# State of New Mexico

Susana Martinez Governor 

# June 24, 2011

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz Regional Administrator (6-A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Dear Dr. Armendariz: tTl X



# ..... tTl ::0 

## :z: 

# iii! ::0 

## > IT1 

## > 

# w (") 

# .., U1 

# .., IT1 

## > 

# - :ii ..." 

# < Vl 

### :II: 

### IT1 c 0 

# <: § N

0 C)


## :z:


# '*'0 . I " cL

# 6RA.~~~: .•...

# 6~N 

# .**6DRA~:.t~I.'6WQ.** ..•...•......... 6MD 

# 6SF

. 60EJ ..•••.••••... 6RC •..•..•••.••••••..

# 6PDQ!:!~i.ffi<1..6XA.~~.:.I ..

# ~.Io 

# c.o ",+<0 / 

# 1.,;( e.-.c./-



# On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department, I am pleased to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency the enclosed revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions include amendments to New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR § 51.309.

The hearing record for all of the SIP revisions is attached, which includes the revised SIP, filed regulations, transcripts, exhibits, public notices, affidavits of publication, the notice of intent to present technical testimony, and public comments.

Included with the attached hardcopy of the hearing record is an electronic copy of the record provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate of the hardcopy.

These SIP revisions satisfY the requirements of the Clean Air Act, comply with EPA regulations and policy, and will result in significant emission reductions while preserving the proper federalstate partnership envisioned under the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA must approve these revisions. In addition, because the enclosed SIP revisions address two different provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, I believe EPA should address them separately.

First, the enclosed "Interstate Transport SIP" addresses Section 11 0 of the Act, which requires
states to avoid interfering with any other states' implementation plans for visibility. As made clear in the Interstate Transport SIP submitted in 2007, and further explained in two letters to EPA Region 6 from the previous New Mexico administration (one from Governor Richardson on June 12,2009 and another from a member of his staff on May 6, 2010), New Mexico has already satisfied its Interstate Transport obligations. However, the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP supplements those previous submittals by confirming that the emissions from New Mexico

sources will not exceed the assumptions utilized in the modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), upon which other western states' visibility plans are based.

State Capitol • Room 400 • Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 • 505-476-2200 • fax: 505-476-2226

# EPA has already recognized that "the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an appropriate

means for designing a [plan] that will ensure that emissions from sources in New Mexico are not interfering with the visibility programs of other states." 

# In fact, the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP confirms that emissions will actually be much lower than the WRAP modeling assumptions.

Second, the enclosed revisions to the 2003 "Regional Haze Section 309 SIP" and the enclosed "Regional Haze Section 309(g) SIP" (together, the "Regional Haze SIPs") address New Mexico's obligation to reduce visibility impairment at national parks and wilderness areas ("Class I areas") in accordance with Sections 169A & 

# 169B of the Clean Air Act. The Regional Haze SIPs satisfy New Mexico's regional haze requirements by adopting new sulfur dioxide (S02) milestones for the Section 309 Backstop Trading Program, establishing reasonable
progress goals and a long-term strategy for New Mexico's nine Class I areas, and adopting a variety of control measures to address emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from New Mexico sources. Most notably, the enclosed Regional Haze SIP also includes a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the San Juan Generating Station, which requires the installation of a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system to meet EPA's presumptive BART limit for nitrogen oxides (NO,).

I am aware that EPA has proposed a different plan for implementing the Interstate Transport
program and at least a portion of the Regional Haze program in New Mexico through a combined Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). I am also aware of EPA's concern that it is bound by a court order to complete that rulemaking effort by August 5, 20 II. However, the court order imposing the August 5, 20 II deadline only requires EPA to address Interstate Transport requirements before that date. In addition, the proposed FIP suffers from a variety of legal and technical flaws and inappropriately seeks to address only an isolated portion of the regional haze
program. Under these circumstances, I believe EPA can and should address the Interstate Transport program and Regional Haze program separately. Doing so will enable EPA to address New Mexico's Interstate Transport requirements by the court-ordered deadline, while allowing additional time for review of the more lengthy and complicated Regional Haze SIPs.

One of the fundamental principles expressed in Section !OI of the Clean Air Act is that "air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments." That principle is nowhere better illustrated in the Act than in its visibility provisions, which, as EPA and the courts have recognized, grant to the states significant discretion in the implementation of measures to address visibility impairment. In designing the regional haze
program, Congress recognized that the individual states are best-equipped to balance the need for robust environmental protections with the costs those protections necessarily entail.

Moreover, nothing in the Clean Air Act requires EPA to address Interstate Transport and Regional Haze requirements together. On the contrary, EPA has generally addressed these
programs separately in the past. As just one example, EPA Region 8 recently proposed to take separate action on the Interstate Transport and Regional Haze implementation plan revisions submitted by the state of Colorado. Even EPA's proposed FIP for New Mexico itself contemplates separate Interstate Transport and Regional Haze plans with regard to S02 emiSSIOns.

# Accordingly, EPA should meet its August 5, 2011 deadline by simply approving New Mexico's prior Interstate Transport submittals, as supplemented by the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP. Even if EPA does not agree that New Mexico's prior submittals have already satisfied its Interstate Transport obligations, EPA should be able to act on New Mexico's four-page Interstate Transport SIP before August 5, 2011.

Since the court order does not require EPA to address New Mexico's Regional Haze program by August 5, 2011, New Mexico is now, as of this submittal, in the same position as nearly every other state

- awaiting EPA action on its Regional Haze SIP. As with other states, EPA must determine whether New Mexico's Regional Haze SIPs are complete no more than six months from this date and, following that completeness determination or the expiration of six months, EPA must act to approve or disapprove those SIPs within twelve months, including time allowed for public notice and comment on the proposed action. Because EPA will be required to consider New Mexico's Regional Haze SIPs regardless of whether it flllalizes the proposed FIP, EPA should take no action on its proposed FIP, particularly since the August 5, 2011 deadline does not apply to regional haze. At a minimum, EPA should reopen the docket on the proposed PIP for at least ninety (90) days to accept further comment in light of the submission of these SIP revisions.

I hope you will begin an immediate, expedited review and approval of the enclosed SIP revisions and, as recommended above, take separate action on the separate Interstate Transport and Regional Haze requirements of the Clean Air Act.

If there are any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please contact Raj 

# Solomon at (505) 827-2855.

Sincerely,

Susana Martinez Governor

Enclosures

cc: Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6 Dave Martin, NMED Cabinet Secretary Raj 

# Solomon, NMED Deputy Cabinet Secretary

## 1 

# List of Enclosures:

01 Section 309 Revised State Implementation Plan 02 Appendix K - Recommendations for Maki ng Attribution Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART 03 20.2.73 NMAC Revisions - Notices of Intent and Emissions Inventory Requirements 04 20.2.81 NMAC Revisions - Western Ba ckstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program

05 Section 309(g) State Implementation Plan 06 Appendix A - Emissions Ov erview (WRAP, undated) 07 Appendix B - Air Quality Modeling (WRAP, undated) 08 Appendix C - Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for New Mexico 09 Appendix D - New Mexico BART De termination for San Juan Generating Station 10 Appendix E - Supplementary Informati on for Four Factor Analyses by WRAP States, EC/R Incorporated, May 4, 2009 (corrected April 20, 2010) 11 Appendix F - Supplementary Inform ation for Four-Factor Analyses for Selected Individual Facilities in New Mexico, May 5, 2009

12 NMED Notice of Intent to Prese nt Technical Testimony - May 2, 2011 13 NMED Ex. 1 Clean Air Act § 169A 14 NMED Ex. 2 Clean Air Act § 169B 15 NMED Ex. 3 40 C.F.R. § 51. 308 (Regional Haze Rule § 308) 16 NMED Ex. 4 40 C.F.R. § 51. 309 (Regional Haze Rule § 309) 17 NMED Ex. 5 BART Guidelines – Appe ndix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Published at 70 Fed. Reg. 39104

18 NMED Ex. 6 NMED Requests for Information from PNM 19 NMED Ex. 6a Email - BART Mo deling Results from WRAP (11.9.06) 20 NMED Ex. 6b Email – PNM San Juan Generating BART Modeling (6-26-07) 21 NMED Ex. 6c Email - Comments on the BART m odeling report for the San Juan Generating Station (7.30.07) 22 NMED Ex. 6d Email - SJGS BART An alysis Additional Information Request (9.21.07) 23 NMED Ex. 6e Letter - De partment Request (12.21.07) 24 NMED Ex. 6f Letter PN M-BART-Request (4-25-08) 25 NMED Ex. 6g Email - PNM NOx Information Review (3.20.08) 26 NMED Ex. 6h Email - Meeting (6.18.08) 27 NMED Ex. 6i Letter – Additiona l Information Request (12.29.08)

## 2 

# 28 NMED Ex. 7 PNM Submittals Related to BART 29 NMED Ex. 7a San Juan BA RT Modeling Protocol (4.13.07) 30 NMED Ex. 7b PNM BART Analysis (6.6.07) 31 NMED Ex. 7c Email Thread with Cost Analysis Attached 32 NMED Ex. 7d SCR Cost Analysis - (7.11.07) 33 NMED Ex. 7e SNCR Hybrid Cost Analysis (7.11.07) 34 NMED Ex. 7f Updated Visibility Cost Effectiveness Data - (8.23.07) 35 NMED Ex. 7g PNM Response to NMED (9.14.07) - September 14, 2007 36 NMED Ex. 7h PNM SCR Schematic 37 NMED Ex. 7i Refined Visibility Results (11.5.07) 38 NMED Ex. 7j PNM Discussion of OAQPS Cost Manual Method (3.29.08) 39 NMED Ex. 7k Final BART Modeling Response (3.31.08) 40 NMED Ex. 7L Final BART SNCR Analysis (5.30.08) 41 NMED Ex. 7m Discussion of SJGS Coal and Classification 42 NMED Ex. 7n Final Nalco-MOBOTE C NOx BART Analysis (8.28.08) 43 NMED Ex. 7o Final PM BART Analysis (8.28.08) 44 NMED Ex. 7p PNM SO3 Removal Report (3.16.09) 45 NMED Ex. 7q SNCR Cover Ltr (2.9.11) 46 NMED Ex. 7r PNM BART SNCR Analysis Update (2.9.11) 47 NMED Ex. 7s SNCR Cover Ltr (2.11.11) 48 NMED Ex. 7t Revised SNCR Analysis (2.11.11) 49 NMED Ex. 7u Rate Impact Analysis (2.11.11)

50 NMED Ex. 8 Testimony of Mary Uhl 51 NMED Ex. 8a Testimony on Scien tific and Regulatory Background of Regional Haze 52 NMED Ex. 8b Regional Haze Powerpoint Slides 53 NMED Ex. 8c Testimony Re BA RT Determination for PNM SJGS

54 NMED Ex. 9 Testimony of Rita Bates 55 NMED Ex. 9a Testimony Re Revisions to 2003 § 309 SIP 56 NMED Ex. 9b Testimony Re Proposed §309(g) SIP

57 NMED Ex. 10 Additional Proposed Revisions to § 309 SIP (5.2.11)

58 NMED Ex. 11 Additional Proposed Revisions to § 309(g) SIP (5.2.11)

59 NMED Ex. 12 Public Notices

## 3 

# 60 San Juan Citizens Allianc e Comment Lette r - May 3, 2011 61 NMED Response to San Ju an Citizens Alliance Comments 62 Public Service Company of New Mexico Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - May 17, 2011 63 San Juan Coal Company Notice of In tent to Present Technical Testimony - May 17, 2011 64 The Natural Resources Defense Counc il, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and WildEarth Guardians Entry of Appearance - May 17, 2011 65 NMED Notice of Receipt of Comme nts - May 16, 2011 (includes U.S. EPA Comments)

66 NMED Supplemental Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - May 20, 2011 67 NMED Ex. 13 May 20, 2011 Revisions to § 309(g) SIP in Response to EPA Comments 68 NMED Ex. 14 May 20, 2011 Revisions to 20.2.81 NMAC in Response to EPA Comments 69 NMED Ex. 15 May 13, 2011 Co mments from U.S. EPA Region 6 70 NMED Ex. 16 NMED Responses to EPA Comments of May 13, 2011 71 NMED Ex. 17 U.S.F.S. Letter of March 30, 2011with Comments 72 NMED Ex. 18 NMED Response to U.S .F.S Comments of March 30, 2011 73 NMED Ex. 19 Proposed Statement of Reasons for Adoption and Order 74 NMED Second Notice of Receipt of Comments - May 26, 2011 (includes comments received May 25, 2011 from U.S. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service)

75 NMED Exhibits Presented at the June 1, 2011 Hearing 76 NMED Ex. 20 Compiled Section 309(g) SI P (included herein as Section 309(g) SIP) -- was not included in submittal EPA received -- probably the same as enclosures 05 to 11. 77 NMED Ex. 21 Responses to U.S. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service Comments

78 Transcript of Hearing - June 1 and 2, 2011 (Volumes 1 and 2)

79 New Mexico Environmental Improv ement Board Statement of Reasons for Adoption of SIP Revisions

# Exhibits 7 to 7k are in a separate document.

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 1 of 11 

# PNM San Juan Generating Station BART Analysis of SNCR May 30, 2008

Introduction In a letter dated April 25, 2008, the New Mexico Environmental Department – Air Quality Bureau (NMED) commented that the NO x 

# presumptive control level of 0.23 lb/MBtu for the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) can be modified to alternative NO x 

# emission levels in order to evaluate control technologies that that are less effective and that do not meet the required presumptive emission level. Based on this reasoning, NMED requested additional analyses be pe rformed. Specifically, the NMED requested additional consideration and modeling of the Nalco-Mobotec ROFA and Rotamix, and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) NO x 

# control technologies. As described in the June 6, 2007 BART application document and in PNM’s March 31, 2008 response to NMED questions, th e ROFA technology is a type of overfire air (OFA) system. As discussed in the Marc h 31, 2008 filing, ROFA do es not result in a
lower NO x 

# emission rate than the LNB/OFA system s currently being installed at SJGS. Since PNM has already evaluated the impact of LNB/OFA system as part of its previous BART submittals, no additional analyses were done for the ROFA technology. The Rotamix technology is a simply Na lco/Mobotec’s version of SNCR control technology. Therefore, it does not need to be evaluated sepa rately from other vendors of SNCR technology. For SNCR technology the first three steps of the five step BART process were completed as part of the original BART submittal on June 6. 2007. However, because SNCR did not meet the presumptive limit of 0.23 lb/MBtu for subbituminous fuel, the last two steps were not completed. To re view, the BART analysis is defined in the regional haze regulations and guidelines in 40 CFR Part 51. The following factors are considered when identifying the best method of emissions reduction:

• Technical feasibility.

• Cost of compliance.

• Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance.

• Existing pollution control equipment in use or installed at the source.

• Remaining useful life of the source.

• Degree of anticipated improvement in visibility.

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 2 of 11 

# The BART analysis consists of the following five steps to arrive at a selection of
the best methods of emissions redu ction for a BART-eligible source:

• Identify all available retrofit control technologies.

• Eliminate technically infeasible options.

• Evaluate control effectiveness of remaining control technologies.

• Evaluate impacts and document the results.

• Evaluate visibility impacts.

The two parts of this document complete the last two steps of the BART analysis
for SNCR.

Part 1 - Engineering Impact Analysis An engineering impact analys is was performed for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology. The results of that impact analysis are show n in Attachment 1. Table 7-1 in Attachment 1 is an update to the Table 7- 1 found in PNM’s original BART submittal of June 6, 2007. It has been updated to include the engineering impact of SNCR. In addition to Table 7-1, Attachment 1 also in cludes the Design Concept Definitions for
SNCR and the detailed cost tables for installing SNCR on each unit at the SJGS.

