1 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support ELLEN MAHAN, Deputy Section Chief JUSTIN A. SAVAGE, Senior Counsel (D.C. Bar 466345) BRADFORD T. McLANE, Trial Attorney (Va. Bar 73203) U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044-7369 Tel: (202) 305-0544 Fax: (202) 514-2583 E-mail: bradford.mclane@usdoj.gov DEAN K. DUNSMORE U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division 801 B Street, Suite 504 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3657 Tel: (907) 271-5452 Fax: (907) 271-5827 Email: dean.dunsmore@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

__________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff ) Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB ) v. ) ) GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ) and ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ) AND EXPORT AUTHORITY, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 1 of 152 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTI ON TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff, United States of America, on be half of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), respectfully moves for the entry of the proposed Consent Decree that was lodged with the Court on October 2, 2012. (See ECF Doc 3.) The Court’s entry of the Consent Decree will resolve this civil action for in junctive relief brought by the United States against Golden Valley Electric Association (“ GVEA”) and Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (“AIDEA”) to prevent a violati on of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) requirements of the Clean Air Act (“ CAA” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470–7492, due to the restart and/or reactivation of Unit 2 at the Healy Power Plant in Healy, Alaska. For the reasons discussed below, the Consent Decree advan ces the goals of the Clean Air Act and is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. Thus, the United States respectfully moves this Court to sign and enter the proposed Consent Decree as a final judgment in this case. UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History Through the Complaint filed in this action, the United States sought to enjoin GVEA and AIDEA (collectively “Defendants”) from violati ng the PSD provisions of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470–92, at the Healy Power Plant. These PSD pr ovisions prohibit owners and operators of large air pollutant emission sources (such as coal-fired electric generating units) from constructing “new” major sources or making major modifications to those sources, without also

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 2 of 153 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support obtaining a permit and installing and employi ng the Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”). Such controls dramatically reduc e emissions of pollutants from such sources. The Healy Power Plant has two coal-fired elec tric generating units, named Units 1 and 2. (Complaint, ECF Doc. 1, ¶ 9.) Unit 1 is a 25 Megawatt (“MW”) unit owned and operated by GVEA. (Id . ¶ 10.) Unit 2 was constructed in 1996 w ith a capacity of 50 MW and is owned by AIDEA and operated by GVEA. (Id . ¶ 11.) At the time Unit 2 was constructed, Defendants went through PSD permitting, which imposed several obligations, including air quality monitoring and installation of air pollution controls. (Id . ¶ 23.) Unit 2 has not operated since 1998 and 1999. (Id . ¶ 24.) Recently, Defendants have expr essed their intent to restart and/or reactivate Unit 2 for economic reasons. (Id . ¶ 25.) However, EPA has determined that the pollution controls on Unit 2 established in the original PSD permit do not represent BACT by today’s standards. (Id . ¶ 27.) Therefore, this consent decr ee requires, among other things, that Defendants install and continuously operate pollu tion control technologies on Unit 2 to further reduce permitted emissions. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, a notice of l odging of the proposed Consent Decree with the Court was published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 61,640 (October 10, 2012). The notice specified where to locate a copy of the proposed Consent Decree and the manner and time period in which the public should provide comment to the United States regarding the settlement. Id

. The United States received no comments.

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 3 of 154 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support In light of all these consider ations, the United States respec tfully requests that the Court approve, sign, and enter the Consen t Decree, and thereby resolve this case. All parties concur in this request. (Consent Decree, ECF Doc. 3, ¶ 174.)
B. Applicable Clean Air Act Requirements Congress enacted the CAA “to protect a nd enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the produc tive capacity of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). In 1977, Congress amended the CAA establishing the New Source Review (“NSR”) program, which a ddresses the impact on ambient air quality resulting from newly constructed or modified pollutant-emitting facilities. The NSR program itself consists of two programs: the PSD program , which applies in area s that satisfy national ambient air quality standards set by EPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470- 7479, and the Nonattainment NSR program for areas that violate air quality st andards, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7515. The PSD Program is applicable here because the H ealy Plant is located in an attainment/unclassifiable area for the relevant pollutants. (Compl aint, ECF Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 16.) Under the PSD program, “[n]o major emitting f acility... may be constructed” or modified without first meeting several requirements. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7475(a),7479(2)(C). Among those requirements, a facility must obtain a permit setting forth emission limitations and must be subject to the Best Available Control Technol ogy (“BACT”) for each pollutant subject to regulation. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(1), (4). The Ac t defines the term “construction” to include a “modification,” 42 U.S.C. § 7479(2)(C), which in turn means “any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 4 of 155 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(4). EPA has broad authority to enforce viol ations of the CAA NSR requirements and to ensure that proper BACT limitations are set and enforced. See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA , 450 U.S. 461 (2004). Section 167 of the Act specifically provides that EPA “shall . . . take such measures, including issuan ce of an order, or seeking injunctive relief, as necessary to prevent the construction or modification of a major emitting facility which does not conform to the requirements of this part[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 7477.
C. Violations Alleged in the Complaint The United States filed its Complaint in th is action against Defe ndants pursuant to Section 167 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7477, to enjoin Defendants from restarting and/or reactivating Unit 2 of the Healy Power Plant in violation of the CAA PSD requirements. Specifically, the United States alleges that Defend ants intended to restart and/or reactivate Healy Unit 2, and that such a proj ect would result in the constructi on of a new source, or in the alternative, a major modification of an existing source. (Compl . ¶¶ 25, 28.) The United States therefore seeks to enjoin the restart and/or reactivation of Healy Unit 2, including any physical or operational changes necessary to facilitate the re start and/or reactivation of the unit, unless and until Defendants obtain the proper permits under th e CAA and install and operate the controls necessary under the Act to reduce air pollutant emissions from Healy Unit 2. (Id . ¶¶ 28–29.)

