Pr ov id ing L ega l & Tec hnic a l A s s is t a nce t o t he Gr a s s ro ot s Mo vem ent f or Env iro nment a l J us t ice

Ral p h Sa n t i a go Abas c a l ( 1934- 1997) D i r e c t or 1990- 1997 L u k e W

. Co l e ( 1962- 2009) Ex e c u t i v e Di r e c t or 1997- 2009 Center o n Race, Pov erty & the Env iro nment
1302 J ef f er s on St r ee t , Su i t e 2, D el a no, CA 93215 t el 661- 720- 9140 f a x 661- 720- 9483 47 Ke a r ny St r ee t , Su i t e 804, Sa n Fr a nci s co, CA 94108 t el 415- 346- 4179 f a x 415- 346- 8723 w w w
. crpe - ej

. o rg April 12, 2011 Shirley Rivera ( AI R-3) U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency 75 Hawthor

ne Stree t San Fr ancisc o, CA 94105-3901 Re : Av e na l E ne rgy

Pr oje c t PSD Pe rm it, Sup ple me nta l State me nt o f B a sis Dea r Ms. Rivera: The Center

on Race , Poverty , & the Environment (“ CRP E”) submits these c omments on behalf of itself, El Pueblo Para El Air e y Agua L impio, Greena ction for He alth and Environmenta l J ustice, and Cente r for

Biolog ical Diver sity

opposing the Proposed Action and Supplementa l Statement of B asis Relating to the Clean Air Ac t Prevention of Signif icant De terioration (“PSD”) Permit for the Ave nal Ener g y Project. CRP E repr esents low-inc ome communities and communities of color thr oug hout the centr al San J oaquin Valley , including in King s County , wher e this project would be located. People living in the communities surroundingthis P rojec t—more than 90 pe rce nt of whom are minorities—are alre ady living with both substandard a ir quality and sig nificant re spiratory health proble ms as the Central Va lley , including K ings County , has worse air qua lity than any other re g ion in the Nation. Yet the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Ag ency (“EPA” ) propose s to ex empt Avena l Energy from require ments to demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of the nitrog en dioxi de (“N O2”) or sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) N ational Ambient Air Qua lity Standards (“NAAQS”) for the one-hour aver ag ing time or

a showingthat this source will meet the B est Available Control Te c hn olo g y

(“ B AC T” ) r e qu ir e me nt f or g re e nh ou se g a se s. EPA makes such a

proposal in violation of the plain languag e of the Clean Air Ac t (“CAA” ), EPA’s own prior policy

and interpr etation, and pr ece dential ca se law. Additionally , EPA fails to identify potential impacts from short-te rm NO2 e x posures a s part of its Environmental J ustice Ana ly sis as require d by Ex ecutive O rder

12898. This failure pla ces the communities of Avena l, Huron and K ettleman City at unre asonable risk of unhea lthy short-term exposures to NO2. Given EPA’s inability to assess disparate impacts due to insuffic ient local data , its de c isi on

to e xemp t A ve na l E ne rgy Ce nte r f ro m de mon str atin gNA AQ S c omp lia nc e is e sp e c ia lly e g re g iou s.Pag e 2 of 14

I. EP A M ayNo t G r andfa th e r th e P r oj e c t F r omCA A R e quir e m e nt s. A. Th e Ap pli c atio n D oe s N ot S atis fy Th e Cle an A ir

Ac t Re qu ir e me nts

. The Clean A ir Act re quires that a sour ce de monstrate it will not cause or c ontribute to a vio latio n o f a

ny NA AQ S and

that th e pr op os e d s ourc e wi ll m e e t e mis sio ns lim itatio ns a c hie va ble thr ou g h a pp lic atio n o f B AC T f

or e a c h p oll uta

nt s ub je c t to re g ulatio n und e r t

he CA A. 42 U. S.C. 7475(a) (3)- (4); 40 CFR 52.21(k) ; 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12) ; 75 Fed. Re g . 17004 (April 2, 2010). EPA’ s Sup ple me nta l State me nt o f B a sis pr op os e s to fa c ia lly vio late the CA A b y

iss uin ga PSD pe rm it without requiringa demonstration that the source w ill not cause or c ontribute to a violation of the NO2 or SO2 NA AQS for the one -hour avera g ing time or a showingthat the source will meet the B AC T r e qu ir e me nt f

or g re e nh ou se g a se s. The CAA a

nd PSD regulations provide that a pe rmit may not be issued unless the applica nt de mon str ate s th at th e so ur c e wi ll n ot c a us e or c on tr ibute to a

vio latio n o f “ any

natio na l ambi e nt a ir qu a lity sta nd ard in a ny a ir qu a lity c on tr ol r e g ion .” 42 U. S.C. § 7 47 5 ( a )( 3) ; 40 CF R 52 .2 1( k) . T his includes the 1-hour

NO2 and SO2 NA AQS, and g ree nhouse g as emissions. 75 Fed. Re g . 6474 (F eb. 9, 2010), 75 F ed. Reg . 35520 (June 22, 2010), and 75 F ed. Reg . 17004 (April 2, 2010). Ea ch of these standa

rds had e ffe ctive date s prior to the issuance of the Ave nal PSD permit and none provide g ra nd fathe ri ngpr ov isi on s f

or pe nd inga

pp lic atio ns . ( Th e e ff

e c tiv e date s a

re Ap ri l 12 , 2 01 0, Au g us t 23, 2010, and January

2, 2011, respe ctively .) F or this rea son, EPA may not exempt t he applica

nt from the de monstration require ments mandated by law. In addition, EPA has steadfa stly and re peate dly

repr esente d to the public and re g ulated industries that the meaningof the phra se “subjec t to regulation” in the PSD provisions and a sso c iate d r e g ulatio ns c ov e re d a ny NA AQ S in

e ff e c t at th e tim e of

a fi na l pe rm it d e c isi on . E PA publicly repe ated this interpre tation as rec ently as April 2, 2010 in its action for the “Rec onsideration of Interpre tation of Regulations That Deter mine Pollut ants Covere d by Clean Air Ac t Permitti ng Prog rams.” 75 F ed. Reg . 17004 (April 2, 2010). Prior to that, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson iss ue d a Me mor and

um s e tti ngfo rt

h th is s ame int e rp re tatio n o n D e c e mbe r 1 8, 20 08 . T he PSD Interpre tive Memo was spurr ed by a Nove mber 13, 2008, Environme ntal Appea ls Boar d (“EA B” ) ru lin gwh ic h r e mand e d a

