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 ofColumbia (the District), through the District Department ofthe Environment (DDOE), submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to meet requirements ofthe 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 PM2.5NAAQS 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 5NAAQS. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 

### Iweb: ddoe.dc

.gov 

# * * * wr;. ARr;. WASHINGTON 

# ocstay on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P
. v. EP A, No. 11-1302 (D.C

. Cir. Oct. 23 , 2014) , Order at 3. Pursuant to the D
.C. Circuit's grant ofEPA' s motion to lift the stay, thereby tolling all ofthe compliance deadlines that had not passed as ofthe date ofthe stay for three years , implementation ofCSAPR commenced in January 2015. In the promulgation ofCSAPR, 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 ofthe CSAPR rulemaking, EPA had combined emission contributions projected in the air quality modeling from Maryland and the District to determine whether thosejurisdictions 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 ofEPA' 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 ofthe 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 of2012 1• 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 .5NAAQS. Ifyou 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 ofAir Program Planning, EPA Region III Rama Tangirala, Monitoring and Assessment Branch, Air Quality Division, DDOE

1 Monitoring Analytics, LLC , " State ofthe 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