Part 2 – Visibility Analysis Subsequent to the June 6, 2007 submittal, PNM further investigated additional
refinements to the BART CALPUFF air di spersion modeling analyses which included nitrate repartitioning and mo re realistic ammonia background concentrations based on monitored values at several western Class I areas. These additional modeling options are
considered more realistic and therefore will again form the basis of this analysis. To date, PNM has previously submitted three BART modeling analyses. To clarify the contents of these analyses, as we ll as for this submittal, a summary of each has been provided:

June 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analyses were based on a constant 1 ppb background ammonia concentration a nd no nitrate repa rtitioning. The NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 3 of 11 

# November 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analysis was based on refinements which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. Again, the NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

March 31, 2008 Two main modeling analyses were perfor med to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) im pacts at 16 Class I areas for the SCR NO x 

# control technology only. One of the analyses, believed to be the more representative of ammonia chemistry of the area, was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using th e nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia c oncentrations. The other analyses included nitrate repartitioning and a c onstant background ammonia concentration as requested by the NMED.

May 30, 2008 Two modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impact s at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology only. Similar to the March 31, 2008 analyses, one of the analyses was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses incl uded nitrate repartitioning and a constant background ammonia concentration. It s hould be noted that all vendors of SNCR (including Fuel Tech and Nalco/Mobotec) have been modeled together as one technology called SNCR. This is the same approach that is used for modeling SCR control technology, where all vendors are modeled generically as SCR.

The modeling refinements contained in this submittal using nitrate repartitioning and the variable ammonia background, as well as the November 2007 and March 2008 submittals, supersedes the original June 2007 BART modeling analyses as PNM believes these analyses are more representative. Theref ore, the purpose of this section is to again, summarize the two refinements used and to provide supplemental information on the background ammonia data. Lastly, the documen t will summarize the SJGS plant-wide

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 4 of 11 

# and unit specific modeling for the SNCR co ntrol technology scenario using nitrate repartitioning and a both a variab le and constant ammonia background.

Nitrate Repartitioning The first refinement for the SJGS BART visibility analyses (included in the November 2007 submittal) was to better account for the amount of particulate nitrate (NO 3 

# ) by limiting the available ammonia when individual unit puffs overlap. The original visibility modeling conducted for the June 2, 2007 BART application did not incorporate repartitioning of available a mmonia (MNITRATE = 0). The refinements did not allow each overlapping puff(s) to use the full ammonia background value but instead only a portion of the ammonia available (MNITR ATE = 1). This concept is reflected in Section 3.1.2.6 of the WRAP protoc ol. It is important to note that this refinement noted as nitrate repartitioning is not the ammoni a limiting method commonly referred to as
ALM.

Ammonia Background Concentration
As described in Section 8.1 of the BART application, the air dispersion modeling analyses presented were conducted in accordance with the CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States dated August 15, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the WRAP Pr otocol). Specifically, the initial SJGS BART modeling for the June 6, 2007 BART Applicat ion was performed using the same high fixed background ammoni a level of 1 ppb that was used for the initial modeling performed by WRAP RMC. However, ther e is limited real-time or
historic ambient concentrati on information for ammonia within the modeling domain and
at the individual Class I areas from sources such as CASNET. As a result, there is limited information to use to verify wh ether the assumed 1 ppb ammonia background concentration is representative . In fact, colder temperatures and limited agriculture activity, among other variables, could limit the amount of ammonia present in the ambient atmosphere, thus limiting the ammoni a available to chemically react to form sulfates and nitrates to reduce visibility. Section 3.1.2.6 of WRAP protocol indicates that the 1 ppb value would be initially used a nd the issue revisited at a later time:

Thus, based on the fact that western Class I areas tend to be either more arid or forest land than grassland we proposed to initially use a 1 ppb background ammonia value for the CALPUFF runs. We will then revisit the background ammonia values for the Class I areas for the post processing step and provide the CALPUFF output to the States so th ey can investigate alternative background ammonia values if desired.

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 5 of 11 

# No additional information from th e WRAP regarding refined ammonia background concentrations was available. Ther efore, an investiga tion was undertaken to locate more realistic ammonia background va lues. The Sithe Global Power, LLC’s Desert Rock Energy Facility and the Toquop Energy Project visi bility analyses located in the southwestern U.S. used variable monthly background ammonia concentrations. Based on this information, refinements to SJGS’s BART modeling (included in the November 2007 and March 2008 submittals) reflected these previously used and approved values. These background ammonia con centrations are presented in Table 1 for
reference. These data were based on amm onia background concentrations monitored at
several western class I areas.

Table 1 Variable Monthly Ammonia Background Concentration 1



# Month Background Ammonia Concentration (ppb) January 0.2 February 0.2

March 0.2 April 0.5 May 0.5 June 1.0 July 1.0 August 1.0 September 1.0

October 0.5 November 0.5 December 0.5
1 

# The ammonia data and supporting information for the values contained in Desert Rock Energy Facility and the Toquop Energy Project visibility analyses were included in detail in Attachment 1 of the March 31, 2008 report submittal.

Additionally, Table 2 contains a monthl y summary of actual monthly monitored ammonia data from a long term ammonia ai r monitoring study in western Wyoming. This monitoring study, located in the Uppe r Green River Basin of western Wyoming southwest of Bridge Wilderness Area, was initiated in December 2006 by Shell

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 6 of 11 

# Exploration & Production Comp any and continued for 15 months. The findings of this study were presented at the Air & Waste Ma nagement Association (AWMA) Aerosol & Atmospheric Optics: Visual Air Quality and Radiation in Moab Ut ah on May 1, 2008. The extended abstract for this presentation ha s been included as Attachment 2. As Table 2 illustrates, these monthly mean ammonia values (referenced from Figure 2 of the abstract) have the same monthly trends as the ammonia data used in PNM’s previous modeling submittals (November 2007 and March 2008 submittals). This data is representative of another western area simila r to that of northwe stern New Mexico are much less than those values currently assu med in the PNM modeli ng. In fact, the annual average ammonia value is 0.24 ppb. This data has been included for illustration purposes only and again reiterates the premise th at the 1 ppb constant ammonia value is conservatively high and not representative of actual ammonia in th e area of the SJGS.

Table 2 Monitored Variable Monthly Ammonia Background Concentration 1



# Month Background Ammonia Concentration (ppb) January < 0.1 February < 0.1

March 0.2 April 0.2 May 0.3 June 0.3 July 0.8 August 0.8 September 0.3

October 0.2 November 0.1 December < 0.1
1 

# The Wyoming ammonia data is from the extended abstract presented at the Air & Waste Management Association (AWMA) Aerosol & Atmospheric Optics: Visual Air Quality and Radiation in Moab Utah on May 1, 2008.

Visibility Summary Based on the aforementioned refinements in background ammonia concentrations and nitrate repartitioning, revised CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed for three

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 7 of 11 

# cases; pre-consent decree, consent decree (w hich represents SJGS’s BART baseline scenario), and the SNCR control technology sc enario. The modeling summarized in this report is for the SJGS on a plant-wide basis and for each of the four SJGS units on an individual unit basis. It is important to not e that all other modeling options as described in the BART application were unchanged. Fo r simplicity, the following results discuss
the differences between the consent decree scenario and the SNCR scenario. The visibility modeling results ar e contained in Attachment 3.

SJGS Visibility Summary with Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable Ammonia The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same SNCR control technology is installed on a ll four units, are illustrated in Tables 1 through 4 of Attachment 3. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact s een at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analys is, using the aforemen tioned refinements, indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact at each of the 16 Class I areas. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 4 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improvement for each control scenario for each unit (on a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the si xteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS’s baseline case, as well as the base line case for the individual unit analyses described later. Additionally, the cost-eff ectiveness for the potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/decivi ew ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the visibility improvement cost effectiveness summary in Table 4:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to additional SNCR NO x 

# control technology alternatives scenario.

• Pre-consent decree to additional SNCR NO x 

# control technology alternatives
scenario. These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the SNCR control scenario range from 0.04 dv to 0.21 dv of expected visibility improvement
above the consent decree scenario. The re sults indicate that adding additional SNCR
NO x 

# control technology beyond the consent decr ee does not yield visibility improvement greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. In fact, as previously noted, the maximum visibility improvement at any of the 16 class I areas is on ly 0.21 dv which is considered insignificant.

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 8 of 11 

# Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART a pplication document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visi bility improvement. The resulting cost for
installation of SNCRs for al l four units ranges from $354 million/dv to $75 million/dv. Attachment 3 contains a SJGS plant-wide summary of the 98 th 

# percentile visibility impact for the three modeled technology sc enarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, SNCR scenarios), provides informa tion on the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold, and indicates the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98 th 

# percentile visibility impact for each class I area.

Unit Specific Visibility Summary wit h Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable Ammonia
The results of the refined visibility modeling for Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 are illustrated in Tables 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, and 17-20 of Attachment 3, respectively. These
tables summarize the scenarios and the maximu m visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the 16 Class I areas. In addition, this analysis indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact at each of the 16 Class I areas. The maximum visibility (deciview) improve ment seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 8, 12, 16, and 20. Again, the expected degree of visibility impr ovement for each control scenario for each unit was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I area s. Furthermore, the same methodology previously described for the SJGS’s cost-eff ectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each
unit. These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the
SNCR control scenario for each unit are similar to that of the combined SJGS. The visibility improvements are summarized below.

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.16 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.16 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.15 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.0 dv to 0.15 dv

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 9 of 11 

# The results again indicate th at adding additional SNCR NO x 

# control technology beyond the consent decree does not yield visibility improvement greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. Based on the visibility im provement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART applicati on document, the costeffectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv),
was determined for each unit for each Class I ar ea. The resulting cost for installation of
SNCRs for each unit is summarized below.

• Unit 1 cost range is $225 million/dv to $21 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $225 million/dv to $21 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $287 million/dv to $30million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $2.3 billion/dv 1 

# to $29 million/dv.

Attachment 3 contains a unit specific su mmary of the 98th pe rcentile visibility impact for the three modeled technology sc enarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, SNCR scenarios), includes the numbe r of days above 0.5 dv threshold, and indicates the contribution of each pollutant asso ciated with the 98th percentile visibility impact for each class I area.

Visibility Summary with Nitrate R epartitioning and Constant Ammonia As previously noted, the purpose of this analyses, and the previous November 2007 and March 2008 analyses, was to perf orm visibility modeling using refined methodologies from those contained in the original BART submittal. However, PNM recognizes that NMED has previously requ ested additional visibility modeling be conducted using a constant ammonia backgr ound value of 1 ppb. While PNM does not believe analyses conducted using the c onstant ammonia background (1 ppb) is representative, analyses ha ve been conducted based on the aforementioned modeling methodology and described scenarios for both th e SJGS plant and individual units. The results of this analysis can be found in Attachment 3, Tables 21-40.
Attachment 3 also contains tables su mmarizing the modeling results, the summary
of the 98 th 

# percentile visibility imp act for the three modeled technology scenarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, and SNCR scenarios), and the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold and the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98 th 

# percentile visibility impact for each class I area.

1 

## The visibility improvement realized for Unit 4 is 0.002 dv but is illustrated in Attachment 3, Table 20 as 0.00 dv.

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 10 of 11 

# Additional Considerations The minimal visibility improvements discu ssed in this document for the variable ammonia case (or even the constant amm onia case) do not merit the large capital expenditure required to install SNCR. In add ition to the prohibitive cost associated with SNCR, there are other importa nt reasons that LNB, OFA and NN should be considered BART for the SJGS units. First, the LNB, OFA and NN systems being installed to meet
the consent decree are state-of -the-art combustion controls. State-of-the-art combustion controls comprising of LNB, OFA and NN technologies were used to form the basis for the BART presumptive limits for NO x 

# in the BART guidelines. Second, installation of SNCR requires ammonia to reduce NO x 

# emissions. Specifically, in a SNCR system, ammonia is injected into the boiler. Any unreacted am monia passes through the boiler
and out the stack as ammonia emissions or ammonia slip. This additional ammonia
would then be available to add to the ammonia backgroun d concentration, chemically
react to form nitrates and sulf ates, and potentially further incr ease the visibility impacts at the Class I areas. The additional ammonia slip was not considered in this analysis. Finally, the visibility results im ply that visibility is influenced more by the SJGS’s sulfur emissions than by the reduction of NO x 

# . However, sulfur emissions are not subject to BART requirements because Ne w Mexico participates in the WRAP emissions trading program. Therefore, LNB, OFA and NN should be considered BART for NO x 

# control on
the SJGS units.

Conclusion As noted in this document, PNM’s furthe r investigation of additional refinements to the June 2007 BART CALPUFF air disper sion modeling analyses to yield more realistic regional haze impacts was warrant ed. These analyses included nitrate repartitioning and more realistic amm onia background concen trations based on
monitored values at several western Class I areas, as well as, the additional ammonia study from western Wyoming. The conclusion of this study re-itera te and further support the overall findings of the June 2007 that in stallation of SNCR systems at the SJGS provide minimal visibility improvements and would require significant capital expenditure and modifications that will imp act many areas of the plant including boiler draft systems, air heater perf ormance, and ash handling. The results from the analyses
further substantiate that the addition of SNCR technology does not yield a benefit nor meet the intended goal of BART. Sp ecifically, these analyses indicate:

## Final BART Response 053008.doc 11 of 11 

# • The addition of SNCR technology on a plan t-wide or individual unit basis shows less than a 0.5 dv improvement for all Cla ss I areas including the four Class I
areas located in New Mexico.

• Both the total annual costs evaluated and the cost-effectiveness ($/dv) are prohibitive given the minimal improvements realized.

Therefore, as previously noted, given th e minimal visibility improvement to the class I areas in the BART analysis, the r ecommended BART control for SJGS is LNB, OFA, and a NN for NO x 

# control and PJFF for PM control.

# Attachment 1PNM BART Additional NOx Technology Control Strategy ReviewLast Updated: 5/29/2008Total TotalEmission Expected Expected Expected Capital AnnualizedIncrementalPerformance Emission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost Cost Energy Non-AirLevel Rate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness Effectiveness Impacts ImpactsAll Feasible Technologies(lb/MBtu) (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)SJGS Unit 1Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)0.07 259.5 966 3,174 156,805 20,525 6,466 2,844 1,496 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 667.3 2,484 1,656 104,436 16,207 9,786 15,490 706 1,762SNCR0.24 889.7 3,312 828 15,321 3,380 4,08236--SJGS Unit 2Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)0.07 258.2 961 3,158 169,251 21,891 6,932 3,457 1,492 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 663.8 2,471 1,648 108,628 16,670 10,117 16,132 346 1,762SNCR0.24 885.1 3,295 824 15,321 3,380 4,10336--SJGS Unit 3Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)0.07 403.1 1,501 4,931 215,568 28,359 5,752 1,167 2,194 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 1,036.4 3,859 2,572 168,507 25,606 9,954 16,335 507 2,658SNCR0.24 1,381.9 5,145 1,286 18,977 4,596 3,57336--SJGS Unit 4Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)0.07 395.4 1,472 4,837 199,558 26,592 5,497 753 2,215 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 1,016.8 3,786 2,524 161,572 24,849 9,846 16,050 507 2,658SNCR0.24 1,355.8 5,047 1,262 18,977 4,596 3,64236--Notes:1. All costs are in 2007$.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on 85 percent unit capacity factor (referer to Appendix A Design Basis).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were based on the consent decree upgrades control effectiveness as shown in Table 4-1.4. TCI and TAC are referenced from Appendix C Cost Analysis Summary.5. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is defined as ratio of TAC over Expected Emission Reduction (ton/yr).6. Expected emission reduction is based on annual emission reduction from consent decree upgrade emission levels (Table 4-1).7. Incremental cost effectiveness are based on increments in expected emission reduction (ton/yr)Table 7-1Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Results of Additional NOx Control Technologies for SJGS

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

Process Description Addition of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) process into boiler pendant superheat section. Generic SNCR technology considered to represent various vendor specific systems (i.e . FuelTech, Nalco-Mobotec).

Pollutant NO x (Unit 1) NO x (Unit 2) NO x (Unit 3) NO x (Unit 4)
Emissions lb/MBtu 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 lb/h 1,112 1,106 1,727 1,695 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 lb/h 890 885 1,382 1,356 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 2,082,166 2,082,819 3,205,572 3,144,890 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg None Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Reagent (Urea), lb/h 906 906 1,408 1,408
Water, gpm 39 39 60 60 Energy, kW 80 80 80 80
Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. Byproduct Description No impact on ash sales. Other Up to 5 ppm ammonia slip.