PSD pe rm it b e c a

us e of fl awe d a sse rt ion s b y

EPAre latin gto t

he phra se “subjec t to regulation.” In re: Dese ret Power Elec tric Cooperative , PSD Appeal No. 07-03 ( EAB Nov. 13, 2008). See also In re : Phelps DodgeCorp. 10 E.A.D. 460, 478 n.10 (E AB 2002) whe re the EA B he ld “ a

pp lic a ble re qu ir e me nts ” of

the Cle an Wate r A c t and its re g ulatio ns to “ inc lud e a ll statutory require ments that take e ffe ct prior to issuance of per mit...” EPAc an n ot s imp ly

ig no re its pr e vio us ly

a do pte d p oli c ie s si nc e a g e nc ie s mu st s c ru pu lou sly follow the re g ulations and proce dures pr omulgated by the ag ency

itself. Sie rra Clu b v . M

ar tin , 168 F.3d 1, 4 ( 11th Cir. 1999). Additionally , EPA’s sudden depa rture f rom its well-established policies is e nti tle d to ve ry

little de fe re nc e . “ An

a g e nc y int e rp re tatio n o f a

re le va nt p ro vis ion

wh ic h c on fl ic ts wi th t he a g e nc y ’s e arl ie r i nte rp re tatio n is ‘e nti tle d to c on sid e ra bly le ss d e fe re nc e ’ t

ha n a c on sis te ntl y held ag ency

view.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonesc a, 480 U.S. 421, 446 n. 30 (1987). An inconsistent po sit ion take n b y an a g e nc y

on an is su e c a sts se ri ou s d ou bt o n th e va lid ity

of its ana ly sis

. See, e .g., Mt. Graham Re d Squirrel v. Madigan , 954 F.2d 1441, 1457 ( 9th Cir. 1992) (no def ere nce to the ag ency ’s “e x pertise” when the a g ency position has fluctuated).A dd i t i onal l y , as det ai l ed i n our O ct ob er 14, 200 9 C om ment Let t er t o U

. S. E P A Regi on I X , wh i ch we 1 i n c or po r a t e by r e f

e r e n c e , t h e pr op os e d BACT de t e r mi n a t i on s do n ot c om pl y w i t h f e de r a l PSD t op - do w n BACT a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d t h e p r o p o s e d C O e m i s s i o n l i m i t a t i o n f o r t h e c o m b u s t i o n t u r b i n e s i s n o t BA C T. Pag e 3 of 14 Th e pr op os e d B AC T d e te rm inatio n is a lso fa ult y a s a matte r o f l aw b e c a

us e EPAfa ile d to c on sid e r o r a

na ly ze t he g re e nh ou se g a s e mis sio ns (“ GH Gs ” ) f ro m th e Pr oje c t or

any te c hn olo g y

to control them. As discussed in EPA’s f inal action for

“Rec onsideration of Interpre tation of Re g ulatio ns that D e te rm ine Pol lut ants Cov e re d b y Cle an A ir

Ac t Pe rm itt ingPr og ra

ms, ” EPA construes the BA CT require ments to apply to eac h pollutant that is “subject to regulation under the Ac t ” a tth e t i m e t h e P S D p erm i ti s i s s u ed , as E P A n o w s ee k s t o co n s tru e t h e p h ra s e. 7 5 Fe d

. R eg. 17004 (April 2, 2010). In that rulemaking, EPA asserte d that GHGs be came “subjec t to regulation” when r ules limit ing gree nhouse g as emission from vehic les first ef fec ted the sale of such ve hicles, or on J anuar y 2, 2011. PSD Interpre tive Me mo at 6, n. 5. Th e ru le a dd re sse s si x g re e nh ou se g a se s: 2 4 2 car bon diox ide (CO ), methane (CH ), nitrous ox ide (N O), hydrofluoroc arbons ( HFCs),
6 perf luoroca rbons (PFCs), a

nd sulfur hexafluoride ( SF ). 75 F ed. Reg . 31518 (June 3, 2010). Ho we ve r, the pr op os e d B AC T d e te rm inatio n d oe s n ot c on sid e r o r a na ly ze G HGe mis sio ns at a ll, thus it i s in plain error

. 1 B. EPA’s Grounds for Gra ndfathe ringthis P ermit Application Are Flaw ed. EPA seeks to justify

the proposal to exempt the Avena l permit based on f ive spec ific fa ctors. Eac h justification is lega lly and fa ctually

flawe d, as discussed be low. 1. Em iss ion s F ro m th e Pr op os e d F a c ili ty EPAa sse rt s th at th e Pr oje c t w ill no t vi olate any NA AQ S r e g ulate d und e r t he pr op os e d p e rm it that wer e pre viously

in effe ct. Supplemental Statement of B asis at 6. Reg ardle ss of the ver acity of this statement, EPA applies the wrongstandard. A s discussed above , the applica ble standar d is that wh ic h is in p la c e at th e tim e the pe rm it i ssu e d. 75 F e d. Re g . 1 70 04 (A pr il 2 , 2 01 0) . B y

me re ly asser ting that the f

acility will meet the old standards a s a justification for a n exemption from the new standards, EPA posits a cir cular argument lackingany

cre dible leg al basis. Moreove r, EPA has no discretion to violate the plain languag e of a regulation.
In adoptinga new

hourly NAAQS for

NO2, EPA re cog nized that “the annua l NO2 standar d a lon e is n ot s uf

fi c ie nt t o p ro te c t pu

bli c he a lthwi th a

n a de qu ate marg in o f s a fe ty a g a ins t a dv e rs e respiratory

eff ects a ssociated with short-te rm exposures to NO2.” F inal Rule, 75 Fe d. Reg . 6474, (F e b. 9, 20 10 ). Th e re fo re , b y re qu ir ingc omp lia

nc e wi th p re vio us NO 2 s tand ard s o nly , E PA f a ils to ensure the protec tion of public health as r equire d by the Clean Air A ct. 2. Permit Timing The Clean A ir Act spec ifies that “[a]ny completed pe rmit application under se ction 7410 of this ti tle for a

major emitting f

acility in any are a to which this part a

pplies shall be g rante d or denied not later than one y ear

afte r the date of filingof such c ompleted application.” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(c)Pag e 4 of 14

(e mph a sis a dd e d. ). Th is l angua g e c lari fi e s th at A ve na l E ne rgy Ce nte r h a s n o v e ste d r ig ht t o a PSD permit one year

afte r EPA initially

deeme d its application complete, a s EPA could have de nied the permit for nume rous re asons. Instead, EPA attempts to use this languag e to justify exempting the applicant f

rom substantive requir ements to protec t public health. The a g ency ’s fa ilure to make a decision on the pe rmit does not deprive the public of protec tions afforde d by the Clean Air A ct. Ad dit ion a lly , p ro

je c t a pp lic ants are re qu ir e d to c omp le te an E nd ang e re d Sp e c ie s A na ly sis prior to re ceivinga PSD permit. The for mal Fish & Wil dlife consultation proc ess did not conclude un til Au g us t 20 10 , w e ll a ft e r t he statut or

y on e -ye ar p e ri od

ha d e nd e d. EPA , thro ug h n o f a ult of its own, could not have approve d the per mit prior to August 2010, more than one- y ear prior af ter Mar ch 18, 2010. 16 U.S.C.§ 1536(a)(2)