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 5 of 156 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support D. Summary of the Proposed Consent Decree Provisions As summarized below, through installation a nd utilization of pollu tion control devices and establishment of emission rate limitations, the proposed Consent Decree will secure emission reductions in sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), oxides of nitrogen (“NO x ”), and particulate matter (“PM”), yielding substantial benefits to public health and the environment.
1. NO x Air Pollution Controls This settlement requires Defendants to inst all and operate a Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) device on Healy Unit 2 to control NO x emissions. (Consent Decree ¶ 59.) SCR is currently the most advanced pollution control technology for NO x . The SCR must be installed and fully operational within 24 months after Unit 2 first fires coal. Id

. In exchange for the fact that the Consent Decree allows for the operation of Unit 2 for a 24 month period before the installation and opera tion of the SCR system, Defendants must also reduce NO x emissions from Unit 1, a unit over which th e United States has not asserted any claims here. (Decree ¶ 60.) To accomplish these further emission reductions, GVEA must install a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction System (“SNCR”) device on Unit 1 by September 30, 2015, or 24 months after Unit 2 first fi res coal, whichever is later. (Id .) Additionally, GVEA must either permanently retire Unit 1 or retrofit it with an SCR by December 31, 2024. (Id. ¶ 61.) Both Units will also be subject to tonnage limitations as laid out in Paragraph 64 of the
Consent Decree.

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 6 of 157 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support 2. SO 2 and PM Air Pollution Controls The Consent Decree requires Defendants to operate the existing pollution control technology for SO 2 on Unit 2 to achieve specified emission rates. (Consent Decree ¶ 65.) The Consent Decree also provides for emission rates th at must be met at Unit 1 within 18 months of Unit 2 first firing coal. (Id . ¶ 66.) Additionally, the Decree includes an SO 2 tonnage cap for Units 1 and 2 of 701 tons per year by 2016 (or 2 48 tons/year by 2025 if Unit 1 is retired). (Id . ¶ 67.) Similarly, the Decree requires Defendants to optimize the exis ting pollution control technologies for particulate matter on both Units to ensure they are minimizing PM emissions to the greatest extent practicable. (Id . ¶¶ 69–80.) Additionally, Defenda nts are required to install and operate a PM continuous emissions monitori ng system on both Units by the first firing of coal in each Unit to determine complian ce with the PM limit requirements. (Id .)
3. Civil Penalty The Consent Decree requires GVEA, on beha lf of Defendants, to pay a $115,000 civil penalty to the United States. (Consent Decree ¶ 55); see also , CAA Section 113(e), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e) (penalty assessment criteria).
4. Environmental Mitigation Project The Consent Decree also requires GVEA, on be half of Defendants, to spend a total of $250,000 to fund a change out program for solid -fuel burning devices (e.g., wood burning stoves) in municipalities in Inte rior Alaska as an Environmenta l Mitigation Project. (Consent Decree ¶¶ 83–84.) This project is expected to significantly reduc e the emissions of particulate

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 7 of 158 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ), which is particularly harmful to human health. The pollutants of primary concern in this case (NO x and SO 2 ) contribute to the formation of PM 2.5 . Therefore, the funding of this program will effec tively mitigate the same type of air pollution in the areas most impacted by polluta nts from the Healy Power Plant.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Standard of Review. Approval of a consent decree is appropriate where it is “fair, reasonable and equitable and does not violate the law or public policy.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc. , 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1990); Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce , 672 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2012)

