate transport requirements for the 2006 PM2 5 NAAQS. 

Subsequent to DDOE's September 21, 2009, SIP revision, EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on August 8, 2011 , to address sulfur dioxide (S02) and nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in the Eastern United States 

that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM25 NAAQS. 76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR's cap-and-trade program 

was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012; however, numerous parties filed petitions for review 

ofCSAPR. In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating CSAPR. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). On April29, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the matter, including CSAPR, 

to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). In June 2014, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay 

in light of the Supreme Court's decision and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance 

deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead 

of2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 

2014 and beyond). On October 23,2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the 

DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 

OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT 

green forward 

1200 First St. NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002 1 tel: 202.535.2600 I web: ddoe.dc.gov 

wr;. * * * ARr;. 

WASHINGTON 

oc 
stay on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 

2014), Order at 3. Pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's grant of EPA's motion to lift the stay, thereby 

tolling all of the compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the date of the stay for three 

years, implementation ofCSAPR commenced in January 2015. 

In the promulgation of CSAPR, EPA concluded that the District satisfied the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) transport provisions with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.s NAAQS. Thus, no emission sources in the District are subject to CSAPR. As 

discussed in the preamble of the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA had combined emission 

contributions projected in the air quality modeling from Maryland and the District to determine 

whether those jurisdictions collectively contribute to any downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor in amounts equal to or greater than the one percent thresholds. This 

modeling confirmed that the combined contributions exceeded the air quality threshold at 

downwind receptors for the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS considered. Both 

Maryland and the District were therefore linked to these receptors. However, the District was 

not included in CSAPR because in the second step of EPA's significant contribution analysis, 

EPA concluded that there are no emission reductions available from EGUs in the District at the 

cost thresholds deemed sufficient to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the NAAQS considered at the linked receptors. 

In 2011 , EPA found only one facility, Benning Road Generating Station (BRGS), with two 

EGUs meeting CSAPR applicability requirements in the District, and EPA's projections did not 

show any generation from this facility to be economic under any scenario analyzed (including 

the base case), and the facility had also announced plans to retire its units in early 2012. 

Subsequently, BRGS permanently retired in July of20121

• 

DDOE submits this negative declaration to officially certify that there are no EGUs to which 

CSAPR applies in the District and confirms that the only EGUs in the District operating at the 

time ofthe promulgation ofCSAPR in 2011 have since permanently retired. Therefore, as 

explained by EPA in the preamble to the final CSAPR rule (78 Fed. Reg. 48208, 48262, August 

8, 2011) and based on the absence ofEGUs within the District, DDOE maintains that it has 

satisfied the requirements of section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(l) with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.s NAAQS and that its SIP is adequate to address section 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

particularly for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-535-2626. 

Sincerely, 

tit~~ (ie_a_LQ_ 

Cecily Beall, Associate Director 

Air Quality Division 

cc: Cristina Fernandez, Office of Air Program Planning, EPA Region III 

Rama Tangirala, Monitoring and Assessment Branch, Air Quality Division, DDOE 

1 Monitoring Analytics, LLC, "State of the Market Report for PJM: January through September" (November 15, 

2012), found at http://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM State of the Market/2012/2012g3-som-pjm.pdf. 

Page 2 of2