Location of Major Process Equipment Truck- filled reagent storage tank, reagent circulat ion unit in enclosure with metering and distribution module, wall-injectors and multi- nozzle lances (MNL) in boiler penetrations. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Dilution water to metering module, atomizing air to injectors and MNL, cooli ng water for MNL.
Reagent Storage Reagent tank at grade.
Control System Modifications SNCR controls interfaced into existing control system.

Fan Modifications None.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modificati ons Minimum impact/modifications.

Enclosures Requirements Injection equipment enclosed in existing boiler building, enclosure for reagent circulation unit.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Penetrations into boiler wall for injectors and MNL, access platforms.
Major Constructability Issues R outing of SNCR reagent supply lines.
Significant Issues or Challenges Ammonia slip may cause buildup of ammonium bisu lfate on the air heater, which may require more frequent cleaning, air heat er modifications included. Other Assumptions:

• No major impact in plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• No boiler/duct stiffening included.

• Air heater modifications included in analysis.

• No impact on potential ash sales.

• Reagent is urea solution.

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable.

Technical Feasibility Technically feasible. SNCR technology is generic and considered to repres ent various vendor specific systems (i.e. FuelTech, Nalco-Mobotec).

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 5/5/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs SNCR system scope: $4,315,000 From vendor quote (FuelTech) Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature monitors Reagent storage tank $100,000 B&V cost estimate NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $279,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $5,103,000 Gross Receipt Tax $315,748 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $255,150 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $5,674,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $567,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $1,702,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $567,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $142,000 (PEC) X 2.5% Insulation $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $284,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Relocation $113,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,375,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $10,120,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $708,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $506,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,012,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $304,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,024,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $4,654,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $547,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $15,321,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $304,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $429,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,417,000 906 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Auxiliary and ID fan power $36,000 80 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimate in vendor quote Water $6,000 39 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $1,459,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,888,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,492,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,492,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,380,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 5/5/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs SNCR system scope: $4,315,000 From vendor quote (FuelTech) Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature monitors Reagent storage tank $100,000 B&V cost estimate NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $279,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $5,103,000 Gross Receipt Tax $315,748 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $255,150 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $5,674,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $567,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $1,702,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $567,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $142,000 (PEC) X 2.5% Insulation $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $284,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Relocation $113,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,375,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $10,120,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $708,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $506,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,012,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $304,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,024,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $4,654,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $547,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $15,321,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $304,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $429,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,417,000 906 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Auxiliary and ID fan power $36,000 80 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimate in vendor quote Water $6,000 39 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $1,459,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,888,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,492,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,492,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,380,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 5/5/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs SNCR system scope: $5,619,000 From vendor quote (FuelTech) Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature monitors Reagent storage tank $100,000 B&V cost estimate NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $291,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $6,472,000 Gross Receipt Tax $400,455 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $323,600 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $7,196,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $720,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $2,159,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $720,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $180,000 (PEC) X 2.5% Insulation $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $360,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Relocation $144,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $4,283,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $12,550,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $879,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $628,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,255,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $377,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,510,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $5,749,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $678,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $18,977,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $377,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $502,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,201,000 1,408 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Auxiliary and ID fan power $36,000 80 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimate in vendor quote Water $9,000 60 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $2,246,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,748,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,848,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,848,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,596,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 5/5/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs SNCR system scope: $5,619,000 From vendor quote (FuelTech) Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature monitors Reagent storage tank $100,000 B&V cost estimate NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $291,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $6,472,000 Gross Receipt Tax $400,455 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $323,600 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $7,196,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $720,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $2,159,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $720,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $180,000 (PEC) X 2.5% Insulation $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $360,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Relocation $144,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $4,283,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $12,550,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $879,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $628,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,255,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $377,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,510,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $5,749,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $678,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $18,977,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $377,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $502,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,201,000 1,408 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Auxiliary and ID fan power $36,000 80 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimate in vendor quote Water $9,000 60 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $2,246,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,748,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,848,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,848,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,596,000

# Attachment 2

# NH 3 

# Monitoring in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming

Extended Abstract #70

John V. Molenar 1 

# H. James Sewell 2 

# Jeffrey Collett 3 

# Cassie Archuleta 1 

# Mark Tigges 1 

# Florian M. Schwandner 3 

# Suresh Raja 3

1 

# Air Resource Specialists, Inc., 1901 Sharp Po int Drive, Suite E, Fort Collins, CO 80525
2 

# Shell Exploration & Production Company, 4582 S. Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80237
3 

# Department of Atmospheric Science, Co lorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371

Principal Contact: John V. Molenar, Vice Presiden t, Air Resource Specialists, Inc., 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite E, Ft. Collins, CO 80525, phone: 970-484-7941, Fax: 970- 484-3423, email: jmolenar@air-resource.com



# INTRODUCTION A long term ammonia air monitoring study was initiated in December, 2006 at Boulder, Wyoming, by Shell Exploration & Production Company. The monitoring site is located in the Upper Green River Basin of west ern Wyoming southwest of the Bridger Wilderness, a Class I area with an IM PROVE monitoring site. This region is experiencing rapid development of natural ga s resources with possi ble consequences of air quality and visibili ty impacts in the Bridger Wilderness. Only very limited short-term ammonia measurements were previously available for th is region. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to characteri ze the local airborne nitrogen budget and, specifically, ammonia concentrations and concen trations of related ga ses and particles in the basin for at least one year. Gaseous and particulate samples were collected twice per week (integrated 3-day and 4-day samp les) beginning December 15, 2006 and will continue through May, 2008. Samples were coll ected using coated annular denuders and stacked filters in a University Research Gl assworks (URG) sampler. The Colorado State University Atmospheric Science Department provided laboratory-pre pared sample media and laboratory analysis for gas and part icle concentrations. Standard operating procedures, technical instruc tions, and a QAPP for instrume nt installation, operation and maintenance, field sampling, filter handling, a nd laboratory analyses were developed and submitted to Wyoming Department of Envir onmental Quality – Air Quality Division.

# MONITORING AND LABO RATORY PROCEDURES Table 1 lists the instrumentation used and pa rameters monitored for the Boulder station ammonia study. Scheduled denuder and filter ch anges were performed twice per week, providing three- to four-day integrated sa mples for the duration of the study period. Ammonia concentrations and the concentratio ns of related gases and particles were measured using coated annular denuders and stacked filters in a University Research Glassworks (URG) sampler. The Colorado State University Atmospheric Science Department provided laboratory-prepared samp le media and laboratory analysis for gas and particle concentrations. The two-channe l sampler operated con tinuously, the air flow being controlled by a programmable pump w ith a mass flow sensor, and subsequent volumetric gas flow meters. The sampling me thod requires that metered air is drawn through a PM 2.5 

# size selective cyclone inlet, then th rough a series of annular denuders and filters. The denuders are coated with an acid- based substrate to collect ammonia gas. A second denuder is coated with NaCl to collect gaseous nitric acid. A subsequent stack of two filters is utilized to collect particles. A nylon filter collects pa rticles, and a second, acid-coated filter collects any ammonia vol atilized from collected, semi-volatile ammonium nitrate particles. The nylon filter retains any nitric acid volatilized from particulate ammonium nitrate. Following fi eld exposure, the denuders, filters, and field data logs are sent to the CSU lab for chemi cal extraction and analysis. Total sampler air volume from the data sheet is then us ed to calculate c oncentrations.

Table 1: Instrumentation and Monitored Param eters Boulder, Wyoming Air Quality Station

Component Instrumentation Height Frequency Parameters

GASEOUS URG denuders 1.5m 3-day and 4- day integrated samples Ammonia, NH 3 

# Nitric Acid, HNO 3



# PARTICULATE URG stacked filters 1.5m 3-day and 4- day inte grated samples Ammonium, NH 4 + 

# Nitrate, NO 3 - 

# Sulfate, SO 4 2-



# RESULTS Figure 1 shows a timeline of gaseous and pa rticulate concentrations from December, 2006 – January, 2008. Figure 2 plots the monthl y mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum NH 3 

# concentrations. NH 3 

# concentrations are below 1 ppbv for most of the monitoring period, peaking in A ugust, 2007 at 1.55 ppbv. Elevated NH 3 

# concentrations here coincide with warmer summer months. A shift in ammonium nitrate equilibrium toward the gas phase might be responsible for some of this increase, although an increase in total reduced nitrogen (ammonium + am monia) during the summer suggests that changes in emissions and or transport patter ns are likely also im portant contributors.

# Figure 1: Timeline of measured concentrations.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.012/1512/2212/291/51/121/191/262/22/92/162/233/23/93/163/233/304/64/134/204/275/45/115/185/256/16/86/156/226/297/67/137/207/278/38/108/178/248/319/79/149/219/2810/510/1210/1910/2611/211/911/1611/2311/3012/712/1412/2112/281/41/111/18

date 2006-2008 NH3 (g) NH4 + (p) HNO3 (g) NO3 - (p) SO4 2- (p)g m-3ion / uconcentrat



# Figure 2: 2007 monthly and annual NH 3 

# concentration data

Three events stand out: high particulate NO 3 - 

# in January, 2007; high particulate NO 3 - 

# in December, 2007 – January, 2008; and high particulate SO 4 -2 

# in May, 2007. The winter nitrate events are interesti ng as all reduced nitrogen is present as particle phase ammonium while considerable nitric acid rema ins in the gas phase. Sufficient increases in ammonia emissions during this period could have substantially increased PM 2.5 

# concentrations by further a mmonium nitrate formation.

Figure 3 displays a timeline of the gas/partic le partitioning of the measured species for the same time period. Particulate sulfate (r ed) dominates throughout most of the year. Reduced nitrogen (green bars) shows an increased partitioning into the gas phase

# (ammonium to ammonia). Increased particulate n itrate in late winter is consistent with thermodynamic expectations: ammonium n itrate formation is favored at lower temperatures and higher relative humidities.

Figure 3: Timeline of ga s-particle part itioning. Concentrations in μ g/m 3 

# , top bar stack for particles, botto m bar stack for gases.

gas-particle partitioning

-2 -1 0 1 2 312/1512/291/121/262/92/233/93/234/64/205/45/186/16/156/297/137/278/108/249/79/2110/510/1911/211/1611/3012/1412/281/111/25 start dateconcentration / ug m-3 NH4 + (p) NO3 - (p) SO4 2- (p) NH3 (g) HNO3 (g)

PM

GAS



# RESIDENCE TIME ANALYSIS Ammonia weighted back traject ories were used to identify the geographic source areas most likely to contribute to the highest measur ed ammonia days. Back trajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteor ological fields to estimate the most likely central path over geographical ar eas that provided air to a rece ptor at a given time. The method essentially follows a parcel of air back ward in hourly steps for a specified length of time. Back trajectories account for the impact of wind direction and wind speed on delivery of emissions to the receptor, but do not account for chemical transformation, dispersion and deposition of emissions.

Trajectories were generated using the Hybrid-Single Partic le Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad ministration’s (NOAA) Air Resources Labo ratory (ARL). Detailed information regarding the trajectory m odel and these data sets can be found on NOAA’s Web site ( http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html ).

Three back trajectories we re generated per day, includ ing end times of 0400, 1200 and 2000 MST and end heights of 100 m. Each hour ly point along a 72-hour back trajectory paths was weighted with measured ammonia concentration correspond ing to the end date of each trajectory. The ammonia values a ssociated with each hourly point were then summed and normalized into 1/4 degree horizontal grid cells of latitude and longitude.

Figure 4 presents a map of the ammonia weight ed residence time for 2007. One path of influence follows the Snake River from Idaho to the Colum bia River. This is a significant

# agriculture region. Another di stinct path is from the South-Southwest along I-15 to Nevada then along the Colorado River. In addi tion to the major urban areas of Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, this pathway includes the agriculture regions of Star Valley north of Salt Lake City, the Wasatch front in Utah, and the Colorado River Basin.

Figure 4: NH 3 

# weighted residence time analysis for 2007.



# SUMMARY A 15 month study in the Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming m easuring ammonia and nitric acid gasses and ammoni um, nitrate, and sulfate par ticles has been completed. The results of the study show that in the Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming 2007 ammonia concentrations are (1) quite variable throughout the year, (2 ) are below or near detectable limits from December through late February, (3) peak in August at 1.55 ppbv, and (4) have a yearly mean value of 0.24 ppbv. NH 3 

# weighted Residence time analysis indicates that much of the NH 3 

# present is transported into the region from agriculture and urban areas to the West and Southwest.

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 1 of 41 

# Attachment 3

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 2 of 41 Table 1 SJGS Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 3 of 41 Table 2 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results SJGS Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 4 of 41 Table 3 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.61 1.50 1.27 1.46 1.61 Bandelier 0.92 1.37 1.15 1.14 1.37 Black Canyon 0.84 1.00 0.97 0.94 1.00 Canyonlands 2.15 1.61 1.61 1.79 2.15 Capitol Reef 1.64 0.72 1.00 1.12 1.64 Grand Canyon 0.85 0.65 0.57 0.69 0.85 Great Sand Dunes 0.58 0.62 0.52 0.57 0.62 La Garita 0.76 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.80 Maroon Bells 0.51 0.48 0.44 0.48 0.51 Mesa Verde 3.36 3.22 3.58 3.38 3.58 Pecos 0.90 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.94 Petrified Forest 0.77 0.54 0.50 0.61 0.77 San Pedro 1.31 1.80 1.48 1.53 1.80 West Elk 0.74 0.77 0.71 0.74 0.77 Weminuche 1.03 1.35 1.16 1.18 1.35 Wheeler Peak 0.68 0.77 0.75 0.74 0.77 Overall 1.13 3.58Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 5 of 41Table 4SJGS Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.921.691.610.230.080.31 224,751,092 207,168,831 220,326,797Bandelier1.861.561.370.310.190.50 167,648,208 83,957,895 135,653,924Black Canyon1.401.151.000.260.150.41 201,835,294 105,642,384 166,059,113Canyonlands2.592.262.150.330.120.44 158,363,077 136,341,880 152,533,937Capitol Reef1.971.811.640.160.170.33 319,677,019 93,835,294 203,685,801Grand Canyon1.140.970.850.170.120.29 304,544,379 135,186,441 234,912,892Great Sand Dunes1.000.710.620.290.090.38 179,331,010 181,272,727 179,786,667La Garita1.300.940.800.360.140.50 142,966,667 113,942,857 134,840,000Maroon Bells0.780.560.510.220.050.27 236,091,743 295,407,407 247,867,647Mesa Verde4.853.803.581.060.211.27 48,692,526 74,542,056 53,044,847Pecos1.401.090.940.310.160.46 168,196,078 100,962,025 145,301,724Petrified Forest1.130.820.770.310.040.36 165,491,961 354,488,889 189,382,022San Pedro2.372.011.800.360.210.57 142,966,667 75,245,283 117,867,133West Elk1.150.910.770.240.140.38 216,252,101 112,338,028 177,421,053Weminuche1.851.481.350.370.130.50 138,727,763 119,939,850 133,769,841Wheeler Peak1.050.890.770.160.130.29 323,698,113 126,603,175 236,561,404Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$51,468Consent Decree to SNCR$15,952Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$67,420

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 6 of 41 Table 5 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 7 of 41 Table 6 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 8 of 41 Table 7 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.58 0.44 0.45 0.49 0.58 Bandelier 0.20 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.33 Black Canyon 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Canyonlands 0.87 0.53 0.49 0.63 0.87 Capitol Reef 0.46 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.46 Grand Canyon 0.22 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.22 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 La Garita 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Maroon Bells 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 Mesa Verde 1.19 1.24 1.13 1.19 1.24 Pecos 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.23 Petrified Forest 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.17 San Pedro 0.36 0.48 0.43 0.42 0.48 West Elk 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 Weminuche 0.25 0.36 0.30 0.31 0.36 Wheeler Peak 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.18 Overall 0.31 1.24Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 9 of 41Table 8Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches0.820.690.580.130.110.24 91,146,154 29,649,123 62,413,934Bandelier0.540.400.330.140.070.21 84,635,714 46,301,370 71,497,653Black Canyon0.380.290.230.090.060.15 131,655,556 55,409,836 100,854,305Canyonlands1.101.000.870.100.130.23 118,490,000 26,000,000 66,213,043Capitol Reef0.760.570.460.190.110.30 62,363,158 30,727,273 50,763,333Grand Canyon0.310.270.220.040.050.09 296,225,000 66,274,510 167,351,648Great Sand Dunes0.200.140.130.060.020.08 197,483,333 225,333,333 203,053,333La Garita0.290.210.170.080.040.12 148,112,500 93,888,889 131,284,483Maroon Bells0.180.140.110.040.030.07 296,225,000 120,714,286 223,955,882Mesa Verde1.791.401.240.390.160.55 30,382,051 21,257,862 27,739,526Pecos0.350.270.230.080.040.12 148,112,500 93,888,889 131,284,483Petrified Forest0.250.190.170.060.020.08 197,483,333 140,833,333 181,297,619San Pedro0.730.590.480.140.110.25 84,635,714 29,911,504 60,193,676West Elk0.280.220.180.060.040.10 197,483,333 88,947,368 155,397,959Weminuche0.540.430.360.110.070.18 107,718,182 51,212,121 86,528,409Wheeler Peak0.260.200.180.060.030.09 197,483,333 135,200,000 179,164,706Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$11,849Consent Decree to SNCR$3,380Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$15,229