. The one -y ear

time limi tation is well-known by EPA, and EPA has pre viously established tr ans iti on pe ri od s in

the c od if ic atio n o f n e w o r m od if

ie d r e g ulatio ns . Yet her e, EPA did not “see 1 any g rounds to establish a tra nsition period” or g randf

ather ing pr ovisions for any of the pe nding permit applications. 75 Fed. Reg . 17021 (April 2, 2010). EPA made this assessment after revie wing the Av e na l a

pp lic atio n. As e xpla ine d in thi s Su pp le me nta l State me nt o f B a sis , E PA “ be lie ve d it wo uld be fe a sib le to b e g in i nc or po ratin gg re e nh ou se g a s c on sid e ra tio ns int o p e rm it r e vie ws in para llel with completion of work on other pollutants.” Supplemental Statement of B asis at 5. The PSD and Title V Gree nhouse Ga s TailoringRule further aff irmed the lac k of g randf

ather ing provisions. 75 Fed. Reg . 31514, 31592-93 (June 3, 2010).
Howeve r, EPA now propose s to cherr y -pick unspec ified fa cilities, on either unspec ified or e nti re ly va g ue - a nd ill e g a l- g ro un ds , to e xemp t f ro m th e a pp lic a ble sta nd ard s. No t on ly

do e s th is proposal, by

definition, fail to meet the r equire ments of the CAA but also the ve ry notice require ments which EPA cites in-pa rt for r e-ope ning the public comment per iod on this m atter. Finally , EPA specific ally

claims that the applica

nt lacked notice that the hourly NO2 NAA QS would apply

to the Avena l permit, and there fore should be exempt from the requir ement. Such an argument lacks c redibility beca use eve n if the Applica

nt lacked notice , such def iciency did not preve nt APC from endeavoringto complete “suf ficient modelingdemonstrations to show this source will not cause or c ontribute to violations of the hourly NO2 standa

rd.” Supplementa l Statement of Ba sis at 8. The fa ct that APC undertook to demonstrate that the projec t would not violate the NO2 standard unde rmines EPA’s asse ssment that APC l acke d fair notice

. EPAc ann ot j us tif

y an e xemp tio n f

ro m a pp lic a ble sta nd ard s f or the Av e na l pe rm it b a se d o n it s own fa ilure to deny

the per mit, or its neglig ent re g ulatory development pr ocesse s. In Gene ral Motors Corp. v. United States , the Court held EPA’s dela y in actingon a SI P revision did not affec t the ability or oblig ation of EPA to enfor ce the require ments of the Ac t. 496 U.S. 530 (1990). SuchPag e 5 of 14

inadequa cies on the pa

rt of EPA do not excuse the re quirements of the law. Reg ardle ss of whethe r the pe rm itt inga

uth or ity me e ts the ob lig atio n to g ra nt o r d e ny

a pe rm it a pp lic atio n w ith in t

he tim e pe ri od sp e c if ie d, the pe rm it mus t c omp ly wi th a ll a pp lic a ble sta nd ard s in e ff e c t at th e tim e the pe rm it is issued. In re She ll Gulf of Mexico, Inc . &Shell Offshore, Inc. , OCS Appeal No. 10-01 thr oug h 10- 04 , s lip op . at 66 n. 76 (E AB De c . 3 0, 20 10 ), 15 E. A. D. __ _; In reSh e ll G ulf

of M e x ic o, In c . &Sh e ll Offshore, Inc. , OCS Appeal No.10-01 thr oug h 10-04, at 19-25 ( EAB Fe b. 10, 2011) (Or der on Motions for Reconsider ation and/or Clarific ation) (“ Clarification Order” ).

3. Unanticipate d Challeng es E P A s ee k s t o j u s t i fy

ex em p t i n g th i s s p ec i fi c p ro j ec tb as edo nan “u n an t i ci p at ed ” c h al l en ge which it claims may

have a ffe cted a

pplicants. EPA claims this challeng e re lates to the modeling techniques r equire d to demonstrate c ompliance with the a nnual NO2 standa

rd. Withoutproviding details, EPA simply

asser ts that the level of r efine ment nece ssary in these demonstrations requires a c qu isi tio n a

nd ana ly sis of

a dd iti on a l data

inp uts that are no t ve ry

re a dil y a c c e ssi ble to p e rm it a pp lic ants and

a uth or iti e s. EPAha s c omp le te ly fa ile d to de mon str ate that th is p ur po rt e d d if fi c ult y was in fa ct enc ountere d by Avena l. I n any

event, modelingchalleng es do not constitute g rounds for evadingthe law, nor

do they allow the Ag ency

to pick and choose which fa cilities do and do not have to m e e t th at la

w. “ Un anti c ipate d c ha lle ng e s” do no t ju sti fy po st- ho c fa c ili ty -s pe c if

ic exemptions

. 4. Addre ssing NO 2 Caused the Additional De lay EPAc la ims that, b ut f

or the c ha lle ng e e nc ounte re d in su pp le me nti ngthe APC pe rm it t o addre ss the hourly

NO2 NAA QS, the hourly SO2 NAAQS and GH G re quirements would not have become applicable . This argument fails to acknow ledg e that the a pplicant and the F ish & Wildli fe Service , by

failingto conclude the ir Endang ere d Species c onsultation unti l Aug ust of 2010, in fac t de lay e d th e PSD pr oc e ss u nti l after both the NO2 and SO2 standa rds had a lrea dy

been a dopted, and un til after th e G HG s t an d ar d s h adb ee np ro p o s ed

. 7 5 Fe d

. R eg. 6 4 7 4 (F eb

. 9 , 2 0 1 0 ), 7 5 Fe d

. R eg. 35 52 0 ( June 22 , 2 01 0) , a

nd 75 F e d. Re g . 1 70 04 (A

pr il 2 , 2 01 0) . In a

ny e ve nt, in m akin gthi s argume nt, EPAc on c e de s, a s it ha s to , th at th e NO 2 a

nd SO2 NA AQ S, a

nd GH G r e qu ir e me nts be c ame a pp lic a ble to t his pe nd ingPSD pe rm it. Al so , it a c kn ow le dg e s th at A PC c ou ld h ave , a nd in fa c t di d, e nd e avo r t o s atis fy the ne w N O2 NA AQ S sta nd ard , whic h b e g s th e qu e sti on of why it should now be exempted from having to make the re quired NO 2 demonstration.

5. L eg al Prec edenc e EPAatte mpt s to jus tif

y its dis re g ard

of un e qu ivo c a l st atut or

y re qu ir e me nts by

po int ingto inapplicable a

nd distinguishable c ase la w. See Ziff

rin, Inc. v. U

nited States , 318 U.S. 73, 78 (1943); State of Alabama v. EPA , 557 F.2d 1101, 1108 ( 5 Cir. 1977). th Th e g ro un ds EPAc ite s f

or “ a uth or ity” ste ms f

ro m an 1 88 0' s c a se wh e re the c ourt fo un d th at a judgme nt could be ente red r etrospec tively afte r a de ly

in rende ringa judicial judg ment arose from an act of the cour t itself. Mitchell v. O verm an , 103 U.S. 62, 64-65 (1880). The narr ow exception car ved out in Mi tc he ll is inapplicable he re a s there ha s been no c ourt inaction. To the c ontrary , thePag e 6 of 14

only role the c ourt has played her e is to ensure that the ag ency g rants or de nies the PSD permit in a timely manner . EPAc ite s Fassilis v. Esperdy , to argue that this principle is applica ble to g overnme nt ag encie s as well. While the court in Fa ssi lis did rec og nize a narr ow exception for “ situations involving pre

judicial delay s in the administrative proce eding s,” the e x ception wa s not applied in that case . 301 F.2d 429, 434 ( 2d Cir. 1962). EPA also relies on dic ta in Application of Martini , 1 84 F. Supp. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), whe re the court a llowed a naturalization applicant to take the natura liz ation oath re troac tively to avoid deportation which was mandated by the ag ency ’s own delay

