1 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter 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 15
2 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff, United States of America, on behalf 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 injunctive relief brought by the United States 

against Golden Valley Electric Association (“GVEA”) and Alaska Industrial Development and 

Export Authority (“AIDEA”) to prevent a violation 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 advances 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 violating the PSD provisions of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

7470–92, at the Healy Power Plant. These PSD provisions 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 15
3 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

obtaining a permit and installing and employing the Best Available Control Technology 

(“BACT”). Such controls dramatically reduce emissions of pollutants from such sources. 

The Healy Power Plant has two coal-fired electric 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 with 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 expressed 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 decree requires, among other things, that 

Defendants install and continuously operate pollution control technologies on Unit 2 to further 

reduce permitted emissions. 

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, a notice of lodging 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 15
4 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

In light of all these considerations, the United States respectfully requests that the Court 

approve, sign, and enter the Consent 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 and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air 

resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive 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 addresses 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 areas 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 standards, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7515. The PSD Program 

is applicable here because the Healy Plant is located in an attainment/unclassifiable area for the 

relevant pollutants. (Complaint, ECF Doc. 1 at 5, ¶ 16.) 

 Under the PSD program, “[n]o major emitting facility... 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 Technology (“BACT”) for each pollutant subject to 

regulation. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(1), (4). The Act 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 15
5 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter 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 violations 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 issuance 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 this action against Defendants 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 Defendants intended to restart and/or reactivate 

Healy Unit 2, and that such a project would result in the construction 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 restart and/or reactivation of the unit, unless and 

until Defendants obtain the proper permits under the 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 15
6 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

D. Summary of the Proposed Consent Decree Provisions

As summarized below, through installation and utilization of pollution control devices 

and establishment of emission rate limitations, the proposed Consent Decree will secure 

emission reductions in sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”), and particulate matter 

(“PM”), yielding substantial benefits to public health and the environment. 

1. NOx Air Pollution Controls

 This settlement requires Defendants to install and operate a Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(“SCR”) device on Healy Unit 2 to control NOx emissions. (Consent Decree ¶ 59.) SCR is 

currently the most advanced pollution control technology for NOx. 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 operation of the SCR system, Defendants must also 

reduce NOx emissions from Unit 1, a unit over which the 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 fires 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 15
7 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

2. SO2 and PM Air Pollution Controls

 The Consent Decree requires Defendants to operate the existing pollution control 

technology for SO2 on Unit 2 to achieve specified emission rates. (Consent Decree ¶ 65.) The 

Consent Decree also provides for emission rates that must be met at Unit 1 within 18 months of 

Unit 2 first firing coal. (Id. ¶ 66.) Additionally, the Decree includes an SO2 tonnage cap for 

Units 1 and 2 of 701 tons per year by 2016 (or 248 tons/year by 2025 if Unit 1 is retired). (Id. ¶ 

67.) 

 Similarly, the Decree requires Defendants to optimize the existing 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, Defendants are required to install 

and operate a PM continuous emissions monitoring system on both Units by the first firing of 

coal in each Unit to determine compliance with the PM limit requirements. (Id.) 

3. Civil Penalty

 The Consent Decree requires GVEA, on behalf 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 behalf 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 Interior Alaska as an Environmental Mitigation Project. (Consent 

Decree ¶¶ 83–84.) This project is expected to significantly reduce the emissions of particulate 

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 7 of 15
8 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), which is particularly harmful to human health. The 

pollutants of primary concern in this case (NOx and SO2) contribute to the formation of PM2.5. 

Therefore, the funding of this program will effectively mitigate the same type of air pollution in 

the areas most impacted by pollutants 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 Justice 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). Although 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. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & 

County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d at 625. 

It is well recognized in this Circuit 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 encouraging early settlements is strengthened 

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 8 of 15
9 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

when a government agency charged with protecting the public interest ‘has pulled the laboring 

oar in constructing the proposed settlement.’” United States v. Montrose 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)) (internal 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. Civil 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 Consent Decree because it is fair, adequate and 

reasonable, consistent with applicable law, and in the public interest. 

1. The Proposed Consent Decree is Fair.

To determine that a consent decree is fair, courts are to address 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 resulting decree is the “product of good faith, 

arms-length negotiations, a negotiated decree is presumptively valid.” 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 extensive negotiations between the EPA and Defendants. The 

Case 4:12-cv-00025-RRB Document 13 Filed 11/14/12 Page 9 of 15
10 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

negotiations lasted over several months. Defendants were represented by experienced outside 

counsel while EPA was represented by the U.S. Department of Justice. This settlement was 

made available for public comment, 77 Fed. Reg. 61, 640 (October 10, 2012), and no comments 

were received. For all of these reasons, the proposed Consent Decree is procedurally fair. 

The proposed Consent Decree is also substantively fair. In reviewing substantive 

fairness, the Court does not base its determination on whether “the settlement is one which the 

court itself might have fashioned or considers ideal, but whether 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 implement new pollution controls for NOx on Unit 2, but also 

secures substantial emissions reductions from Unit 1. This settlement also furthers the economic 

and practical needs of the local community by offering some flexibility for Defendants to 

commence operation of Unit 2 prior to the required installation and operation of advanced NOx

pollution control technologies, while still ensuring pollution reductions 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 activities can occur. (ECF Doc. 3, Consent Decree, at pg. 2.) 

In short, this Consent Decree is procedurally and substantively 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 15
11 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

2. The Proposed Consent Decree is Adequate and Reasonable.

The proposed Consent Decree here is also adequate and reasonable. First, it directly 

addresses NOx emissions from Healy Unit 2 over a two-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 generally consider “the 

nature/extent of the hazards, the degree to which the remedy will adequately address the hazards, 

possible alternatives for remedying 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 reasonableness 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 complexity 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 achieves considerable reductions in air pollution 

over a reasonable period of time without the substantial 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 15
12 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter 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 the goals of the Clean Air 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 and the productive capacity 

of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). This settlement advances that goal by requiring 

substantial reductions of NOx at Unit 2 within two years after this unit is restarted and/or 

reactivated. Meanwhile, it provides the additional benefit of reducing emissions further from 

Unit 1. As further mitigation, GVEA, on behalf of the Defendants, will fund an environmental 

mitigation project that will facilitate the change-out of wood and coal stoves in the region, which 

will significantly reduce airborne pollutants in the region around the 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 explained 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 objectives 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.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 

F.2d at 1355 (quoting Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO v. City of Cleveland, 

478 U.S. 501, 525–26 (1986)) (internal quotations omitted). These requirements are easily met 

here. 

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

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter 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 “particularly 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 settlement in this type of case is significant 

because it avoids the potential delay 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 the public interest. The Consent Decree substantially reduces 

emissions, secures an environmental mitigation project, 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 entry of the Decree without further notice. (Consent Decree, ECF 

Doc. 3, ¶ 174.) The United States, therefore, respectfully requests that this Court sign and enter 

the proposed Consent Decree as a final judgment in this case. (See ECF Doc. 3.) 

 

 

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

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Bradford T. McLane 

 BRADFORD T. MCLANE 

 Trial Attorney 

 Environmental Enforcement Section 

 Environment and 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 Natural 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 15
15 

United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, et. al., Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB, 

 United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Memorandum in Support

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th of November 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 system 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