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 10 of 41 Table 9 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 11 of 41 Table 10 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 12 of 41 Table 11 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.57 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.57 Bandelier 0.20 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.33 Black Canyon 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.23 Canyonlands 0.87 0.52 0.48 0.62 0.87 Capitol Reef 0.46 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.46 Grand Canyon 0.22 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.22 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 La Garita 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Maroon Bells 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 Mesa Verde 1.19 1.24 1.13 1.18 1.24 Pecos 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.23 Petrified Forest 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.17 San Pedro 0.36 0.48 0.43 0.42 0.48 West Elk 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 Weminuche 0.25 0.36 0.30 0.31 0.36 Wheeler Peak 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.17 Overall 0.31 1.24Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 13 of 41Table 12Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches0.830.690.570.140.120.26 86,728,571 28,888,889 60,396,887Bandelier0.540.400.330.140.080.22 86,728,571 45,066,667 72,195,349Black Canyon0.390.290.230.100.060.16 121,420,000 53,650,794 95,226,994Canyonlands1.070.990.870.080.120.20 151,775,000 27,258,065 76,088,235Capitol Reef0.780.570.460.210.110.32 57,819,048 30,178,571 48,204,969Grand Canyon0.310.270.220.040.050.09 303,550,000 65,000,000 168,717,391Great Sand Dunes0.210.140.130.070.020.09 173,457,143 225,333,333 182,611,765La Garita0.290.210.170.080.040.12 151,775,000 91,351,351 132,666,667Maroon Bells0.180.140.110.040.030.07 303,550,000 120,714,286 228,264,706Mesa Verde1.821.401.240.420.160.58 28,909,524 20,609,756 26,578,767Pecos0.360.270.230.090.040.13 134,911,111 88,947,368 121,265,625Petrified Forest0.250.190.170.060.030.09 202,366,667 135,200,000 182,611,765San Pedro0.730.580.480.150.110.26 80,946,667 32,190,476 60,870,588West Elk0.290.220.180.070.040.11 173,457,143 86,666,667 142,403,670Weminuche0.560.420.360.140.060.20 86,728,571 59,298,246 78,791,878Wheeler Peak0.260.200.170.060.030.09 202,366,667 130,000,000 180,488,372Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$12,142Consent Decree to SNCR$3,380Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$15,522

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 14 of 41 Table 13 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 15 of 41 Table 14 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 16 of 41 Table 15 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.79 0.54 0.55 0.63 0.79 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.50 Black Canyon 0.36 0.33 0.38 0.36 0.38 Canyonlands 1.01 0.71 0.68 0.80 1.01 Capitol Reef 0.71 0.23 0.33 0.42 0.71 Grand Canyon 0.28 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.28 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 Maroon Bells 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.16 Mesa Verde 1.50 1.75 1.59 1.61 1.75 Pecos 0.29 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.27 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.27 San Pedro 0.59 0.67 0.61 0.62 0.67 West Elk 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.36 0.54 0.41 0.44 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.22 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.26 Overall 0.45 1.75Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 17 of 41Table 16Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.040.890.790.150.100.25 91,293,333 46,424,242 73,453,815Bandelier0.810.610.500.200.110.31 68,470,000 42,953,271 59,576,547Black Canyon0.590.460.380.130.080.21 105,338,462 56,740,741 86,682,464Canyonlands1.441.151.010.290.140.43 47,220,690 33,794,118 42,934,272Capitol Reef1.100.860.710.240.150.39 57,058,333 30,236,842 46,658,163Grand Canyon0.480.350.280.130.070.20 105,338,462 67,588,235 92,373,737Great Sand Dunes0.330.240.200.090.040.13 152,155,556 112,097,561 139,618,321La Garita0.440.330.280.110.050.16 124,490,909 91,920,000 114,312,500Maroon Bells0.250.200.160.050.040.09 273,880,000 124,216,216 210,229,885Mesa Verde2.181.901.750.280.150.43 48,907,143 29,844,156 42,142,857Pecos0.580.420.360.160.060.22 85,587,500 82,071,429 84,675,926Petrified Forest0.430.290.270.140.020.16 97,814,286 287,250,000 117,243,590San Pedro1.030.810.670.220.140.36 62,245,455 33,547,445 51,232,493West Elk0.420.350.280.070.070.14 195,628,571 66,608,696 131,582,734Weminuche0.820.640.540.180.100.28 76,077,778 47,875,000 66,268,116Wheeler Peak0.390.310.260.080.050.13 171,175,000 95,750,000 142,890,625Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$13,694Consent Decree to SNCR$4,596Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$18,290

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 18 of 41 Table 17 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 19 of 41 Table 18 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 20 of 41 Table 19 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.79 0.54 0.53 0.62 0.79 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.49 Black Canyon 0.35 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.37 Canyonlands 1.01 0.71 0.67 0.80 1.01 Capitol Reef 0.71 0.23 0.32 0.42 0.71 Grand Canyon 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.29 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.19 La Garita 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.27 Maroon Bells 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.17 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.73 1.58 1.60 1.73 Pecos 0.29 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.68 0.69 West Elk 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.27 Weminuche 0.36 0.54 0.40 0.43 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.26 Overall 0.45 1.73Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 21 of 41Table 20Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.050.880.790.170.100.27 81,076,471 48,378,947 69,354,717Bandelier0.810.600.490.210.110.32 65,633,333 42,555,556 57,795,597Black Canyon0.590.440.370.150.080.23 91,886,667 61,280,000 81,684,444Canyonlands1.471.141.010.330.130.46 41,766,667 35,627,907 40,041,394Capitol Reef1.110.860.710.250.150.40 55,132,000 30,039,216 45,605,459Grand Canyon0.480.360.290.120.070.19 114,858,333 67,588,235 97,760,638Great Sand Dunes0.340.230.190.110.040.15 125,300,000 127,666,667 125,883,562La Garita0.450.320.270.130.050.18 106,023,077 99,913,043 104,426,136Maroon Bells0.250.200.170.050.040.09 275,660,000 131,314,286 216,223,529Mesa Verde2.181.891.730.290.160.45 47,527,586 28,725,000 40,842,222Pecos0.590.410.360.180.050.23 76,572,222 91,920,000 79,908,696Petrified Forest0.440.290.290.150.000.15 91,886,667 2,298,000,000 120,914,474San Pedro1.040.800.690.240.110.35 57,429,167 42,555,556 52,813,218West Elk0.430.330.270.100.060.16 137,830,000 76,600,000 114,868,750Weminuche0.810.630.540.180.090.27 76,572,222 49,419,355 67,322,344Wheeler Peak0.410.300.260.110.040.15 125,300,000 106,883,721 120,124,183Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$13,783Consent Decree to SNCR$4,596Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$18,379

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 22 of 41 Table 21 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results SJGS Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 3.88 2.93 3.04 3.28 3.88 Bandelier 1.76 2.55 2.83 2.38 2.83 Black Canyon 1.97 1.95 2.15 2.02 2.15 Canyonlands 5.13 3.81 3.75 4.23 5.13 Capitol Reef 3.75 1.20 1.61 2.19 3.75 Grand Canyon 1.76 1.28 0.92 1.32 1.76 Great Sand Dunes 1.09 1.10 0.96 1.05 1.10 La Garita 1.46 1.45 1.52 1.48 1.52 Maroon Bells 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.88 0.91 Mesa Verde 6.04 5.98 5.85 5.96 6.04 Pecos 1.59 1.93 2.23 1.92 2.23 Petrified Forest 1.34 0.86 0.78 0.99 1.34 San Pedro 3.47 3.47 3.35 3.43 3.47 West Elk 1.45 1.47 1.42 1.45 1.47 Weminuche 2.01 2.57 2.25 2.28 2.57 Wheeler Peak 1.32 1.44 1.35 1.37 1.44 Overall 2.26 6.04

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 23 of 41 Table 22 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results SJGS Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 3.63 2.82 2.71 3.05 3.63 Bandelier 1.32 2.07 2.14 1.84 2.14 Black Canyon 1.49 1.56 1.76 1.60 1.76 Canyonlands 4.80 3.29 3.05 3.71 4.80 Capitol Reef 2.89 0.93 1.24 1.69 2.89 Grand Canyon 1.46 0.98 0.68 1.04 1.46 Great Sand Dunes 0.83 0.80 0.71 0.78 0.83 La Garita 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.12 1.15 Maroon Bells 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.67 0.70 Mesa Verde 5.27 5.67 5.10 5.35 5.67 Pecos 1.20 1.47 1.67 1.45 1.67 Petrified Forest 0.96 0.66 0.60 0.74 0.96 San Pedro 2.68 2.91 2.78 2.79 2.91 West Elk 1.12 1.12 1.09 1.11 1.12 Weminuche 1.56 2.00 1.68 1.75 2.00 Wheeler Peak 0.96 1.06 1.15 1.06 1.15 Overall 1.86 5.67

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 24 of 41 Table 23 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 3.06 2.31 2.22 2.53 3.06 Bandelier 1.09 1.76 1.76 1.54 1.76 Black Canyon 1.22 1.26 1.44 1.30 1.44 Canyonlands 4.04 2.72 2.53 3.10 4.04 Capitol Reef 2.36 0.80 1.12 1.42 2.36 Grand Canyon 1.18 0.81 0.59 0.86 1.18 Great Sand Dunes 0.69 0.65 0.59 0.64 0.69 La Garita 0.87 0.90 0.97 0.91 0.97 Maroon Bells 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 4.63 5.30 4.74 4.89 5.30 Pecos 1.01 1.23 1.38 1.20 1.38 Petrified Forest 0.89 0.54 0.53 0.65 0.89 San Pedro 2.19 2.61 2.34 2.38 2.61 West Elk 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.91 Weminuche 1.29 1.77 1.45 1.50 1.77 Wheeler Peak 0.89 0.86 0.93 0.89 0.93 Overall 1.58 5.30Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 25 of 41Table 24SJGS Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches3.883.633.060.250.570.82 205,872,000 27,888,112 82,019,465Bandelier2.832.141.760.690.381.07 74,591,304 42,312,997 63,186,504Black Canyon2.151.761.440.390.330.72 131,969,231 49,083,077 94,293,706Canyonlands5.134.804.040.330.761.09 155,963,636 20,879,581 61,627,057Capitol Reef3.752.892.360.860.531.39 59,846,512 30,098,113 48,503,597Grand Canyon1.761.461.180.300.280.58 171,560,000 56,367,491 115,643,225Great Sand Dunes1.100.830.690.270.140.41 190,622,222 117,294,118 166,059,113La Garita1.521.150.970.370.180.55 139,102,703 86,695,652 121,696,751Maroon Bells0.910.700.560.210.140.35 245,085,714 113,134,752 192,079,772Mesa Verde6.045.675.300.370.370.74 139,102,703 42,766,756 90,740,242Pecos2.231.671.380.560.290.85 91,907,143 54,258,503 78,946,136Petrified Forest1.340.960.890.380.080.46 135,442,105 212,693,333 148,175,824San Pedro3.472.912.610.560.300.86 91,907,143 53,173,333 78,395,349West Elk1.471.120.910.350.210.56 147,051,429 77,062,802 121,041,293Weminuche2.572.001.770.570.230.80 90,294,737 69,056,277 84,169,788Wheeler Peak1.441.150.930.290.220.51 177,475,862 73,851,852 133,241,107Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$51,468Consent Decree to SNCR$15,952Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$67,420

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 26 of 41 Table 25 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.10 0.85 0.82 0.92 1.10 Bandelier 0.36 0.64 0.63 0.54 0.64 Black Canyon 0.39 0.43 0.48 0.43 0.48 Canyonlands 1.50 1.02 0.90 1.14 1.50 Capitol Reef 0.85 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.85 Grand Canyon 0.39 0.26 0.19 0.28 0.39 Great Sand Dunes 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.22 La Garita 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 2.26 2.56 2.20 2.34 2.56 Pecos 0.33 0.42 0.46 0.40 0.46 Petrified Forest 0.26 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.26 San Pedro 0.80 1.00 0.86 0.89 1.00 West Elk 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.45 0.59 0.52 0.52 0.59 Wheeler Peak 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.59 2.56

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 27 of 41 Table 26 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.86 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.86 Bandelier 0.29 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.49 Black Canyon 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.33 0.36 Canyonlands 1.25 0.80 0.71 0.92 1.25 Capitol Reef 0.66 0.20 0.28 0.38 0.66 Grand Canyon 0.34 0.21 0.16 0.24 0.34 Great Sand Dunes 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 La Garita 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.24 Maroon Bells 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.15 Mesa Verde 1.96 2.23 1.77 1.99 2.23 Pecos 0.25 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.34 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.19 San Pedro 0.57 0.75 0.65 0.66 0.75 West Elk 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.25 Weminuche 0.34 0.52 0.39 0.42 0.52 Wheeler Peak 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.22 0.23 Overall 0.47 2.23

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 28 of 41 Table 27 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.69 0.53 0.57 0.59 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.39 0.35 0.33 0.39 Black Canyon 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.63 0.58 0.73 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.52 0.16 0.23 0.31 0.52 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 La Garita 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.20 Maroon Bells 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.12 Mesa Verde 1.61 1.83 1.54 1.66 1.83 Pecos 0.22 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.28 Petrified Forest 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.17 San Pedro 0.45 0.63 0.53 0.54 0.63 West Elk 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 Weminuche 0.27 0.41 0.32 0.33 0.41 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.19 Overall 0.38 1.83Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 29 of 41Table 28Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.100.860.690.240.180.42 49,370,833 19,314,286 36,696,386Bandelier0.640.490.390.150.100.25 78,993,333 34,845,361 61,655,870Black Canyon0.480.360.290.120.070.19 98,741,667 51,212,121 81,876,344Canyonlands1.501.250.990.250.260.51 47,396,000 13,203,125 30,096,838Capitol Reef0.850.660.520.190.140.33 62,363,158 24,316,547 46,288,754Grand Canyon0.390.340.270.050.070.12 236,980,000 48,985,507 127,974,790Great Sand Dunes0.220.160.130.060.030.09 197,483,333 116,551,724 171,112,360La Garita0.330.240.200.090.050.14 131,655,556 75,111,111 112,807,407Maroon Bells0.200.150.120.050.040.09 236,980,000 96,571,429 179,164,706Mesa Verde2.562.231.830.330.410.74 35,906,061 8,345,679 20,719,728Pecos0.460.340.280.120.060.18 98,741,667 60,357,143 86,528,409Petrified Forest0.260.190.170.070.020.09 169,271,429 198,823,529 175,045,977San Pedro1.000.750.630.250.120.37 47,396,000 27,933,884 41,048,518West Elk0.330.250.200.080.050.13 148,112,500 62,592,593 113,649,254Weminuche0.590.520.410.070.110.18 169,271,429 30,727,273 84,605,556Wheeler Peak0.310.230.190.080.050.13 148,112,500 75,111,111 121,832,000Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$11,849Consent Decree to SNCR$3,380Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$15,229