. Id. at 399-400. The court did not, howeve r, af ford the a g ency

authority to fashion and administer it’s own re medy

. Id . at 402. EPApo sit s e a c h o f t

he a bo ve “ jus tif ic atio ns ” fo r t

his a c tio n a s “ fa c tor s” in t he de c isi on

to exempt the Avenal per

mit from the leg al obliga

tion to demonstrate the propose d fac ility will not c a us e or c on tr ibute to a

vio latio n o f t

he on e -h our N AA QS f

or NO 2 a nd SO2 or that th is f

a c ili ty wi ll be ca pable of meetingemissions li mitations for g ree nhouse g ases ba sed on B ACT require ments. EPA has no authority , and no discre tion, to invent “fac tors” that would exempt any fac ility from compliance with Clean Air Ac t require ments. Even if it did, eac h of these f actor s is its elf fla

wed and /or mis a pp lie d to the pr e se nt s itu atio n. Ev e n if EPAha d v a lid

po lic y re a so ns fo r a

tte mpt ingto e xemp t A ve na l E ne rgy

Ce nte r f ro m N AA QS d e mon str atio n, EPAc ann ot c ir c umv e nt i ts o wn ru le s. II. EP A’ s P r opo se d Ac ti on W illCa use Adm inis tr at ive and D ue P r oc e ss V iol at ion s . At pr e se nt, the Ag e nc y

pr op os e s to e xemp t on ly the Av e na l pr oje c t f

ro m th e c ur

re nt P SD re qu ir e me nts . T his c re ate s tw o is su e s: 1 ) i f t his e xemp tio n c re ate s a

po lic y a pp lic a ble to o the r p e rm it a pp lic ants , it

vio late s th e Ad

min istrativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t, 5 U. S.C. § 5 53 , f or fa ilure to c on fo rm

to no tic e and

c omm e nt r

ule makin g ; and

2) if the e xemp tio n is on ly

a pp lic a ble to t he Av e na l f

a c ili ty , it vio late s th e e qu a l pr ote c tio n gua ra nte e s a pp lic a ble to t he F e de ra l g ov e rnme nt t

hr ou g h th e F if

th Amendment of the U.S. Consti tution. A. Ad

min istrativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t V iol atio ns . EPAse e ks to c re ate a

ne w n atio na l po lic y

outsi de of

the re qu ir e d f

or ma l r ule makin gpr oc e ss throug h the Avena l permit application. EPA Assistant Administrator of the Of fice of Air a

nd Ra diatio n, Re g ina

Mc Cart hy ’s de c laratio n o f Janu ary 31 , 2 01 1, state d th at A ve na l w a s “ amon gtho se PSD pe rm it a

pp lic atio ns that E PA b e lie ve s it is a pp ro pr iate to gra

nd fathe r. .. ” Mc Cart

hy g oe s o n to note that “EPA will propose to e x tend similar relief to other per

mit applicants that can show the y are simil arly situated.” Pg . 2. The Supplemental Statement of B asis for Ave nal per mit then laid out the re qu ir e me nts fo r g a ini ngan e xemp tio n; “ a pp lic atio n w a s c omp le te and a pr op os e d p e rm it [w a s] issued in advanc e of EPA’ s proposal of c erta in rec ently promulg ated r egulations establishing ne w and a dd iti on a l r e qu ir e me nts and oth e r c omp e lli ngfa c tor s, ” of wh ic h f ive fa c tor s w e re sp e c if

ic a lly identified. Supplemental Statement of B asis at 1 and 6. Whether an a g ency

action must satisfy

the Administrative Proce dure A ct’s (“ APA”) f ormal rulemakingrequire ments turns on whether the ag ency

“intend[s] ” the r

ule “to cr eate new r ights or duties.” See Or e ngo- Carab allo , 1 1 F .3 d 1 86 , 1 95 (D .C. Cir .1 99 3) . H e re , th e a g e nc y se e ks to c re ate a rig ht to PS D per

mits based on outdated and ina pplicable standa

rds which the A g ency

itself has fo un d to ha

rm pu bli c he a lthand

we lf are . T hu s, fo rm a l r

ule makin gis r e qu ir e d. In a dd iti on , c ourt sN ot e: EP A h as s t at ed pu bl i ca l l y t h at i t ma y a l s o g r an df at h er 10- 20 ot h er PSD a ppl i ca t i on s bu t i n f or mat i on 2
r eg ar di n g w h i ch f

ac i l i t i es a n d w h y h as n ot be en r el ea s ed.

Pag e 7 of 14 look to whether a

n interpre tation will carry “the f orce and ef

fec t of law” as opposed to spellingout “a duty fairly encompa ssed within the regulation that the interpre tation purports to construe.” Frank J. Kelley v. Env ironmental Protection Agenc y , 15 F.3d 1100, 1108 ( D.C.Cir. 1993); 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b), ( b)(3) (A). H ere , EPA proposes to re -interpr et and implement a pr ovision to gra ndfathe r, post-hoc, spec ific fa cilities from well-e stablished require ments, in a complete r ever sal of its own pr ior ru le s, g uid a

nc e s, state me nts in c ourt

and sw or n d e c laratio ns . A s su c h, the re is n o r ig ht o r d uty “fa irly encompa ssed” in the r egulations or curr ent ag ency policy and pra ctice which an a

pplicant could have rea sonably

anticipated. The Supreme Court has noted (in dicta) that APA rulemakingis require d wher e an interpre tation “adopt[s] a new position i nconsistent with ... exi sting re g ulations.” Shalala v. Guernsey Mem orial Hosp. , 514 U.S. 87 (1995); see also National Family Planning &Reproductive Health Ass’n v. Sullivan , 9 79 F .2 d 2 27 , 2 40 -4 1 ( D. C.C ir . 1 99 2) . T he ru le makin gre qu ir e me nts e xist s o as t o p re v en tage n ci es fr o m“e as i l y ev ad [ i n g] n o t i ce an d

co m m en tre qu i re m en t s b y am en d i n g a rule unde r the guise of re interpre ting it.” Paralyzed Ve terans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P. , 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The rule makingproce dural re quirements include publica tion in the Fede ral Reg ister; notice of the propose d rulemakingand hea ring ; an opportunity

for inter ested pe rsons to participate ; rec eipt and conside ration of c omments from all intereste d parties; and publication in the Fede ral Reg ister of the rule a s adopted, incor poratinga stateme nt of its basis and purpose. 5 U.S.C. § 553 (b)- (d). Ab se nt t he se pr oc e dure s, the pr op os e d a c tio n a nd the e xpe c te d f

utu re a c tio n r e g ard ing“ sim ila rl y situated” a

pplicants violate the APA. B

. Du e Pr oc e ss V iol atio ns . Under the Due Proc ess Clause of the Fifth Ame ndment to the U.S. Consti tution, the Fede ral g ov e rnme nt i s p ro hib ite d f ro m “ dis c ri min ator