. This determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Officers for Justi ce v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City & County of San Francisco , 688 F.2d 615, 630 (9th Cir. 1982). However, “this discretion is not unbridled . . . [u]nless a consent decree is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable, it ought to be approved.” S.E.C. v. Randolph , 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1984). Alt hough a consent decree requires court approval, a court may not modify a consent decree before entry; it must be accepted or rejected with the terms agreed to by the parties. Officer s for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & County of San Francisco , 688 F.2d at 625. It is well recognized in this Ci rcuit that “settlement agreements are judicially favored as a matter of sound public policy.” Speed Shore Corp. v. Denda , 605 F.2d 469, 473 (9th Cir. 1979); Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines , 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988) ; United States v. McInnes , 556 F.2d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 1977). The “policy of en couraging early settlements is strengthened

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 8 of 159 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support when a government agency charged with protecti ng the public interest ‘has pulled the laboring oar in constructing the proposed settlement.’” United States v. Mont rose Chem. Corp. of California , 50 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp. (“Cannons II ”), 899 F.2d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 1990)) (int ernal quotations omitted). Therefore, deference should be given “to the judgment of a government agency which has negotiated and submitted the proposed judgment.” Marshall v. Holiday Magic, Inc. , 550 F.2d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 1977); see Officers for Justice v. Civ il Serv. Comm’n of City & County of San Francisco , 688 F.2d at 625; Sam Fox Publishing Co. v. United States , 366 U.S. 683, 689 (1961).
B. The Proposed Consent Decree Should be Approved. This Court should approve the proposed Consen t Decree because it is fair, adequate and reasonable, consistent with applicab le law, and in the public interest.

1. The Proposed Consent Decree is Fair. To determine that a consent decree is fair, courts are to addres s both procedural and substantive fairness. United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. , 776 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2011) citing Cannons II , 899 F.2d at 86. A consent decree is procedurally fair if the negotiation process was “fair and full of adversarial vigor.” United States v. Telluride Co. , 849 F. Supp. 1400, 1402 (D. Colo. 1994) (quoting Cannons II , 899 F.2d at 87 n.4). If the resulti ng decree is the “product of good faith, arms-length negotiations, a negotia ted decree is presumptively vali d.” United States v. State of Oregon , 913 F.2d 576, 581 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1250 (1991). This Consent Decree is the product of exte nsive negotiations between the EPA and Defendants. The

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 9 of 1510 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support negotiations lasted over several months. Defendants were re presented by experienced outside counsel while EPA was represented by the U.S. De partment of Justice. This settlement was made available for public comment, 77 Fe d. Reg. 61, 640 (October 10, 2012), and no comments were received. For all of these reasons, the pr oposed Consent Decree is procedurally fair. The proposed Consent Decree is also substa ntively fair. In reviewing substantive fairness, the Court does not base its determinatio n on whether “the settlement is one which the court itself might have fashione d or considers ideal, but whethe r the proposed decree is fair, reasonable and faithful to the objectives of the governing statute.” Cannons II , 899 F.2d at 84; see also United States v. Oregon , 913 F.2d at 581. Here the proposed Consent Decree not only requires Defendants to install and im plement new pollution controls for NO x on Unit 2, but also secures substantial emissions reduc tions from Unit 1. This settlem ent also furthers the economic and practical needs of the lo cal community by offering some flexibility for Defendants to commence operation of Unit 2 prior to the requi red installation and operation of advanced NO x pollution control technologies, wh ile still ensuring pollution reduc tions through the relief secured at Unit 1—a unit with respect to which the United States has neither asserted nor resolved any claims. These settlement terms take into account the electricity needs of the community and the unique weather conditions of the region, which only allow a short window of time in the summer during which construction activit ies can occur. (ECF Doc. 3, Consent Decree, at pg. 2.) In short, this Consent Decree is procedurally and substantivel y fair, including in light of the arms-length negotiations that led to the settlement and the substantial benefit to the public from the emissions reductions it provides.

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 10 of 1511 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support 2. The Proposed Consent Decree is Adequate and Reasonable. The proposed Consent Decree here is also adeq uate and reasonable. First, it directly addresses NO x emissions from Healy Unit 2 over a tw o-year period of time. Second, by including reductions from Unit 1 and mitigation in the form of the stove change out program, it provides for substantial reductions in emissions that exceed those that would be obtained by controlling Unit 2 alone. When determining whether a consent decree is reasonable, courts gene rally consider “the nature/extent of the hazards, the degree to whic h the remedy will adequately address the hazards, possible alternatives for remedyi ng hazards, and to the extent to which the decree furthers the goals of the statute.” United States v. Washington State Dept. of Transp , 2007 WL 1795605, No. C05-5447-RJB (W.D. Wash. June 20, 2007), citing United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp. , 720 F. Supp. 1027, 1038 (D. Mass. 1989), aff'd , Cannons II , 899 F.2d 79; see also United States v. Akzo Coatings of America, Inc. , 949 F.2d 1409, 1436 (6th Cir. 1991). One factor that may also be relevant to the reasona bleness of a consent decree is the timing of the relief. For example, in United States v. Chevron U.S.A. , Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d. 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2005), the district court found that “because of the complex ity of Clean Air Act litigation, it was reasonable for EPA to conclude that even a due date eight years after the signing of the Consent Decree may create environmental benefits earlier than litigating.” Id . at 1118-19. In short, the proposed Consent Decree achie ves considerable reduc tions in air pollution over a reasonable period of time without the subs tantial allocation of time and expense needed to litigate a CAA case of this nature.