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 30 of 41 Table 29 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.13 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.13 Bandelier 0.38 0.65 0.65 0.56 0.65 Black Canyon 0.41 0.44 0.49 0.45 0.49 Canyonlands 1.53 1.03 0.91 1.16 1.53 Capitol Reef 0.88 0.26 0.36 0.50 0.88 Grand Canyon 0.39 0.26 0.19 0.28 0.39 Great Sand Dunes 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 2.32 2.59 2.21 2.37 2.59 Pecos 0.34 0.42 0.47 0.41 0.47 Petrified Forest 0.27 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.27 San Pedro 0.83 1.02 0.87 0.91 1.02 West Elk 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.33 Weminuche 0.46 0.59 0.53 0.53 0.59 Wheeler Peak 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.60 2.59

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 31 of 41 Table 30 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.85 0.67 0.71 0.74 0.85 Bandelier 0.28 0.48 0.43 0.40 0.48 Black Canyon 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.33 0.36 Canyonlands 1.24 0.79 0.70 0.91 1.24 Capitol Reef 0.66 0.20 0.28 0.38 0.66 Grand Canyon 0.34 0.21 0.16 0.24 0.34 Great Sand Dunes 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 La Garita 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.24 Maroon Bells 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.15 Mesa Verde 1.95 2.22 1.76 1.98 2.22 Pecos 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.30 0.34 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.19 San Pedro 0.57 0.75 0.65 0.66 0.75 West Elk 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.25 Weminuche 0.34 0.51 0.39 0.41 0.51 Wheeler Peak 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.22 0.23 Overall 0.47 2.22

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 32 of 41 Table 31 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.68 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.68 Bandelier 0.23 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.39 Black Canyon 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.63 0.57 0.73 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.52 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.52 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 La Garita 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.19 Maroon Bells 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.12 Mesa Verde 1.60 1.82 1.54 1.65 1.82 Pecos 0.22 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.28 Petrified Forest 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.17 San Pedro 0.45 0.63 0.52 0.53 0.63 West Elk 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 Weminuche 0.27 0.41 0.32 0.33 0.41 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.18 Overall 0.38 1.82Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 33 of 41Table 32Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.130.850.680.280.170.45 43,364,286 20,000,000 34,570,156Bandelier0.650.480.390.170.090.26 71,423,529 37,977,528 59,930,502Black Canyon0.490.360.290.130.070.20 93,400,000 49,705,882 78,393,939Canyonlands1.531.240.990.290.250.54 41,868,966 13,466,135 28,691,312Capitol Reef0.880.660.520.220.140.36 55,190,909 23,971,631 42,997,230Grand Canyon0.390.340.270.050.070.12 242,840,000 47,605,634 128,280,992Great Sand Dunes0.240.160.130.080.030.11 151,775,000 112,666,667 141,109,091La Garita0.330.240.190.090.050.14 134,911,111 73,478,261 114,132,353Maroon Bells0.200.150.120.050.040.09 242,840,000 96,571,429 182,611,765Mesa Verde2.592.221.820.370.400.77 32,816,216 8,366,337 20,054,264Pecos0.470.340.280.130.060.19 93,400,000 58,275,862 82,563,830Petrified Forest0.270.190.170.080.020.10 151,775,000 187,777,778 158,387,755San Pedro1.020.750.630.270.120.39 44,970,370 27,258,065 39,395,939West Elk0.330.250.200.080.060.14 151,775,000 61,454,545 114,977,778Weminuche0.590.510.410.080.100.18 151,775,000 33,137,255 85,285,714Wheeler Peak0.300.230.180.070.050.12 173,457,143 73,478,261 133,810,345Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$12,142Consent Decree to SNCR$3,380Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$15,522

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 34 of 41 Table 33 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.57 1.00 0.94 1.17 1.57 Bandelier 0.60 0.97 1.01 0.86 1.01 Black Canyon 0.68 0.63 0.76 0.69 0.76 Canyonlands 2.01 1.21 1.26 1.49 2.01 Capitol Reef 1.30 0.40 0.54 0.75 1.30 Grand Canyon 0.55 0.40 0.31 0.42 0.55 Great Sand Dunes 0.34 0.41 0.31 0.35 0.41 La Garita 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.52 Maroon Bells 0.28 0.27 0.31 0.29 0.31 Mesa Verde 3.05 3.49 2.92 3.15 3.49 Pecos 0.53 0.64 0.75 0.64 0.75 Petrified Forest 0.45 0.27 0.24 0.32 0.45 San Pedro 1.23 1.48 1.25 1.32 1.48 West Elk 0.45 0.50 0.44 0.46 0.50 Weminuche 0.71 1.03 0.81 0.85 1.03 Wheeler Peak 0.44 0.45 0.42 0.44 0.45 Overall 0.86 3.49

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 35 of 41 Table 34 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.33 0.88 0.84 1.02 1.33 Bandelier 0.43 0.75 0.78 0.65 0.78 Black Canyon 0.49 0.52 0.61 0.54 0.61 Canyonlands 1.67 1.12 1.07 1.29 1.67 Capitol Reef 0.99 0.28 0.42 0.56 0.99 Grand Canyon 0.44 0.30 0.22 0.32 0.44 Great Sand Dunes 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.27 La Garita 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.38 Maroon Bells 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 Mesa Verde 2.42 2.86 2.41 2.56 2.86 Pecos 0.39 0.48 0.55 0.47 0.55 Petrified Forest 0.32 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.32 San Pedro 0.95 1.14 1.02 1.04 1.14 West Elk 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.39 Weminuche 0.52 0.79 0.58 0.63 0.79 Wheeler Peak 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.34 Overall 0.68 2.86

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 36 of 41 Table 35 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.06 0.70 0.67 0.81 1.06 Bandelier 0.36 0.62 0.63 0.54 0.63 Black Canyon 0.39 0.41 0.49 0.43 0.49 Canyonlands 1.34 0.89 0.85 1.03 1.34 Capitol Reef 0.79 0.25 0.36 0.47 0.79 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.25 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.22 La Garita 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Mesa Verde 2.11 2.37 2.05 2.17 2.37 Pecos 0.33 0.40 0.46 0.40 0.46 Petrified Forest 0.28 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.28 San Pedro 0.76 0.92 0.82 0.83 0.92 West Elk 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.31 Weminuche 0.43 0.62 0.52 0.52 0.62 Wheeler Peak 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Overall 0.56 2.37Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 37 of 41Table 36Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.571.331.060.240.270.51 57,058,333 17,213,483 36,074,951Bandelier1.010.780.630.230.150.38 59,539,130 29,844,156 47,630,208Black Canyon0.760.610.490.150.120.27 91,293,333 38,300,000 67,740,741Canyonlands2.011.671.340.340.330.67 40,276,471 14,055,046 27,421,289Capitol Reef1.300.990.790.310.200.51 44,174,194 23,095,477 35,933,202Grand Canyon0.550.440.350.110.090.20 124,490,909 51,066,667 91,450,000Great Sand Dunes0.410.270.220.140.050.19 97,814,286 93,795,918 96,772,487La Garita0.520.380.320.140.060.20 97,814,286 74,129,032 90,544,554Maroon Bells0.310.220.170.090.050.14 152,155,556 99,913,043 134,485,294Mesa Verde3.492.862.370.630.501.13 21,736,508 9,284,848 16,257,778Pecos0.750.550.460.200.090.29 68,470,000 52,827,586 63,728,223Petrified Forest0.450.320.280.130.040.17 105,338,462 127,666,667 110,180,723San Pedro1.481.140.920.340.220.56 40,276,471 20,890,909 32,660,714West Elk0.500.390.310.110.080.19 124,490,909 59,688,312 97,807,487Weminuche1.030.790.620.240.170.41 57,058,333 27,686,747 45,049,261Wheeler Peak0.450.340.290.110.050.16 124,490,909 86,716,981 112,208,589Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$13,694Consent Decree to SNCR$4,596Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$18,290

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 38 of 41 Table 37 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.60 1.05 0.98 1.21 1.60 Bandelier 0.60 0.98 1.02 0.87 1.02 Black Canyon 0.67 0.64 0.77 0.69 0.77 Canyonlands 2.00 1.22 1.28 1.50 2.00 Capitol Reef 1.31 0.41 0.55 0.76 1.31 Grand Canyon 0.56 0.41 0.31 0.43 0.56 Great Sand Dunes 0.35 0.39 0.31 0.35 0.39 La Garita 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.50 0.52 Maroon Bells 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.28 Mesa Verde 3.03 3.51 2.91 3.15 3.51 Pecos 0.53 0.65 0.76 0.65 0.76 Petrified Forest 0.45 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.45 San Pedro 1.24 1.48 1.27 1.33 1.48 West Elk 0.46 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.49 Weminuche 0.70 1.03 0.81 0.85 1.03 Wheeler Peak 0.45 0.46 0.42 0.44 0.46 Overall 0.86 3.51

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 39 of 41 Table 38 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.31 0.88 0.82 1.00 1.31 Bandelier 0.42 0.73 0.75 0.63 0.75 Black Canyon 0.48 0.51 0.60 0.53 0.60 Canyonlands 1.66 1.11 1.04 1.27 1.66 Capitol Reef 0.99 0.27 0.41 0.56 0.99 Grand Canyon 0.43 0.30 0.22 0.32 0.43 Great Sand Dunes 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.27 La Garita 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.37 Maroon Bells 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 Mesa Verde 2.39 2.82 2.34 2.52 2.82 Pecos 0.38 0.47 0.54 0.46 0.54 Petrified Forest 0.31 0.20 0.19 0.23 0.31 San Pedro 0.94 1.11 1.00 1.02 1.11 West Elk 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.38 Weminuche 0.51 0.70 0.58 0.60 0.70 Wheeler Peak 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.34 Overall 0.67 2.82