y ” a c ts. EPA ’s PSD pe rm it a pp lic atio n p ro c e ss, ho ur ly NO 2 s tand ard , SO 2 s tand ard , a nd g re e nh ou se g a s r e g ulatio ns are ne utr a l a s w ri tte n. Ho we ve r, EPA pr op os e s an une qu a l a

pp lic atio n o f t

he re g ulatio ns on

tw o f ro nts

. First, EPA propose s to ex empt the Avena l fac ility from the r egulations applicable to a ll other PSD permit applicants. Every other PSD permit applicant who a pplied for a

permit application 2 pr ior to t he e ff e c tiv e date s f

or the NO 2 s tand ard , SO 2 s tand ard , a nd g re e nh ou se g a s r e g ulatio ns wi ll be subjec t to the new re g ulations, while Avena l will be exempt. S uch unequa l treatment violates the tenets of e qual protec tion. This is espec ially so where the g rounds for the purported e x emption are as extremely

ill-defined a s in the instant case, a nd wher e ther e is no fac tual basis to conclude that so me of the se g ro un ds a

pp ly to A ve na l.

“ Th ou g h th e law i tse lf

be fa ir on its fa c e and

imp art ia l in

a pp e ara nc e , ye t if applied and a dminist ere d by public authority

with an evil eye and a

n unequal ha

nd, so as pra ctically

to make unjust and illeg al discriminations betwee n persons in similar circ umstances, mate rial to their rig hts, thePag e 8 of 14

denial of e qual justice is still within the prohibition of the Consti tution.” Y ick W o v. Hopk ins , 118 U.S. 356 (1886). Se c on d, EPApr op os e s to e xemp t an e mis sio n- c a us ingpo we r p lant f

ro m a pp lic a ble emission reducingregulations in an are a alr eady bear ing a disproportionate brunt of the environmenta l load with an 85% minority population, 34% of whom ar e ling uistically isolated. Meanwhile, EPA applies cur rent standa

rds to other PSD applicants, whose projec ts are not located in a

disadvantag ed and a lrea dy decimate d reg ion, without gra ndfathe ringthem. Thus, the re sid e nts of

Av e na l and

its surr ound ingare a s w ill su ff e r ye t ano the r u

nc on sti tut ion a l di sp arate imp a c t. III . EP A’ s R e m ov al O f The Re gio n IXRe gio nalAdm inis tr at or ’s Aut hor it y To Iss ue P SD P erm it Dec ision Is Unlaw fu l. In an unpre cede nted move, EPA Administrator L isa J ackson grante d Assistant Ad min istrator

of Ai r a nd Ra diatio n ( “ OA R” ), Gi na Mc Cart hy , th e a uth or ity to i ssu e the PSD permit for the Avena l power pla nt, thereby

circ umventing Re g ion I X’s role in the permit proce ss. The re g ulatory

authority to issue PS D per

mits i s specific ally

g rante d to reg ional administrators. “Af ter the c lose of the public c omment period under §124.10 on a dra ft permit, the re g ional Ad min istrator

sh a ll i ssu e a

fi na l pe rm it d e c isi on .. .” 40 CF R § 1 24 .5 ; In reZio n E ne rg y , LLC , 9 E.A.D. 701, 701 n.1 (E AB 2001). To cha ng e the c odified dele g ation, a for mal notice and comment rulemaking is re quired unde r the APA. The ref ore, Jackson’s attempt to remove the Re g ion a l A dmi nis tr ator ’s a uth or ity to i ssu e a PSD pe rm it i s unla

wf ul. See U nited States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683, 695-96 (1974)( “So long a s [a] regulation is ex tant it has the forc e of la w”) ; Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employ ees, AF L-CIO, Local 3090 v. fed. Labor Relations Au th ., 777 F.2d 75 2, 75 9 ( D. C.C ir . 1 98 5) (“ un le ss a nd un til [an a g e nc y ] am e nd s o r r e pe a ls a va lid le g isl ativ e ru le or re g ulation, [ the] ag ency is bound by

such a r ule or re g ulation”). Fur ther, de leg ation to OAR is highly inappropriate. Unlike the r eg ional office s, OAR has no established PSD permit proce ssing pr ocedur e, no historical or sy stematic pra ctice of a pp lic atio n e va luatio n a

nd no re g ula r s ta ff de signate d to tim e ly

re vie w a nd iss ua nc e of PSD permits. This is inapposite to the non-discriminatory sy stematic appr oach that reg ions have establish to ensure pr oper a pplication revie w by

knowledg eable staff. F or an e x ample of the proce ss in place in Reg ion I X, see http:// www.e pa.g ov/reg ion9/air/permit/psd-issuing.html. IV . EP A’ s Env ir onm e nt al J ust ic e Ana lys is I s F lawe d. As part of a PSD proce ss, the EPA must identify and addr ess disproportionately high a nd adver se human he alth or environme ntal eff ects of its per

mitti ngdecision on minorityand lowinc ome po pu latio ns . E xec uti ve Or de r 1 28 98 ; In re She ll Gulf of Mexico, Inc . and Shell Offshore, Inc. , O CS App e a l N os . 1 0- 1 to 10 -4 . In it s Su pp le me nta l State me nt o f B a sis , E PA atte mpt s to analy ze potential impacts of short-ter m NO2 exposures associated with the proposed pr oject on re sid e nts wi thi n a

25 -k ilo me te r r a diu s o f t

he Av e na l E ne rgy

Ce nte r. Ho we ve r, sin c e EPA exempts Avenal Ener g y

Center f rom demonstratingcompliance with the hourly NO2 standa

rd, EPA is unable to make a

deter mination on potential impacts of NO2 on nea rby communities. Supplemental Statement of B asis at 27. Additionally , EPA’s ana ly sis is flawed bec ause it 1) re lie s o n mo nit or ingdata that do e s n ot r e fl e c t c on dit ion s in the imp a c te d c omm

un iti e s; 2 ) f

a ils to a c c ount f or ne ar r oa dw ay

e xpos ur e s e xpe ri e nc e d b y the imp a c te d c omm

un iti e s; a nd 3) fa ils toEPA’s notice burie s information on the hea ringdate, time and pla ce on the third pag e of 3 dense te x t. Additionally , residents of K ettleman City have r eporte d that they

did not rece ive the notice. Pag e 9 of 14 adequately

addre ss cumulative risk fa ctors pre sent in Avena l, Huron, and K ettleman City . The EPA ’s ana ly sis of

dis pr op or

tio nate imp a c ts f

ro m atta inm e nt p oll uta

nts is f lawe d b e c a

us e it i s wholly based on the California Ene rg y Commi ssion’s analy sis which failed to a ccount f or loca l imp a c ts. F ina lly , E PA’ s p ro po sa l to mov e fo rw ard wi th a pp ro vin ga

