50 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 

T: 415.217.2000 F: 415.217.2040 

E: caoffice@earthjustice.org W: www.earthjustice.org 

Via E-mail 

September 3, 2013 

Pam Castañeda, Board Administrator 

Office of the Environmental Improvement Board 

Harold Runnels Building 

1190 St. Francis Dr., Room N2150 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Phone: (505) 827-2425, Fax (505) 827-2836 

pam.castaneda@state.nm.us 

Re: New Mexico’s Regional Haze Alternative for San Juan Generating 

Station 

Dear Ms. Castañeda: 

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, National Parks Conservation 

Association, San Juan Citizens Alliance and Sierra Club (collectively “Groups”) are encouraged 

by the environmental benefits offered by the agreement-in-principle between EPA, the State of 

New Mexico, and PNM to retire two of San Juan Generating Station’s (“San Juan”) old, dirty 

coal-fired units. Yet, as explained by the National Park Service (“NPS”) in its attached 

comments, the agreement-in-principle is weaker than EPA’s Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(“BART”) determination in its Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”), which is currently the 

effective regional haze plan for San Juan. With respect to the four Class I areas that are most 

impacted by San Juan’s pollution (Arches, Canyonlands, Mesa Verde, and Weminuche),1 the 

difference in visibility benefit between the FIP and the agreement-in-principle is particularly 

stark. As a result of its inferior visibility outcome, the agreement-in-principle does not satisfy the 

Clean Air Act (“Act”). 

The Act requires any regional haze alternative to outperform BART.2

 An alternative to 

BART is acceptable only if modeling demonstrates that “greater reasonable progress” is 

achieved, based on the following two criteria: 

                                                     

1 San Juan impairs visibility in sixteen separate Class I areas.

2 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(3).
Pam Castañeda 

September 3, 2013 

Page 2 of 3 

(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I Area, and 

(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the 

average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I 

areas.3

Unfortunately, the State’s own modeling shows that the agreement-in-principle does not satisfy 

these criteria. Adding to this overarching concern are the State’s errors in its technical analysis. 

As NPS concludes in its attached comments: 

 The State significantly overestimated the cost of SCR 

 The State’s visibility modeling analysis was not done according to the BART Guidelines. 

 The visibility modeling analysis does not demonstrate that the 2 SNCR/2 unit shutdown 

alternative is “better-than-BART.” 

 Without additional SO2 or NOx reductions beyond those proposed in the agreement-inprinciple, the National Park Service does not agree that the State Alternative is better than 

the BART determination in EPA’s FIP. 

See NPS July 24, 2013 Comments to New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Regarding 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) at 7. 

 Fortunately, NPS offers a number of feasible and cost-effective options to cure the abovementioned legal and technical deficiencies in the agreement-in-principle, including the 

imposition of lower SO2 and NOx limits on San Juan’s remaining two units. The Groups support 

these recommendations and also urge the State to consider greater investment in energy 

efficiency and clean, renewable energy as replacement power for the two retired units. On this 

point, we note considerable concern with the agreement-in-principle’s commitment to a natural 

gas-fired combustion turbine but failure to make any corresponding commitment to energy 

efficiency and clean, renewable energy. This unbalanced approach eliminates the possibility of 

more economical, and environmentally beneficial, replacement power alternatives that could and 

should be considered through more comprehensive, transparent analysis. 

                                                     

3 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.308(e)(3)(i)-(ii).
Pam Castañeda 

September 3, 2013 

Page 3 of 3 

 Thank you for your consideration of our comments. As the agreement-in-principle works 

its way through the state and federal approval processes, we remain committed to working with 

the State of New Mexico, EPA and PNM to resolve these concerns in a manner that builds upon 

and improves the existing agreement, which represents an important—if insufficient—step 

forward towards cleaner air for our national parks as well as surrounding communities. 

Sincerely, 

____________________________ 

Suma Peesapati Erik Schlenker-Goodrich 

cc: Bill Grantham 

 Rick Alvidrez 

 Dan Pinkston