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 40 of 41 Table 39 SNCR Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.04 0.70 0.66 0.80 1.04 Bandelier 0.35 0.60 0.60 0.52 0.60 Black Canyon 0.39 0.40 0.48 0.42 0.48 Canyonlands 1.33 0.89 0.83 1.02 1.33 Capitol Reef 0.79 0.25 0.35 0.46 0.79 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.25 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.22 La Garita 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.31 Maroon Bells 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Mesa Verde 2.08 2.35 2.01 2.15 2.35 Pecos 0.32 0.39 0.46 0.39 0.46 Petrified Forest 0.31 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.31 San Pedro 0.94 0.90 1.00 0.94 1.00 West Elk 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.31 Weminuche 0.42 0.56 0.51 0.50 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.28 Overall 0.56 2.35Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 41 of 41Table 40Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Constant Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SNCRPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSNCRPre-ConsentDecree to SNCRArches1.601.311.040.290.270.56 47,527,586 17,278,195 33,055,755Bandelier1.020.750.600.270.150.42 51,048,148 31,479,452 44,180,288Black Canyon0.770.600.480.170.120.29 81,076,471 39,620,690 64,262,238Canyonlands2.001.661.330.340.330.67 40,538,235 13,927,273 27,431,343Capitol Reef1.310.990.790.320.200.52 43,071,875 22,865,672 35,276,392Grand Canyon0.560.430.350.130.090.22 106,023,077 54,070,588 85,483,721Great Sand Dunes0.390.270.220.120.050.17 114,858,333 90,117,647 107,479,532La Garita0.520.370.310.150.060.21 91,886,667 72,952,381 86,286,385Maroon Bells0.280.220.170.060.050.11 229,716,667 93,795,918 168,614,679Mesa Verde3.512.822.350.690.471.16 19,975,362 9,841,542 15,885,048Pecos0.760.540.460.220.090.31 62,650,000 54,070,588 60,259,016Petrified Forest0.450.310.310.140.000.14 98,450,000 4,596,000,000 130,347,518San Pedro1.481.111.000.370.110.48 37,251,351 40,315,789 37,973,140West Elk0.490.380.310.110.070.18 125,300,000 62,958,904 100,431,694Weminuche1.030.700.560.330.140.47 41,766,667 32,595,745 39,021,231Wheeler Peak0.460.340.280.120.060.18 114,858,333 79,241,379 103,252,809Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$13,783Consent Decree to SNCR$4,596Pre-Consent Decree to SNCR$18,379PNM SJGS BART Modeling Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 45 1.61 72.40 20.28 3.26 0.83 0.54 2.69 100 BAND 43 0.92 41.86 53.84 1.89 0.48 0.45 1.47 100 BLCA 20 0.84 53.16 42.04 2.12 0.54 0.45 1.69 100 CANY 63 2.15 73.09 23.31 1.59 0.41 0.34 1.26 100 CARE 27 1.64 58.97 36.17 2.13 0.54 0.53 1.66 100 GRCA 11 0.85 43.66 53.93 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.86 100 GRSA 10 0.58 81.57 12.19 2.87 0.73 0.39 2.24 100 LAGA 14 0.76 32.46 62.80 2.10 0.54 0.47 1.63 100 MABE 8 0.51 45.12 51.36 1.58 0.40 0.28 1.25 100 MEVE 153 3.36 76.09 9.01 6.32 1.61 2.11 4.87 100 PECO 30 0.90 48.12 48.79 1.38 0.35 0.27 1.08 100 PEFO 13 0.77 88.28 8.12 1.57 0.40 0.38 1.24 100 SAPE 85 1.31 76.57 16.80 2.87 0.73 0.83 2.21 100 WEEL 16 0.74 86.35 7.65 2.68 0.68 0.49 2.14 100 WEMI 44 1.03 90.40 1.92 3.41 0.87 0.73 2.66 100 WHPE 20 0.68 80.74 13.39 2.64 0.67 0.50 2.06 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 30 1.50 40.60 54.00 2.36 0.60 0.61 1.83 100 BAND 50 1.37 40.97 52.37 2.93 0.75 0.72 2.26 100 BLCA 27 1.00 39.08 58.62 1.04 0.27 0.17 0.82 100 CANY 50 1.61 44.41 50.77 2.07 0.53 0.61 1.60 100 CARE 13 0.72 39.07 58.93 0.88 0.22 0.18 0.71 100 GRCA 10 0.65 51.96 46.35 0.75 0.19 0.14 0.61 100 GRSA 10 0.62 34.26 61.88 1.73 0.44 0.32 1.36 100 LAGA 23 0.80 33.16 60.81 2.68 0.69 0.60 2.07 100 MABE 6 0.48 35.17 62.26 1.14 0.29 0.23 0.91 100 MEVE 157 3.22 78.22 10.20 4.95 1.26 1.53 3.83 100 PECO 35 0.94 49.33 48.91 0.78 0.20 0.15 0.62 100 PEFO 8 0.54 93.61 1.55 2.15 0.55 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 97 1.80 40.29 54.47 2.29 0.58 0.58 1.79 100 WEEL 20 0.77 41.97 52.50 2.48 0.63 0.47 1.94 100 WEMI 62 1.35 39.83 58.09 0.91 0.23 0.23 0.71 100 WHPE 17 0.77 37.84 60.45 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 24 1.27 75.50 21.82 1.18 0.30 0.26 0.94 100 BAND 50 1.15 81.84 13.09 2.22 0.57 0.55 1.73 100 BLCA 18 0.97 45.30 50.29 1.92 0.49 0.49 1.51 100 CANY 44 1.61 73.72 21.32 2.17 0.55 0.51 1.73 100 CARE 22 1.00 48.93 48.71 1.03 0.26 0.24 0.82 100 GRCA 8 0.57 94.20 0.84 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 11 0.52 55.69 41.08 1.44 0.37 0.30 1.13 100 LAGA 14 0.78 53.34 43.35 1.47 0.37 0.33 1.14 100 MABE 6 0.44 32.33 64.40 1.43 0.37 0.33 1.13 100 MEVE 156 3.58 82.03 0.93 7.25 1.85 2.36 5.58 100 PECO 41 0.91 73.33 23.52 1.42 0.36 0.24 1.12 100 PEFO 8 0.50 90.77 5.30 1.76 0.45 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 90 1.48 84.06 9.18 2.93 0.75 0.79 2.29 100 WEEL 14 0.71 33.15 62.15 2.05 0.52 0.52 1.60 100 WEMI 56 1.16 36.56 60.24 1.42 0.36 0.29 1.12 100 WHPE 22 0.75 29.49 65.94 2.03 0.52 0.44 1.59 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.58 30.49 65.93 1.57 0.40 0.37 1.24 100 BAND 1 0.20 31.68 64.38 1.80 0.46 0.29 1.40 100 BLCA 1 0.23 29.45 67.68 1.25 0.32 0.33 0.98 100 CANY 20 0.87 42.24 55.66 0.93 0.24 0.20 0.74 100 CARE 7 0.46 33.38 64.70 0.83 0.21 0.21 0.66 100 GRCA 2 0.22 37.68 60.22 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 0 0.12 80.37 13.49 2.82 0.72 0.39 2.21 100 LAGA 0 0.16 32.01 63.24 2.11 0.54 0.47 1.64 100 MABE 0 0.11 25.74 69.34 2.18 0.56 0.50 1.69 100 MEVE 31 1.19 33.44 64.17 1.02 0.26 0.32 0.79 100 PECO 0 0.19 33.00 64.36 1.19 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 PEFO 1 0.17 33.24 64.57 0.95 0.24 0.26 0.74 100 SAPE 6 0.36 33.46 62.66 1.70 0.44 0.42 1.32 100 WEEL 0 0.18 40.97 55.84 1.43 0.36 0.27 1.13 100 WEMI 2 0.25 30.21 64.02 2.49 0.64 0.72 1.93 100 WHPE 1 0.16 44.25 53.24 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.89 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.44 29.61 66.50 1.70 0.43 0.43 1.32 100 BAND 4 0.33 37.84 59.53 1.15 0.30 0.27 0.91 100 BLCA 0 0.23 31.64 65.58 1.23 0.31 0.25 0.98 100 CANY 9 0.53 29.21 67.36 1.49 0.38 0.39 1.17 100 CARE 1 0.15 38.51 59.52 0.86 0.22 0.18 0.70 100 GRCA 0 0.14 51.64 46.71 0.73 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 GRSA 0 0.13 34.43 61.81 1.69 0.43 0.31 1.33 100 LAGA 0 0.17 31.97 64.58 1.49 0.38 0.41 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.10 34.91 59.18 2.72 0.70 0.28 2.21 100 MEVE 45 1.24 57.38 30.54 5.12 1.31 1.69 3.95 100 PECO 1 0.21 49.72 46.50 1.68 0.43 0.35 1.33 100 PEFO 0 0.11 34.26 63.03 1.21 0.31 0.19 1.00 100 SAPE 7 0.48 33.05 62.86 1.79 0.46 0.44 1.41 100 WEEL 0 0.16 30.57 65.44 1.74 0.45 0.47 1.35 100 WEMI 1 0.36 52.83 41.13 2.59 0.66 0.78 2.01 100 WHPE 0 0.14 38.69 59.63 0.74 0.19 0.15 0.60 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 6 0.45 58.05 39.91 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 BAND 1 0.30 29.57 66.43 1.75 0.45 0.44 1.36 100 BLCA 0 0.23 31.76 65.95 1.00 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CANY 7 0.49 57.57 40.40 0.89 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 CARE 2 0.21 94.25 1.16 2.01 0.51 0.47 1.60 100 GRCA 0 0.12 94.04 1.01 2.19 0.56 0.45 1.75 100 GRSA 0 0.12 33.39 63.49 1.39 0.36 0.27 1.11 100 LAGA 0 0.17 42.31 54.78 1.28 0.33 0.31 1.00 100 MABE 0 0.09 40.33 55.64 1.86 0.48 0.23 1.46 100 MEVE 43 1.13 47.22 42.12 4.52 1.16 1.50 3.49 100 PECO 1 0.23 60.82 34.74 1.99 0.51 0.36 1.59 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.57 5.52 1.74 0.45 0.32 1.40 100 SAPE 5 0.43 32.86 61.98 2.22 0.57 0.65 1.72 100 WEEL 0 0.17 43.51 54.53 0.86 0.22 0.20 0.69 100 WEMI 2 0.30 30.17 62.47 3.19 0.82 0.87 2.48 100 WHPE 0 0.18 42.56 55.63 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.64 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.57 30.47 65.95 1.58 0.40 0.37 1.23 100 BAND 1 0.20 31.69 64.37 1.81 0.46 0.29 1.39 100 BLCA 1 0.23 29.45 67.67 1.25 0.32 0.33 0.97 100 CANY 20 0.87 42.22 55.67 0.93 0.24 0.20 0.74 100 CARE 7 0.46 33.38 64.70 0.84 0.21 0.21 0.66 100 GRCA 2 0.22 37.68 60.22 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 0 0.12 42.29 50.10 3.47 0.89 0.57 2.68 100 LAGA 0 0.16 32.01 63.23 2.12 0.54 0.47 1.63 100 MABE 0 0.11 25.74 69.33 2.19 0.56 0.50 1.68 100 MEVE 31 1.19 33.43 64.17 1.02 0.26 0.32 0.79 100 PECO 0 0.19 33.00 64.36 1.19 0.31 0.22 0.93 100 PEFO 1 0.17 33.24 64.56 0.95 0.24 0.26 0.74 100 SAPE 6 0.36 33.45 62.66 1.71 0.44 0.42 1.31 100 WEEL 0 0.18 40.97 55.84 1.43 0.37 0.27 1.12 100 WEMI 2 0.25 30.20 64.01 2.50 0.64 0.73 1.92 100 WHPE 1 0.16 44.25 53.24 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.89 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.44 29.61 66.50 1.70 0.44 0.43 1.32 100 BAND 4 0.33 37.84 59.53 1.16 0.30 0.27 0.91 100 BLCA 0 0.23 31.64 65.58 1.23 0.32 0.25 0.98 100 CANY 9 0.52 29.20 67.36 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.17 100 CARE 1 0.15 36.80 61.56 0.72 0.18 0.17 0.57 100 GRCA 0 0.14 51.64 46.70 0.73 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 GRSA 0 0.13 34.43 61.80 1.70 0.43 0.31 1.32 100 LAGA 0 0.17 31.97 64.58 1.50 0.38 0.41 1.15 100 MABE 0 0.10 34.91 59.18 2.74 0.70 0.28 2.19 100 MEVE 44 1.24 57.35 30.56 5.14 1.32 1.70 3.93 100 PECO 1 0.21 49.71 46.50 1.68 0.43 0.35 1.32 100 PEFO 0 0.11 34.26 63.03 1.22 0.31 0.19 0.99 100 SAPE 7 0.48 33.05 62.86 1.80 0.46 0.44 1.40 100 WEEL 0 0.16 30.56 65.43 1.75 0.45 0.47 1.34 100 WEMI 1 0.36 52.82 41.13 2.61 0.67 0.78 1.99 100 WHPE 0 0.14 38.69 59.63 0.75 0.19 0.15 0.59 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 6 0.44 58.04 39.92 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 BAND 1 0.30 29.57 66.43 1.76 0.45 0.44 1.35 100 BLCA 0 0.22 31.76 65.95 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.79 100 CANY 6 0.48 57.56 40.42 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 CARE 2 0.21 94.24 1.16 2.02 0.52 0.47 1.59 100 GRCA 0 0.12 94.04 1.01 2.20 0.56 0.45 1.74 100 GRSA 0 0.12 33.39 63.49 1.39 0.36 0.27 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.17 42.31 54.78 1.28 0.33 0.31 0.99 100 MABE 0 0.09 40.34 55.63 1.87 0.48 0.23 1.45 100 MEVE 43 1.13 47.19 42.16 4.53 1.16 1.50 3.47 100 PECO 1 0.23 60.82 34.73 2.00 0.51 0.36 1.58 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.57 5.52 1.75 0.45 0.32 1.39 100 SAPE 5 0.43 32.82 62.02 2.23 0.57 0.65 1.71 100 WEEL 0 0.17 43.51 54.53 0.86 0.22 0.20 0.68 100 WEMI 2 0.30 30.17 62.46 3.20 0.82 0.88 2.47 100 WHPE 0 0.17 42.56 55.63 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.64 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 17 0.79 40.17 57.68 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 BAND 1 0.32 30.96 65.01 1.85 0.47 0.30 1.42 100 BLCA 3 0.36 31.46 64.52 1.79 0.45 0.41 1.37 100 CANY 27 1.01 49.69 47.77 1.08 0.27 0.35 0.83 100 CARE 12 0.71 33.00 65.07 0.84 0.21 0.22 0.66 100 GRCA 4 0.28 38.94 58.92 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 GRSA 0 0.18 80.39 13.47 2.83 0.71 0.39 2.21 100 LAGA 0 0.26 82.76 12.56 2.07 0.52 0.47 1.61 100 MABE 0 0.16 40.46 56.29 1.47 0.37 0.26 1.15 100 MEVE 57 1.50 75.56 6.27 7.69 1.94 2.65 5.89 100 PECO 2 0.29 37.38 59.81 1.31 0.33 0.16 1.02 100 PEFO 2 0.27 33.14 64.66 0.95 0.24 0.27 0.73 100 SAPE 10 0.59 33.16 62.84 1.75 0.44 0.47 1.34 100 WEEL 1 0.25 41.35 54.94 1.68 0.42 0.29 1.31 100 WEMI 2 0.36 31.69 63.95 1.91 0.48 0.50 1.47 100 WHPE 2 0.22 64.07 31.10 2.15 0.54 0.46 1.67 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 10 0.54 35.39 60.04 1.99 0.50 0.54 1.53 100 BAND 8 0.50 37.47 59.77 1.22 0.31 0.27 0.96 100 BLCA 4 0.33 34.88 62.96 0.97 0.24 0.17 0.76 100 CANY 14 0.71 37.34 60.15 1.11 0.28 0.25 0.88 100 CARE 4 0.23 38.68 59.34 0.87 0.22 0.18 0.70 100 GRCA 1 0.20 50.52 47.83 0.73 0.18 0.14 0.60 100 GRSA 0 0.20 33.71 62.43 1.74 0.44 0.32 1.36 100 LAGA 0 0.28 39.01 59.09 0.84 0.21 0.18 0.