PSD pe rm it whil e inv e sti g atin ga

Ti tle VI c omp la int

and wi tho ut p ro vid inga de qu ate no tic e vio late s b a sic 3 e nv ir onme nta l ju sti c e pr inc ipl e s. A. Th e EPAMu st C on du c t A na ly sis to I de nti fy and Ad dr e ss D isp ro po rt ion ate I mpa c ts o f A

pp ro vin gthe PSD Pe rm it. EPAis r e qu ir e d to ide nti fy and a dd re ss d isp ro po rt ion ate ly

high a nd a dv e rs e human h e a lth or environme ntal eff

ects of its per

mitti ngdecision on minority and low-inc ome populations. Exe c uti ve Or de r 1 28 98 ; In re She ll Gulf of Mexico, Inc . and Shell Offshore, Inc. , OCS Appeal Nos. 10-1 to 10-4. The se provisions prohibit the EPA from appr oving the PSD permit without makinga dete rmination that its decision will notdisproportionately impact minority

populations. Her e, since EPA proposes to exempt the fac ility from demonstrating c ompliance with the hourly NO2 standa

rd, the EPA may

not rely on the pre sumption t hat NAAQ S compliance avoids disproportionate impac ts on minority and low-inc ome populations. In re She ll Gulf of Mexico, Inc. and She ll Offshore, Inc. , OCS Appeal Nos. 10-1 to 10-4. Rather, EPA must make the require d demonstration by analy zing suffic ient data to dete rmine potential adve rse impac ts from short-term NO 2 exposure on residents of A venal, Hur on, and Ke ttleman City

. EPA’s EJ analy sis contains no information or data on local impacts fr om hourly NO2 e xpos ur e s. Ins te a d, the “ ana ly sis ” is l itt le mor e tha n a g e ne ra l tr e atis e on

de mogra ph ic information ar ound the projec t site and basic he alth conseque nces of pollution ex posure. The analy sis contains no information upon which to judg e the pr obable impac ts of incre ased N O2 on minority and low-inc ome communities near the projec t site. W ithout concre te information on ba c kg ro un d le ve ls o f N O2 e mis sio ns or NO 2 im pa c ts f ro m th e Av e na l E ne rgy

Ce nte r, EPAis un a ble to i de nti fy

or a dd re ss d isp ro po rt ion ate imp a c ts, a s r e qu ir e d b y law. In f a c t, E PA a dmi ts its Environmental J ustice ana ly sis is i nconclusive, stating“EPA ca nnot rea ch any

definitive c on c lus ion

a bo ut t he sp e c if ic human h e a lthor

e nv ir onme nta l im

pa c ts o f s ho rt

te rm e xpos ur e to NO2 emissions from the fa cility on minority

and low-inc ome populations.” Supplemental Statement of B asis at 27. EPA, there fore , fails to make the r equire d demonstration. This failure , coupled with evide nce of the hig h vulnera

bility of nea rby populations, confirms that EPA’s de c isi on to e xemp t th e fa c ili ty

fr om N AA QS d e mon str atio n is e sp e c ia lly e g re g iou s. 1. Data

Sug g e sts that A ve na l Pr oje c t Will Ad ve rs e ly I mpa c t Co mmunit ie s. Th ou g h E PA d oe s n ot h ave data ava ila ble on ba c kg ro un d le ve ls at th e fa c ili ty sit e , d ata sug g ests that the additional hourly NO2 emitted fr om the projec t site will result in a violation of the NAAQ S. EPA acknowledg es that an a ssessment of one hour ozone demonstrated that the fa c ili ty may re su lt i n a

maximum1- ho ur

NO 2 im pa c t of 44 pp b. Whe n c omb ine d w ithPag e 10 of 14

background leve ls found throug hout California, this additional NO2 would re sult in a violation of the standa

rd of 100 ppb. F or example, EPA found bac kg round leve ls of NO2 in Visalia to be 61.3 ppb. The a ddition of 44 ppb of hourly NO2 fr om the Avena l Power Center would result in a violation. Si nce E PA estimates that “nea r roa dway conce ntrations have be en mea sured to be approximately

30 to 100 % hig her tha

n those awa

y from major r oads” the background leve ls in a c omm un iti e s a dja c e nt t o th e pr op os e d f a c ili ty are lik e ly highe r t ha n th os e me a sure d in

Vi sa lia and other parts of the state. The E PA’s EJ analy sis should di sclose the likelihood that the Ave nal Energy Center will re sult in a NAAQS violation, even g iven the limited data cur rently available

. 2. EPAMu st R e so lve Ti tle VI Com pla int B e fo re I ssu inga

PSD Pe rm it EPAa c c e pte d f

or inv e sti g atio n a

Ti tle VI Com pla int a lle g ingthat is su anc e of

an N SR permit and the c ertifica

tion of the projec t will result in adverse he alth impacts on reside nts of color in Avenal a

nd Kettleman City , who ar e alr eady impacted by

multipl e sourc es of pollution. Even while this investigation is pending , EPA now proposes to take simil ar a ction in permitting the fa c ili ty . T his c re ate s an o bv iou s c on fl ic t of int e re st a s th e a g e nc y

is t a sk e d w ithpo lic ingthe same activity in which it is participating . The dra ft issuance of a pe rmit would undermine EPA’s own responsibility

to uphold Titl e VI . In order to avoid rea l or appa

rent bias, the E PA must conclude its investigation prior to makinga fina l decision on the per mit. B

. Mo nit or ingData

in t he EJ As se ssm e nt Are No t Re fl e c tiv e of Con dit ion s In A t- Ris k Communi ties Nea

r Project Site. EPA conclude s that “bac kg round leve ls of 1-hour NO 2 in the g ener al ar ea sur roundingthe fac ility are not disproportionately high a s compare d with communities elsewher e in the State.” This conclusion contra dicts EPA’s own statements that the ne are st monit ors to the fa cility are located 28 a

nd 46 miles from the site, outside EPA’s 25-kilometer bounda ry to determine dis pr op or tio nate imp a c ts. EPAmus t a c kn ow le dg e that it ha s n o in fo rm atio n u

po n whic h to deter mine background leve ls near the fac ility

. Data c ollected f

rom Hanf ord and V isalia has little probative va lue since ne ither location ref lects conditions at the proje ct site. For example, EPA ex plained that “ne ar r oadwa y c on c e ntr atio ns have be e n me a sure d to be a pp ro ximate ly

30 -1 00 pe rc e nt h ig he r t

ha n th os e measure d way

from mea sured r oads.” EPA a cknowledg es that “N O2 conc entrations on or near major roa ds are appre ciably highe r than those mea sures at monitors in t he cur rent ne twork.” The monitors in Hanford a

nd Visalia mea sured NO 2 conce ntrations far remove d from any

major h i g h w ay: H an f

o r d i s 1 3 m i l e s f

r o mth e n e ar e s t

m a j o r H i g h w ay an d

V i s a l i a i s 7 m i l e s . C o n v e r s e l y, Kettleman City , sits adjacent to Interstate 5 a nd is also bisected by

a smaller highway

(Hwy 41). Monitors in Hanford a

nd Visalia, there fore , failed to a ccount f or nea r-r oadwa y impacts that are prese nt in communiti es nea rest the pr oposed fa cility