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 11 of 1512 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support 3. The Proposed Consent Decree Furthers the Goals of the Clean Air Act and is in the Public Interest. The proposed Consent Decree also furthers th e goals of the Clean Ai r Act and is in the public interest. A primary purpose of the CAA is “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare a nd the productive capacity of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). This settlement advances that goal by requiring substantial reductions of NO x at Unit 2 within two years after this unit is restarted and/or reactivated. Meanwhile, it provid es the additional benefit of re ducing emissions further from Unit 1. As further mitigation, GVEA, on behalf of the Defendants, will fund an environmental mitigation project that will facili tate the change-out of wood and coal stoves in the region, which will significantly reduce airborne pollutants in the region around th e Healy Power Plant. All of these efforts speak directly to the goals of the Clean Air Act and comport with the requirements under the CAA PSD program. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has ex plained that in order for a Consent Decree to conform to the requirements of applicable law it “need not impose all the obligations authorized by law.” United States v. Oregon , 913 F.2d at 581. As long as the consent decree comes “within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings, furthers the obj ectives upon which the law is based, and does not violate[ ] the statute upon which the complaint was based, the parties’ agreement may be entered by the court.” Sier ra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc. , 909 F.2d at 1355 (quoting Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefight ers, AFL-CIO v. City of Cleveland , 478 U.S. 501, 525–26 (1986)) (internal quotations omitte d). These requirements are easily met here.

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 12 of 1513 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support Finally, the Consent Decree furthers the public interests in clean air and voluntary settlements that achieve that end. Public policy favors settlement “particul arly in the area where voluntary compliance by the parties over an extended period will contribute significantly toward ultimate achievement of statutory goals.” Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. of Arlington Heights , 616 F.2d 1006, 1014 (7th Cir. 1980). A voluntary settle ment in this type of case is significant because it avoids the potential de lay of litigation and serves the interests of judicial economy.
III. CONCLUSION In short, the proposed Consent Decree advances the goals of the Clean Air Act and is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in th e public interest. The Consent Decree substantially reduces emissions, secures an environmental mitigation proj ect, requires payment of a civil penalty, and resolves a complex matter without additional litigation and delay. This Court may enter the Consent Decree at this time. The United States provided a public comment period and received no comments or objections from the public, and Defendants have consented to the Court’s en try of the Decree without furthe r notice. (Consent Decree, ECF Doc. 3, ¶ 174.) The United States, therefore, resp ectfully requests that th is Court sign and enter the proposed Consent Decree as a fi nal judgment in this case. (See ECF Doc. 3.)

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 13 of 1514 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support Respectfully submitted, /s/ Bradford T. McLane BRADFORD T. MCLANE Trial Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section Environment a nd Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044-7611 Telephone: (202) 305-0544 Email: bradford.mclane@usdoj.gov
DEAN K. DUNSMORE U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natura l Resources Division 801 B Street, Suite 504 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3657 Telephone: (907) 271-5452 Email: dean.dunsmore@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Of Counsel:
JULIANE MATTHEWS Assistant Regional Counsel Office of Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (ORC-158) 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98101
SABRINA ARGENTIERI Attorney-Advisor Air Enforcement Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, Illinois 60604

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 14 of 1515 United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al. , Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, United States’ Unopposed Motion to Ente r Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th of N ovember 2012 a true and complete copy of the foregoing United States' Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support was served by the Court's electronic filing sy stem on the following registered electronic filing participants: JOHN J. BURNS Borgeson & Kramer, P.C. 100 Cushman Street Suite 311 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Tel: (907) 452-1666 Email: jburns@bnblaw.com CLAUDIA POWERS 1331 NW Lovejoy Suite 900 Portland, OR 97209-3280 Tel: (503) 226-8652 Email: ckp@aterwynne.com Attorneys for Defendant Golden Valley Electric Association BRIAN BJORKQUIST (Alaska Bar #8506102) Senior Assistant Attorney General State of Alaska, Attorney General’s Office 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Tel: (907) 269-5150 Fax: (907) 375-8282 E-mail: brian.bjorkquist@alaska.gov RICHARD ALONSO Bracewell & Biuliani LLP (DC) 2000 K Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 828-5861 Fax: (800) 404-3970 E-mail: Richard.alonso@bgllp.com Counsel for Defendant Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority /s/ Bradford T. McLane BRADFORD T. MCLANE

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 15 of 15