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 34.97 59.07 2.76 0.70 0.30 2.21 100 MEVE 73 1.75 46.72 49.24 1.73 0.44 0.52 1.35 100 PECO 3 0.30 46.55 47.29 2.80 0.71 0.46 2.19 100 PEFO 0 0.17 93.49 1.65 2.16 0.55 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 23 0.67 34.23 61.17 2.01 0.51 0.52 1.56 100 WEEL 1 0.27 39.32 55.42 2.36 0.60 0.46 1.84 100 WEMI 9 0.54 25.98 69.95 1.75 0.44 0.52 1.35 100 WHPE 0 0.26 52.36 46.16 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.55 35.09 58.78 2.65 0.67 0.78 2.03 100 BAND 8 0.50 28.62 67.27 1.80 0.46 0.47 1.39 100 BLCA 1 0.38 40.36 57.47 0.96 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 CANY 11 0.68 56.74 39.80 1.52 0.38 0.32 1.23 100 CARE 3 0.33 53.73 44.06 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.79 100 GRCA 0 0.18 94.07 0.99 2.19 0.55 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.17 29.37 66.22 1.96 0.50 0.42 1.52 100 LAGA 1 0.27 44.37 53.03 1.16 0.29 0.22 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.14 28.24 68.66 1.36 0.34 0.34 1.06 100 MEVE 60 1.59 49.07 39.71 4.77 1.20 1.59 3.66 100 PECO 2 0.36 60.12 35.47 1.98 0.50 0.36 1.57 100 PEFO 0 0.16 90.50 5.58 1.76 0.44 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 11 0.61 32.36 61.72 2.56 0.65 0.75 1.96 100 WEEL 0 0.28 28.69 68.28 1.32 0.33 0.35 1.03 100 WEMI 5 0.41 29.04 64.34 2.97 0.75 0.57 2.34 100 WHPE 1 0.24 29.04 66.47 2.00 0.50 0.43 1.57 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.79 39.99 57.86 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 BAND 1 0.31 30.99 64.97 1.84 0.47 0.30 1.43 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.42 64.57 1.78 0.46 0.41 1.37 100 CANY 27 1.01 49.40 48.07 1.08 0.28 0.35 0.83 100 CARE 12 0.71 33.04 65.03 0.84 0.22 0.22 0.66 100 GRCA 4 0.29 34.30 63.73 0.87 0.22 0.20 0.68 100 GRSA 0 0.18 80.37 13.47 2.83 0.73 0.39 2.21 100 LAGA 0 0.25 82.77 12.53 2.07 0.53 0.47 1.62 100 MABE 0 0.17 40.27 56.52 1.45 0.37 0.25 1.14 100 MEVE 57 1.49 75.14 6.79 7.62 1.96 2.63 5.86 100 PECO 2 0.29 50.01 46.73 1.47 0.38 0.26 1.15 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 1 0.25 41.07 55.28 1.65 0.42 0.28 1.29 100 WEMI 2 0.36 31.71 63.93 1.90 0.49 0.49 1.47 100 WHPE 2 0.22 34.73 63.06 1.00 0.26 0.17 0.79 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 35.26 60.17 1.98 0.51 0.54 1.54 100 BAND 6 0.49 37.43 59.81 1.22 0.31 0.27 0.96 100 BLCA 4 0.34 25.21 71.68 1.34 0.35 0.38 1.04 100 CANY 14 0.71 37.25 60.23 1.11 0.29 0.25 0.88 100 CARE 4 0.23 38.70 59.32 0.87 0.22 0.18 0.70 100 GRCA 1 0.20 50.42 47.92 0.73 0.19 0.14 0.60 100 GRSA 0 0.19 33.70 62.42 1.74 0.45 0.33 1.36 100 LAGA 0 0.27 39.05 59.06 0.84 0.22 0.18 0.67 100 MABE 0 0.16 40.78 54.76 2.01 0.52 0.36 1.58 100 MEVE 71 1.73 46.32 49.67 1.71 0.44 0.52 1.34 100 PECO 3 0.30 46.58 47.24 2.80 0.72 0.46 2.20 100 PEFO 0 0.17 93.49 1.65 2.15 0.56 0.44 1.71 100 SAPE 22 0.66 34.15 61.26 2.00 0.51 0.51 1.56 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.78 65.04 1.81 0.47 0.50 1.40 100 WEMI 8 0.54 25.87 70.07 1.75 0.45 0.52 1.35 100 WHPE 0 0.26 36.50 61.80 0.75 0.19 0.15 0.60 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.53 34.84 59.13 2.60 0.67 0.76 2.01 100 BAND 7 0.49 28.60 67.28 1.80 0.46 0.47 1.39 100 BLCA 1 0.37 40.59 57.23 0.96 0.25 0.22 0.76 100 CANY 12 0.67 54.33 42.11 1.55 0.40 0.36 1.24 100 CARE 3 0.32 53.74 44.05 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.79 100 GRCA 0 0.17 94.07 0.98 2.18 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.16 29.36 66.21 1.96 0.51 0.42 1.53 100 LAGA 0 0.26 26.64 68.50 2.24 0.58 0.20 1.84 100 MABE 0 0.14 40.85 56.95 0.96 0.25 0.24 0.75 100 MEVE 58 1.58 49.15 39.60 4.76 1.23 1.59 3.67 100 PECO 2 0.36 60.28 35.31 1.97 0.51 0.36 1.57 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 0 0.26 29.19 68.62 0.95 0.24 0.24 0.75 100 WEMI 5 0.40 28.99 64.37 2.96 0.76 0.57 2.34 100 WHPE 1 0.23 29.01 66.48 1.99 0.51 0.43 1.57 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 63 3.88 29.98 65.42 1.19 0.73 0.68 1.99 100 BAND 83 1.76 25.84 70.52 0.96 0.59 0.60 1.50 100 BLCA 52 1.97 23.12 72.14 1.20 0.73 0.95 1.86 100 CANY 86 5.13 30.60 66.54 0.72 0.44 0.55 1.16 100 CARE 33 3.75 24.65 73.07 0.55 0.34 0.51 0.87 100 GRCA 14 1.76 26.45 71.33 0.56 0.34 0.41 0.91 100 GRSA 28 1.09 29.07 62.55 2.23 1.37 1.29 3.49 100 LAGA 48 1.46 24.79 71.54 0.90 0.55 0.84 1.40 100 MABE 19 0.89 19.82 73.71 1.62 0.99 1.35 2.52 100 MEVE 194 6.04 61.06 23.56 3.54 2.17 4.16 5.51 100 PECO 62 1.59 28.83 67.96 0.89 0.55 0.37 1.40 100 PEFO 21 1.34 37.69 58.19 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.68 100 SAPE 123 3.47 21.59 74.14 1.04 0.64 0.99 1.62 100 WEEL 51 1.45 23.15 73.90 0.75 0.46 0.53 1.21 100 WEMI 88 2.01 28.91 63.92 1.74 1.06 1.67 2.70 100 WHPE 46 1.32 84.34 10.11 1.38 0.85 1.15 2.18 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 54 3.63 26.14 71.28 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.95 100 BAND 68 1.32 29.07 69.42 0.68 0.17 0.12 0.54 100 BLCA 37 1.49 27.25 70.10 1.19 0.30 0.23 0.93 100 CANY 72 4.80 28.49 70.10 0.62 0.16 0.13 0.49 100 CARE 31 2.89 23.77 74.85 0.60 0.15 0.15 0.47 100 GRCA 12 1.46 24.80 73.83 0.61 0.15 0.12 0.49 100 GRSA 21 0.83 29.17 65.57 2.39 0.61 0.40 1.85 100 LAGA 26 1.08 24.16 74.12 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 11 0.70 20.03 76.10 1.71 0.44 0.40 1.32 100 MEVE 173 5.27 25.48 71.07 1.47 0.37 0.48 1.13 100 PECO 49 1.20 35.48 62.23 1.02 0.26 0.20 0.80 100 PEFO 16 0.96 36.46 60.95 1.14 0.29 0.23 0.91 100 SAPE 107 2.68 20.98 76.53 1.09 0.28 0.28 0.84 100 WEEL 29 1.12 22.44 75.75 0.81 0.21 0.16 0.64 100 WEMI 65 1.56 21.65 75.52 1.21 0.31 0.39 0.93 100 WHPE 30 0.96 37.15 59.53 1.49 0.38 0.29 1.16 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 50 3.06 25.78 71.16 1.35 0.34 0.31 1.06 100 BAND 49 1.09 27.96 68.10 1.78 0.45 0.34 1.38 100 BLCA 30 1.22 33.89 62.82 1.48 0.38 0.28 1.16 100 CANY 69 4.04 35.25 63.02 0.77 0.20 0.16 0.61 100 CARE 29 2.36 29.97 68.29 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.60 100 GRCA 11 1.18 31.10 67.18 0.76 0.19 0.16 0.61 100 GRSA 14 0.69 35.23 58.42 2.89 0.74 0.48 2.24 100 LAGA 20 0.87 30.43 67.40 0.97 0.25 0.18 0.77 100 MABE 8 0.56 25.24 69.89 2.15 0.55 0.51 1.66 100 MEVE 167 4.63 68.12 15.50 6.91 1.77 2.38 5.31 100 PECO 42 1.01 84.15 11.58 1.91 0.49 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 13 0.89 31.69 66.21 0.91 0.23 0.26 0.71 100 SAPE 96 2.19 26.34 70.53 1.37 0.35 0.36 1.05 100 WEEL 18 0.90 28.37 69.33 1.02 0.26 0.21 0.81 100 WEMI 55 1.29 27.20 69.11 1.57 0.40 0.51 1.21 100 WHPE 26 0.89 87.73 8.49 1.66 0.42 0.40 1.30 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling Nitrate Repartitioning - 1 ppb NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 49 2.93 21.16 75.39 0.85 0.52 0.74 1.34 100 BAND 102 2.55 25.19 70.67 1.08 0.66 0.67 1.71 100 BLCA 64 1.95 17.79 78.56 0.88 0.54 0.87 1.37 100 CANY 70 3.81 24.38 71.27 1.08 0.66 0.90 1.70 100 CARE 25 1.20 88.07 1.40 2.63 1.61 2.09 4.20 100 GRCA 16 1.28 35.67 62.58 0.44 0.27 0.29 0.74 100 GRSA 37 1.10 26.69 71.00 0.61 0.37 0.35 0.98 100 LAGA 72 1.45 22.21 74.60 0.81 0.50 0.58 1.30 100 MABE 25 0.85 27.13 69.91 0.76 0.47 0.52 1.22 100 MEVE 195 5.98 40.37 54.69 1.16 0.71 1.23 1.84 100 PECO 76 1.93 32.04 61.71 1.66 1.02 0.97 2.62 100 PEFO 19 0.86 27.40 70.14 0.63 0.39 0.40 1.04 100 SAPE 134 3.47 46.92 47.24 1.46 0.90 1.21 2.28 100 WEEL 52 1.47 23.60 71.12 1.28 0.78 1.24 1.98 100 WEMI 132 2.57 23.39 72.00 1.07 0.66 1.21 1.67 100 WHPE 47 1.44 42.09 56.16 0.45 0.27 0.31 0.73 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 35 2.82 27.29 71.11 0.70 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 BAND 82 2.07 26.08 69.71 1.85 0.47 0.45 1.43 100 BLCA 42 1.56 20.99 77.05 0.87 0.22 0.20 0.67 100 CANY 61 3.29 23.00 74.53 1.09 0.28 0.25 0.85 100 CARE 19 0.93 26.49 72.34 0.51 0.13 0.12 0.41 100 GRCA 12 0.98 34.05 64.84 0.49 0.12 0.09 0.40 100 GRSA 20 0.80 25.18 73.35 0.66 0.17 0.11 0.53 100 LAGA 49 1.13 21.66 76.37 0.88 0.22 0.18 0.69 100 MABE 16 0.66 23.88 74.36 0.77 0.20 0.18 0.61 100 MEVE 177 5.67 30.72 67.01 0.97 0.25 0.28 0.76 100 PECO 54 1.47 32.10 63.84 1.84 0.47 0.31 1.44 100 PEFO 13 0.66 25.94 72.52 0.69 0.18 0.12 0.56 100 SAPE 117 2.91 27.67 68.39 1.72 0.44 0.45 1.33 100 WEEL 35 1.12 22.69 74.27 1.32 0.34 0.36 1.02 100 WEMI 99 2.00 20.06 76.79 1.36 0.35 0.40 1.05 100 WHPE 28 1.06 27.12 71.66 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.43 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 31 2.31 26.14 71.31 1.11 0.28 0.27 0.87 100 BAND 65 1.76 31.20 63.77 2.22 0.57 0.54 1.71 100 BLCA 34 1.26 26.50 71.01 1.09 0.28 0.26 0.85 100 CANY 60 2.72 31.70 66.17 0.94 0.24 0.21 0.74 100 CARE 19 0.80 35.32 62.88 0.79 0.20 0.17 0.64 100 GRCA 10 0.81 41.58 57.06 0.60 0.15 0.11 0.49 100 GRSA 14 0.65 31.48 66.69 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.66 100 LAGA 33 0.90 27.68 69.80 1.12 0.29 0.23 0.89 100 MABE 11 0.54 87.55 9.43 1.36 0.35 0.24 1.07 100 MEVE 169 5.30 35.11 61.32 1.54 0.39 0.44 1.20 100 PECO 45 1.23 38.90 56.18 2.23 0.57 0.38 1.74 100 PEFO 9 0.54 93.61 1.55 2.15 0.55 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 109 2.61 46.66 49.62 1.65 0.42 0.38 1.27 100 WEEL 26 0.91 35.16 60.21 2.08 0.53 0.39 1.63 100 WEMI 79 1.77 41.97 56.32 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 WHPE 20 0.86 33.80 64.67 0.68 0.17 0.13 0.54 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 44 3.04 22.97 72.89 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.56 100 BAND 92 2.83 25.53 70.07 1.12 0.68 0.86 1.74 100 BLCA 43 2.15 32.21 62.82 1.19 0.73 1.17 1.87 100 CANY 61 3.75 32.48 65.63 0.47 0.29 0.36 0.77 100 CARE 27 1.61 87.50 0.87 2.81 1.72 2.68 4.41 100 GRCA 12 0.92 47.94 47.28 1.21 0.74 0.86 1.96 100 GRSA 32 0.96 42.44 53.87 0.95 0.58 0.67 1.50 100 LAGA 49 1.52 27.92 67.48 1.17 0.72 0.90 1.82 100 MABE 17 0.91 20.17 76.39 0.85 0.52 0.74 1.33 100 MEVE 182 5.85 28.35 66.46 1.19 0.73 1.43 1.85 100 PECO 81 2.23 40.55 56.89 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 PEFO 18 0.78 18.88 78.20 0.76 0.47 0.47 1.21 100 SAPE 140 3.35 26.53 67.27 1.49 0.91 1.49 2.32 100 WEEL 37 1.42 25.63 69.73 1.13 0.69 1.07 1.75 100 WEMI 104 2.25 28.72 68.06 0.82 0.50 0.59 1.32 100 WHPE 58 1.35 29.44 68.47 0.53 0.32 0.39 0.84 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 34 2.71 22.19 75.32 1.07 0.27 0.30 0.84 100 BAND 69 2.14 25.04 72.32 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.91 100 BLCA 31 1.76 26.99 71.60 0.62 0.16 0.14 0.49 100 CANY 51 3.05 30.81 68.00 0.52 0.13 0.11 0.42 100 CARE 25 1.24 26.77 72.03 0.53 0.14 0.08 0.45 100 GRCA 10 0.68 45.83 51.15 1.34 0.34 0.27 1.07 100 GRSA 19 0.71 22.61 75.07 1.03 0.26 0.21 0.82 100 LAGA 36 1.15 35.52 62.27 0.98 0.25 0.22 0.76 100 MABE 14 0.65 19.66 78.34 0.88 0.22 0.21 0.69 100 MEVE 169 5.10 57.33 32.99 4.09 1.05 1.40 3.15 100 PECO 60 1.67 38.62 59.73 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.59 100 PEFO 11 0.60 65.22 31.37 1.53 0.39 0.27 1.23 100 SAPE 117 2.78 23.83 73.49 1.15 0.29 0.34 0.89 100 WEEL 25 1.09 28.07 69.57 1.03 0.26 0.25 0.81 100 WEMI 80 1.68 27.81 70.15 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 34 1.15 28.67 70.05 0.57 0.14 0.12 0.45 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 29 2.22 27.76 69.12 1.34 0.34 0.37 1.05 100 BAND 65 1.76 30.99 65.75 1.45 0.37 0.32 1.13 100 BLCA 25 1.44 33.74 64.51 0.78 0.20 0.17 0.61 100 CANY 50 2.53 38.22 60.32 0.65 0.16 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 24 1.12 91.50 0.76 3.36 0.86 0.91 2.61 100 GRCA 9 0.59 53.12 43.38 1.55 0.40 0.32 1.24 100 GRSA 13 0.59 26.07 70.04 1.73 0.44 0.37 1.35 100 LAGA 24 0.97 42.82 54.51 1.18 0.30 0.27 0.92 100 MABE 8 0.52 25.08 72.38 1.12 0.29 0.26 0.88 100 MEVE 164 4.74 32.32 63.19 1.92 0.49 0.58 1.50 100 PECO 50 1.38 28.83 68.34 1.24 0.32 0.31 0.96 100 PEFO 9 0.53 23.41 74.25 1.05 0.27 0.19 0.83 100 SAPE 104 2.34 28.97 67.78 1.40 0.36 0.42 1.08 100 WEEL 22 0.90 34.48 62.61 1.27 0.32 0.31 1.00 100 WEMI 67 1.45 29.36 67.98 1.14 0.29 0.33 0.89 100 WHPE 26 0.93 35.59 62.82 0.70 0.18 0.15 0.56 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 19 1.10 19.01 77.17 0.95 0.58 0.78 1.51 100 BAND 4 0.36 22.47 72.83 1.27 0.77 0.68 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.39 32.95 64.66 0.58 0.35 0.55 0.91 100 CANY 33 1.50 27.68 70.07 0.57 0.34 0.43 0.91 100 CARE 16 0.85 23.21 74.50 0.56 0.34 0.51 0.89 100 GRCA 7 0.39 24.41 73.35 0.57 0.34 0.41 0.92 100 GRSA 0 0.22 27.18 69.52 0.88 0.53 0.52 1.38 100 LAGA 2 0.29 23.67 73.56 0.73 0.44 0.45 1.16 100 MABE 1 0.19 18.91 74.76 1.59 0.96 1.32 2.47 100 MEVE 70 2.26 29.86 61.29 2.04 1.23 2.40 3.18 100 PECO 2 0.33 34.59 61.76 0.94 0.57 0.65 1.49 100 PEFO 2 0.26 35.35 60.49 1.06 0.64 0.75 1.71 100 SAPE 20 0.80 19.87 76.10 0.99 0.60 0.90 1.54 100 WEEL 4 0.33 21.87 75.20 0.75 0.45 0.52 1.20 100 WEMI 4 0.45 19.30 75.87 1.12 0.68 1.30 1.74 100 WHPE 2 0.27 35.33 59.48 1.35 0.82 0.90 2.13 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 17 0.86 21.45 76.02 