. The impac t of failingto acc ount for nea r roa dway impacts is likely

to be sig nificant a s “[i] Individuals who spend time on or nea r major r oads ca

n experience short-term NO 2 exposures c on sid e ra bly highe r t ha n me a sure d b y

the c ur re nt n e tw or

k, wh ic h a

re of pa rt ic ula r c on c e rn fo r atrisk populations, including pe ople with asthma, childre n and the e lderly .” EPA explains that motor ve hic le s are the larg e st e mitte rs of NO 2 a nd e xpos ur e to s ho rt

te rm NO 2 s pik e s a sso c iate d w ith motor vehicles wa s the g reatest conce rn identified in the r eview f or NO2 N AAQS. Supplemental State me nt o f B a sis at 19 . H e avy tr uc ks c on tr ibute d to mor e tha n h a lf of the NO x emi ssi on s inVisalia is 47 perc ent minority and Ha nford is 50 per cent minority , compar ed with 85 per cent 4 minority populations within a 15- kilometer ra dius around the pr oject site. Pag e 11 of 14 Ki ng s Co un ty

in 2 01 0. Ke ttl e man Ci ty ho sts the Ke ttl e man H ill s H a zar do us Was te land fi ll a nd is impacted by

hundreds of

trucks passingthroug h and idling ne ar the community eac h day . EPA’s EJ analy sis should account for the hig h number of ve hicle trips passingdirec tly throug h or by Ke ttl e man Ci ty

wh e n a sse ssi ngpr ob a

ble ba c kg ro un d le ve ls o f N O2 . Witho ut i de nti fy ingthe lik e ly ve ry high b a c kg ro un d le ve ls o f N O2 in K e ttl e man Ci ty , E PA i s una ble to d e te rm ine the he a lth impacts associated with addingadditional NO2 pollution from the Avena l Energy Center. Ag ain, d ef i ci en ci es i nav ai l ab l e d at a c as ts er i o u s d o u b to nE P A’ s p ro p o s al t o ex em p tAv en al E n er gy Center f rom demonstratinghourly NO2 NAA QS compliance. Ba ckg round information from Hanf ord and V isalia fail to re prese nt conditions in t he impacted c ommuniti es for a sec ond rea son. Hanfor d and Visalia, in g ener al, do not experience the same leve l of ec onomic and ra cial disadva ntag e as othe r San Joaquin Valley communities and, there fore , do not fairly

repr esent the pollution burden bor ne by the Valley ’s more ma

rg inalized c o m mun i t i e s s u c ha s A v e n a l , H ur o nan d K e t t l e m anC i ty. 4 C. NA AQ S Ar e Ins uf fi c ie nt t o D e mon str ate No I mpa c t G ive n th e Numbe r o f R isk Fa ctors Prese nt in the I mpacted Communities. The EJ analy sis concludes that propose d emissions li mits for NO2 (a nnual ave rag e), CO, and PM 10 will not result in di sproportionately high a nd adver se human he alth or environme ntal e ff e c ts o n mi no ri ty

and low -i nc ome po pu latio ns . T his fi nd ingis b a se d s ole ly on c omp lia nc e wi th applicable NAAQS base d on the marg in of safe ty written in the standar ds to acc ount for sensitive populations. Suppl emental Statement of Ba sis, pg. 26. How ever , the NAAQ S do not provide an a de qu ate marg in o f s a fe ty to a c c ount f

or the ov e rwhe lmi ngov e rl a p o f r isk fa c tor s e xpe ri e nc e d in Kettleman City , Avena l, and Huron. These f actor s include:

• I mmuno-compromised hea lth due to unexpl ained spike in birth def ects.

• Drinkingwater

contaminated w ith arsenic a nd benzene.

• Pr oximi ty

to p e sti c ide a

pp lic atio n s ite s.

• T o x i c e x p o s ur e r i s k d u e t o p r o x i m i ty o f

h a z ar d o u s w a s t e f

a c i l i ty.

• Nea

r roa dway exposures to diesel particulate and other vehicle pollution.

• Extr e me no natta inm e nt f or 8- ho ur NA AQ S.

• No natta inm e nt f

or PM2 .5 NA AQ S. Kettleman City , Avena l and Huron a re e conomically

depre ssed. Residents have few resour ces a

vailable to cope with the cumulative exposures to environmenta l stressors such a s pesticides applied on ne arby fields, diesel truc ks on Interstate 5 a nd Hig hway

41, the dumping of hazardous wa ste, solid waste and PCBs, a nd contaminated dr inking wa ter. Residents also a

re vulnera ble due to less occ upational and r esidential mobility , less acc ess to health ca re, lowe r inc ome , li nguis tic iso latio n, and le ss p oli tic a l po we r t

ha n o the r s e c tor s o f t

he Ki ng s Co un ty population.Pag e 12 of 14

Whil e EPA ’s EJ ana ly sis a c kn ow le dg e s ma ny of the se fa c tor s in

iso latio n in c re a se vu lne ra bil ity to t he he a lthe ff

e c ts a ir po llutio n, EPAdo e s n ot a na ly ze t he imp a c t of

the se fa c tor s in combination. 1. EPA’s Assumptions R eg ardingReduce d Hig hway Traf fic Contradic t Recent Stu die s. EPA assumes that NO2 c oncentr ations will continue to decre ase due to new fue l and truck standards. Supplementa l Statement of Ba sis at 19. EPA ignore s, howeve r, re cent studies that indicate a dditional vehicle and tr uck tra ffic a

re a nticipated alongthe I -5 cor ridor nea rest the pr oject site. In 2009, King s County prepa red a leng thy traff ic study on the re g ion during its environmental revie w proc ess for the Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste e x pansion. EPA rec eived a copy of the Tra ffi c Im pa c t Stud yfor theChe mi c al W

as teMa nage me nt, In c . - Ke ttle ma n H ill s B -1 8/B -2 0 Clas s 1 La nd fil l Pro je c t and a 20 09 a dd e nd

um t o th e stu dy . T he stu die s f ound signif ic ant t ra ff ic inc re a se s d

ue to c umu lativ e g ro wth in the re g ion . A dd iti on a lly , in the c umu lativ e imp a c t ana ly sis , King s County

conclude d that “the pr oposed B -18 / B- 20 L andfill Project and the offsite Ave nal En e rgy Pr oje c t are c on sid e re d to have a c umu lativ e ly

signif ic ant i mpa c t f

or tr a ff ic on I -5 andSR41 ” ov e r b a se lin e c on dit ion s. EPA sh ou ld a dd

re ss t he lik e ly inc re a se in m ob ile ve hic le tr a ff ic alongthe I -5 cor

ridor. D. Nonattainment Pollutants W ill Adversely I mpact Communiti es . As part of its EJ analy sis, the EPA included finding s made by the CEC that the project would not result in any

signific ant adve rse e nvironmental or public he alth impacts to any po pu latio n. Sup ple me nta l State me nt o f B a sis at 27 . H ow e ve r, the CEC ba se d it s f ind ing s th at a ir po llutio n w ou ld b e fu lly

mit ig ate d o n th e purc ha se of e mis sio n r e du c tio n c re dit s ( ERC s) . T he EPA mus t no t ba se its e nv ir onme nta l ju sti c e fi nd ing s o n E RCs t hat w ill do little to r e du c e po llutio n in the communities closest to the projec t site. Whil e the CEC identified the amount of nonattainment c riteria pollutants that will be emitted by

the projec t, it failed to identify the impact

emissions of these pollutants would have on near by communities. Final Staff A ssessment (“F SA”) 4.1-21 ( Ex plaining that the deter mination of impact is limi ted to assessingwhether the projec t’s emissions would cause or contribute to a violation of a district-wide a mbient air quality

standard.) . The CEC’s foc us on district-wide impacts ig nores the loc al impacts of these emissions. CEC staff ac knowledg ed that “[a]s development and growth occ urs throug hout the reg ion, some communities may

experience local emission incre ases while othe r communities experience the re ductions.” F SA 4.1-37. Additionally , while the F SA states “emission reduc tions from any location in the basin provide some benef it” CEC staff did not demonstrate that the ba sin-wide benef it is sufficient to offset loca l air quality impacts from the inc rea se in emissions at the projec t site. Id. The major mitig ation measure for the pr oject’s a ir quality impacts in the FSA is the a pp lic atio n o f E mis sio n Re du c tio n Cr e dit s ( ERC s) . F SA 4 .1 -2 7; 4 .1 -4 4. Ho we ve r, the CEC did not provide suffic ient information on the ERCs for the EPA or the public to judge their ade quacy as mitigation. Bec ause the ERCs mus t be spatially , temporally , and qualitatively equivalent to the projec t’s actua l emissions, i nformation on the location and ty pe of e ach e mission reduction claimedPag e 13 of 14

is require d to demonstrate their application ade quately

mitigates the projec t’s air qua lity impacts. The majority

of the ERCs listed in the FSA wer e not identified by location or ty

pe. F or example, the four la

rg est source s of NOx and VOC reduc tions are labe led in the FSA a s either “ Unknown, (Previously

Pastoria Ener g y

Fa cility)” or

“Unknown, Souther

n.” F SA 4.1-28, 4.1-29. Tog ether , these “ unknown” sourc es re prese nt more than ha lf of the NO x reduc tions claimed by the applica

nt and 90 pe rc e nt o f i ts V OC of fs e t ho ldi ng s. The F SA also provides insufficie nt support for its findings that ERCs l ocate d outside the loc a l are a and a s f ar a wa y a s Sto c kto n f

ull y mit ig ate the pr oje c t’ s lo c a l a ir qu a lity imp a c ts. F SA 4.1-28, 4.1-29, 4.1- 30. Many of this Project’s air qua lity impacts will occur loc ally —at the residenc es, schools, and businesse s in Avenal, Ke ttleman City , and Hur on. Yet the CEC does not de mon str ate ho w n on -l oc a l e mis sio n r e du c tio ns , lo c ate d o ve r a hund re d mi le s a

wa y , w ill mit ig ate impacts from the loc alized emissions. Whil e the CEC requir ed that ERCs located 15 miles fr om a projec t location use a r atio of 1.5 to 1 to offset emissions, the CEC did notincre ase that ratio for ERCs locate d more than 15 miles from the projec t site. The CEC had no support that ERCs located 15 miles from the pr oject will have the same mitigation value as ERCs located 150 miles awa y . Her e, many

of the ERCs are located in Stockton, more tha n 150 miles from the projec t site. The closest ERCs are in Fre sno, over 60 miles aw ay . The F SA did not support the CEC ’s conc lusion that ERC s will actually and e ff e c tiv e ly mit ig ate the Pr oje c t’ s a ir e mis sio ns . 1. Interpollutant Tra ding Ratios Are Not Protec tive of Human H ealth. Th e Pr oje c t pr op os e s to me e t 98 % o f i ts PM 10 of fs e t r e qu ir e me nts fr om S Ox of fs e ts at a one-to-one ratio. F SA 4.1-30. The CEC’s findingthat the proposed r atio of 1:1 betwe en SOx and PM f ull y mit ig ate s p art ic ulate e mis sio ns is uns up po rt e d b y e vid e nc e . N e ith e r t

he CEC or

EPA analy zed the differ ence in health ef fec ts caused by

exposure to PM as compare d to SOx ; the differ ence in dispersal rates of SOx as compared to PM; or whethe r re moving one ton/y ear of SOx will, in fact, pre vent one ton/y ear of PM particles f

rom beingcre ated. Th e re is e vid e nc e ho we ve r, that th e int e rp oll uta nt r atio is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o mi tig ate PM po llutio n. Th e pr oje c t a

pp lic ant c on c lud e d th at 1. 4 to ns of SOx r e du c tio ns wo uld

be ne e de d to of fs e t e a c h n e w t on

of PM1 0 e mis sio ns . App lic atio n f or Ce rt if ic atio n, Ta

ble 6. 2- 39 . T he F SA repor ted that “staf

f ra ised conc erns be cause the one- to-one interpollutant tra ding r atio is lower than wh at ha s h ist or ic a lly

re qu ir e d b y

the Di str ic t on

sim ila r p a st p ow e r p lant c a se s” and c ite d th e ratio of 1. 86 7:1 us e d b y

the ne arb y

Pano c he En e rgy

Ce nte r i n w e ste rn

F re sn o Co un ty . T he F SA a lso acknow ledg ed that “[i]n rules issued by the U.S. EPA in 2008 related to P.M NSR, the U.S. EPA’s

‘ n at i o n w i d e p r e f

e r r e d r at i o ’ w o u l d

b e 4 0

- t o - 1 f

o r S O 2 t o P M 2

. 5

. ” F S A 4

. 1

- 3 5 ; 7 3 F R 2 8 3 3 9

. In fac t, CEC st aff

acknow ledg ed the likelihood that the U.S. EPA’s re view of the District’s 2008 PM2.5 P lan would lead to a reje ction of the 1:1 interpollutant tradingratio used by the SJ VAPCD. FSA 4.1-35. The EPA should ex plain why it does not object to the use of the 1:1 ratio in its EJ analy sis. E. Monitoring NO 2 I s Not Mitigation The sig natories to this letter support the plac ement of N O2 monitors near the projec t site. Kettleman City

offe rs a g ood repr esentation of a community with near roadw ay impacts from 1-Pag e 14 of 14

hour NO2. H oweve r, a pr oposal to place monitors and g ather additional data on loca l NO2 emissions does not fulfill EP A’s mandate to deter mine potential adver se impacts of the Avena l En e rgy Ce nte r o n mi no ri ty

c omm un iti e s b e fo re a

pp ro vin ga

PSD pe rm it f

or the fa c ili ty . U nti l E PA has suffic ient information to identify and pre vent disproportionate impac ts on nearby residents, the EPAmay no t is su e a

PSD pe rm it. V. Conclusion We urg e EPA to deny

the PDS permit for the Ave nal Ener g y Center a nd require compliance with new 1-hour NO2 and SO2 standa

rds and B ACT require ments for g ree nhouse g as emissions on pending PSD permits. Please ke ep us informe d of any additional actions take n on this project or proposa ls to ex empt other PSD permits from applica ble standar ds. Thank you for the opportunity

to comment. S i n c e r e l y,

Ing rid Br ostrom Staff Attorne y

L aura Ba ker Staff Attorne y