1.09 0.28 0.30 0.86 100 BAND 1 0.29 24.57 72.22 1.47 0.38 0.23 1.14 100 BLCA 3 0.31 27.85 69.57 1.16 0.30 0.21 0.91 100 CANY 27 1.25 21.94 76.75 0.58 0.15 0.11 0.47 100 CARE 14 0.66 21.10 77.27 0.73 0.19 0.14 0.58 100 GRCA 5 0.34 24.25 74.40 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.48 100 GRSA 0 0.16 21.08 77.03 0.84 0.21 0.18 0.66 100 LAGA 0 0.22 24.76 73.54 0.76 0.20 0.14 0.60 100 MABE 0 0.15 19.83 76.38 1.68 0.43 0.39 1.30 100 MEVE 53 1.96 21.72 74.78 1.49 0.38 0.46 1.16 100 PECO 2 0.25 35.11 62.63 1.01 0.26 0.20 0.79 100 PEFO 2 0.19 24.50 73.18 1.03 0.26 0.22 0.81 100 SAPE 10 0.57 20.85 76.74 1.06 0.27 0.26 0.82 100 WEEL 1 0.25 22.38 75.51 0.92 0.23 0.23 0.72 100 WEMI 2 0.34 27.74 65.03 3.15 0.81 0.83 2.44 100 WHPE 2 0.23 29.48 68.87 0.76 0.19 0.10 0.61 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.69 27.14 69.65 1.39 0.35 0.38 1.08 100 BAND 1 0.23 37.66 57.02 2.35 0.60 0.51 1.85 100 BLCA 1 0.25 34.68 62.12 1.44 0.37 0.26 1.14 100 CANY 24 0.99 27.96 70.35 0.74 0.19 0.15 0.60 100 CARE 10 0.52 26.56 71.27 0.97 0.25 0.19 0.76 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.48 67.82 0.75 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.13 91.64 4.93 1.51 0.39 0.35 1.18 100 LAGA 0 0.18 31.15 66.71 0.96 0.25 0.17 0.76 100 MABE 0 0.12 25.03 70.18 2.12 0.54 0.49 1.64 100 MEVE 43 1.61 26.96 68.69 1.86 0.48 0.58 1.44 100 PECO 1 0.22 27.00 68.63 1.92 0.49 0.47 1.49 100 PEFO 2 0.17 31.80 66.11 0.91 0.23 0.25 0.71 100 SAPE 7 0.45 26.39 70.55 1.34 0.34 0.33 1.04 100 WEEL 0 0.20 28.26 69.08 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.91 100 WEMI 2 0.27 28.26 68.08 1.55 0.40 0.51 1.20 100 WHPE 1 0.19 36.47 61.48 0.94 0.24 0.12 0.76 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1 ppb NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.85 26.32 71.06 0.65 0.39 0.54 1.04 100 BAND 14 0.64 32.38 65.42 0.56 0.34 0.40 0.90 100 BLCA 4 0.43 20.28 76.52 0.80 0.48 0.66 1.26 100 CANY 20 1.02 21.11 75.03 0.97 0.59 0.77 1.53 100 CARE 5 0.26 26.17 71.88 0.48 0.29 0.40 0.77 100 GRCA 3 0.26 33.88 64.33 0.46 0.28 0.30 0.76 100 GRSA 0 0.21 35.27 62.28 0.63 0.38 0.42 1.01 100 LAGA 2 0.32 22.44 72.93 1.11 0.67 1.12 1.73 100 MABE 0 0.19 27.50 67.62 1.29 0.78 0.78 2.04 100 MEVE 86 2.56 23.45 70.72 1.39 0.84 1.42 2.17 100 PECO 4 0.42 30.30 63.38 1.68 1.02 0.97 2.65 100 PEFO 2 0.18 25.54 71.97 0.64 0.39 0.40 1.06 100 SAPE 38 1.00 33.45 62.06 1.13 0.69 0.92 1.76 100 WEEL 3 0.32 26.40 67.67 1.54 0.93 1.04 2.43 100 WEMI 13 0.59 18.86 75.96 1.23 0.75 1.28 1.92 100 WHPE 1 0.28 27.03 70.97 0.51 0.31 0.35 0.83 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.67 19.33 78.14 1.10 0.28 0.28 0.86 100 BAND 6 0.49 23.58 72.71 1.64 0.42 0.38 1.27 100 BLCA 4 0.33 22.97 75.69 0.61 0.16 0.10 0.48 100 CANY 16 0.80 21.96 75.77 1.00 0.26 0.22 0.79 100 CARE 3 0.20 88.04 4.45 3.32 0.85 0.73 2.61 100 GRCA 1 0.21 34.58 64.31 0.49 0.12 0.09 0.40 100 GRSA 0 0.15 24.98 73.55 0.66 0.17 0.11 0.53 100 LAGA 0 0.22 24.86 72.46 1.16 0.30 0.32 0.90 100 MABE 0 0.13 25.66 70.00 2.00 0.51 0.21 1.62 100 MEVE 73 2.23 23.15 73.73 1.33 0.34 0.42 1.03 100 PECO 3 0.32 30.12 65.86 1.82 0.47 0.30 1.43 100 PEFO 1 0.14 25.87 72.60 0.68 0.17 0.12 0.56 100 SAPE 23 0.75 35.06 62.13 1.24 0.32 0.28 0.96 100 WEEL 1 0.22 21.76 75.39 1.24 0.32 0.33 0.96 100 WEMI 9 0.52 20.83 77.20 0.85 0.22 0.23 0.67 100 WHPE 0 0.19 28.33 70.45 0.54 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.53 24.56 72.23 1.40 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BAND 4 0.39 29.32 66.06 2.04 0.52 0.48 1.58 100 BLCA 2 0.26 26.18 71.36 1.08 0.28 0.25 0.85 100 CANY 15 0.63 27.88 69.25 1.27 0.32 0.28 1.00 100 CARE 1 0.16 33.21 65.31 0.64 0.16 0.15 0.52 100 GRCA 0 0.17 42.18 56.47 0.59 0.15 0.11 0.49 100 GRSA 0 0.13 34.43 61.81 1.69 0.43 0.31 1.33 100 LAGA 0 0.18 84.40 11.79 1.72 0.44 0.29 1.36 100 MABE 0 0.11 87.53 9.48 1.35 0.35 0.24 1.07 100 MEVE 52 1.83 28.91 67.19 1.66 0.43 0.53 1.29 100 PECO 3 0.26 39.06 55.97 2.25 0.57 0.38 1.76 100 PEFO 0 0.11 32.30 65.77 0.85 0.22 0.15 0.70 100 SAPE 13 0.63 42.17 54.46 1.49 0.38 0.34 1.16 100 WEEL 0 0.18 27.36 69.07 1.56 0.40 0.42 1.20 100 WEMI 5 0.41 26.41 71.10 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.84 100 WHPE 0 0.15 35.16 63.32 0.67 0.17 0.13 0.54 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.82 20.87 75.05 0.98 0.59 0.97 1.55 100 BAND 12 0.63 19.08 76.20 1.16 0.70 1.06 1.80 100 BLCA 6 0.48 27.14 70.61 0.57 0.34 0.43 0.91 100 CANY 16 0.90 30.20 67.87 0.48 0.29 0.37 0.78 100 CARE 5 0.36 25.80 72.34 0.49 0.29 0.25 0.83 100 GRCA 2 0.19 43.78 51.48 1.21 0.73 0.85 1.96 100 GRSA 1 0.20 26.85 70.79 0.59 0.35 0.49 0.93 100 LAGA 2 0.33 35.29 61.08 0.92 0.55 0.72 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.20 26.79 70.89 0.58 0.35 0.45 0.94 100 MEVE 72 2.20 35.97 53.41 2.44 1.48 2.92 3.79 100 PECO 7 0.46 38.09 59.27 0.70 0.42 0.41 1.12 100 PEFO 1 0.16 63.46 31.14 1.41 0.85 0.86 2.29 100 SAPE 23 0.86 21.57 74.23 0.99 0.60 1.05 1.55 100 WEEL 0 0.30 26.56 69.64 0.94 0.57 0.81 1.49 100 WEMI 9 0.52 39.22 42.79 4.30 2.60 4.39 6.69 100 WHPE 2 0.31 29.02 68.90 0.53 0.32 0.38 0.85 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.71 21.29 76.25 1.06 0.27 0.29 0.84 100 BAND 6 0.44 24.60 72.87 1.13 0.29 0.24 0.88 100 BLCA 2 0.36 29.60 69.04 0.59 0.15 0.14 0.47 100 CANY 14 0.71 30.76 68.06 0.52 0.13 0.11 0.42 100 CARE 3 0.28 25.55 73.27 0.52 0.13 0.08 0.44 100 GRCA 0 0.16 69.22 26.86 1.73 0.44 0.37 1.38 100 GRSA 1 0.16 23.97 73.79 1.00 0.25 0.20 0.79 100 LAGA 1 0.24 33.99 64.16 0.83 0.21 0.14 0.67 100 MABE 0 0.12 33.93 64.37 0.75 0.19 0.17 0.59 100 MEVE 62 1.77 38.13 53.99 3.35 0.86 1.09 2.59 100 PECO 4 0.34 23.05 74.83 0.97 0.25 0.15 0.76 100 PEFO 0 0.12 65.07 31.52 1.52 0.39 0.27 1.23 100 SAPE 13 0.65 25.06 72.61 1.00 0.26 0.30 0.78 100 WEEL 0 0.24 17.71 80.05 0.98 0.25 0.25 0.76 100 WEMI 3 0.39 23.31 71.01 2.46 0.63 0.68 1.92 100 WHPE 0 0.23 26.01 72.20 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.62 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.57 26.91 69.99 1.34 0.34 0.36 1.06 100 BAND 4 0.35 30.79 66.05 1.41 0.36 0.30 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.29 36.52 61.81 0.73 0.19 0.17 0.59 100 CANY 12 0.58 48.38 49.91 0.75 0.19 0.16 0.61 100 CARE 2 0.23 91.43 0.86 3.34 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.13 39.47 59.01 0.67 0.17 0.12 0.55 100 GRSA 1 0.13 30.07 67.12 1.25 0.32 0.25 0.99 100 LAGA 0 0.20 41.42 56.32 1.01 0.26 0.17 0.82 100 MABE 0 0.10 41.49 56.42 0.91 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 MEVE 55 1.54 44.21 46.66 3.88 0.99 1.26 3.00 100 PECO 1 0.28 45.46 52.55 0.89 0.23 0.15 0.71 100 PEFO 0 0.11 71.41 24.86 1.67 0.43 0.29 1.35 100 SAPE 11 0.53 31.25 65.85 1.25 0.32 0.37 0.97 100 WEEL 0 0.19 27.47 68.62 1.71 0.44 0.43 1.34 100 WEMI 3 0.32 28.88 64.08 3.05 0.78 0.84 2.38 100 WHPE 0 0.18 32.46 65.30 0.99 0.25 0.21 0.78 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 19 1.13 18.20 78.08 0.93 0.57 0.76 1.47 100 BAND 4 0.38 28.28 69.40 0.61 0.37 0.37 0.98 100 BLCA 4 0.41 25.05 70.89 1.06 0.64 0.70 1.66 100 CANY 33 1.53 19.28 77.14 0.89 0.54 0.74 1.41 100 CARE 16 0.88 22.11 75.66 0.54 0.33 0.49 0.86 100 GRCA 7 0.39 23.36 74.45 0.55 0.34 0.40 0.90 100 GRSA 0 0.24 25.67 66.55 2.08 1.26 1.19 3.25 100 LAGA 2 0.32 21.64 74.70 0.89 0.54 0.83 1.39 100 MABE 1 0.19 18.16 75.68 1.54 0.94 1.28 2.40 100 MEVE 69 2.32 30.15 60.76 2.09 1.27 2.47 3.25 100 PECO 2 0.34 25.68 71.14 0.88 0.53 0.39 1.38 100 PEFO 2 0.27 33.78 62.13 1.04 0.63 0.75 1.68 100 SAPE 20 0.83 18.87 77.21 0.96 0.58 0.88 1.49 100 WEEL 4 0.33 20.70 76.43 0.73 0.45 0.51 1.18 100 WEMI 5 0.46 25.80 67.31 1.67 1.02 1.61 2.59 100 WHPE 2 0.27 33.82 61.07 1.33 0.81 0.88 2.09 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 17 0.85 21.45 76.01 1.10 0.28 0.30 0.85 100 BAND 1 0.28 24.57 72.22 1.47 0.38 0.23 1.13 100 BLCA 3 0.31 27.86 69.56 1.17 0.30 0.21 0.91 100 CANY 27 1.24 21.94 76.75 0.58 0.15 0.11 0.47 100 CARE 14 0.66 21.11 77.26 0.73 0.19 0.14 0.57 100 GRCA 5 0.34 24.25 74.40 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.48 100 GRSA 0 0.16 21.09 77.02 0.84 0.22 0.18 0.66 100 LAGA 0 0.22 24.76 73.54 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.60 100 MABE 0 0.15 19.83 76.38 1.69 0.43 0.39 1.29 100 MEVE 53 1.95 21.71 74.78 1.50 0.38 0.46 1.15 100 PECO 2 0.25 35.11 62.63 1.01 0.26 0.20 0.79 100 PEFO 2 0.19 24.50 73.18 1.03 0.26 0.22 0.80 100 SAPE 10 0.57 20.85 76.73 1.07 0.27 0.26 0.82 100 WEEL 1 0.25 22.39 75.51 0.92 0.24 0.23 0.72 100 WEMI 2 0.34 27.74 65.02 3.17 0.81 0.83 2.43 100 WHPE 2 0.23 29.48 68.86 0.76 0.19 0.10 0.61 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.68 27.14 69.65 1.39 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 BAND 1 0.23 37.66 57.02 2.36 0.60 0.51 1.84 100 BLCA 1 0.25 34.68 62.11 1.45 0.37 0.26 1.13 100 CANY 24 0.99 27.96 70.35 0.75 0.19 0.15 0.60 100 CARE 10 0.52 26.56 71.26 0.98 0.25 0.19 0.76 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.48 67.82 0.75 0.19 0.15 0.60 100 GRSA 0 0.13 91.63 4.93 1.52 0.39 0.35 1.18 100 LAGA 0 0.18 31.16 66.70 0.96 0.25 0.17 0.76 100 MABE 0 0.12 25.04 70.17 2.13 0.54 0.49 1.63 100 MEVE 43 1.60 26.96 68.69 1.87 0.48 0.58 1.43 100 PECO 1 0.22 27.00 68.63 1.93 0.49 0.47 1.48 100 PEFO 2 0.17 31.80 66.10 0.91 0.23 0.25 0.71 100 SAPE 7 0.45 26.39 70.54 1.35 0.35 0.34 1.03 100 WEEL 0 0.20 28.26 69.08 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 2 0.27 28.26 68.07 1.56 0.40 0.51 1.20 100 WHPE 1 0.18 36.47 61.47 0.94 0.24 0.12 0.75 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1 ppb NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.85 19.58 75.93 1.09 0.66 1.04 1.70 100 BAND 14 0.65 30.87 66.96 0.55 0.34 0.39 0.88 100 BLCA 5 0.44 19.30 77.58 0.78 0.47 0.65 1.23 100 CANY 19 1.03 20.17 76.04 0.95 0.58 0.77 1.49 100 CARE 5 0.26 24.89 73.22 0.47 0.28 0.39 0.75 100 GRCA 3 0.26 32.09 66.15 0.45 0.27 0.29 0.75 100 GRSA 0 0.21 25.34 69.74 1.28 0.78 0.83 2.03 100 LAGA 1 0.33 20.10 76.77 0.80 0.49 0.57 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.56 69.84 1.84 1.12 0.67 2.98 100 MEVE 86 2.59 22.64 71.71 1.34 0.82 1.38 2.10 100 PECO 4 0.42 28.94 64.93 1.63 0.99 0.95 2.57 100 PEFO 2 0.18 24.28 73.28 0.63 0.38 0.39 1.03 100 SAPE 38 1.02 31.96 63.64 1.10 0.67 0.90 1.72 100 WEEL 4 0.33 25.41 68.75 1.51 0.92 1.03 2.38 100 WEMI 16 0.59 39.10 52.36 2.01 1.23 2.17 3.13 100 WHPE 0 0.29 25.62 72.45 0.49 0.30 0.34 0.80 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.67 19.34 78.13 1.11 0.28 0.28 0.86 100 BAND 6 0.48 23.57 72.71 1.65 0.42 0.38 1.27 100 BLCA 4 0.33 22.97 75.68 0.61 0.16 0.10 0.48 100 CANY 16 0.79 21.97 75.77 1.01 0.26 0.22 0.78 100 CARE 3 0.20 88.04 4.45 3.33 0.85 0.73 2.60 100 GRCA 1 0.21 34.59 64.31 0.49 0.13 0.09 0.40 100 GRSA 0 0.15 24.98 73.55 0.66 0.17 0.11 0.53 100 LAGA 0 0.22 24.86 72.46 1.17 0.30 0.32 0.90 100 MABE 0 0.13 25.66 70.00 2.01 0.52 0.21 1.61 100 MEVE 73 2.22 23.14 73.73 1.34 0.34 0.42 1.03 100 PECO 3 0.31 30.12 65.86 1.83 0.47 0.30 1.42 100 PEFO 1 0.14 25.87 72.60 0.69 0.18 0.12 0.56 100 SAPE 22 0.75 35.06 62.13 1.25 0.32 0.28 0.96 100 WEEL 1 0.22 21.76 75.39 1.24 0.32 0.33 0.95 100 WEMI 8 0.51 20.83 77.20 0.85 0.22 0.23 0.66 100 WHPE 0 0.19 28.33 70.45 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.43 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.53 24.56 72.23 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BAND 4 0.39 29.32 66.05 2.05 0.52 0.48 1.58 100 BLCA 2 0.26 26.18 71.36 1.09 0.28 0.25 0.84 100 CANY 15 0.63 27.88 69.24 1.28 0.33 0.28 0.99 100 CARE 1 0.16 33.22 65.30 0.65 0.17 0.15 0.51 100 GRCA 0 0.17 42.18 56.47 0.60 0.15 0.11 0.49 100 GRSA 0 0.13 34.43 61.80 1.70 0.43 0.31 1.32 100 LAGA 0 0.18 84.40 11.79 1.73 0.44 0.29 1.35 100 MABE 0 0.11 87.52 9.48 1.36 0.35 0.24 1.06 100 MEVE 51 1.82 28.91 67.19 1.67 0.43 0.53 1.28 100 PECO 3 0.26 39.06 55.97 2.26 0.58 0.38 1.76 100 PEFO 0 0.11 32.30 65.77 0.86 0.22 0.15 0.70 100 SAPE 13 0.63 42.16 54.46 1.50 0.38 0.34 1.15 100 WEEL 0 0.18 27.35 69.06 1.56 0.40 0.42 1.20 100 WEMI 5 0.41 26.41 71.09 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.84 100 WHPE 0 0.15 35.16 63.32 0.68 0.17 0.13 0.54 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.78 20.09 75.95 0.94 0.57 0.94 1.50 100 BAND 12 0.65 22.33 73.58 1.04 0.63 0.79 1.63 100 BLCA 7 0.49 20.81 76.57 0.65 0.39 0.55 1.04 100 CANY 16 0.91 28.74 69.37 0.47 0.29 0.36 0.77 100 CARE 5 0.36 24.47 73.71 0.47 0.29 0.24 0.81 100 GRCA 2 0.19 42.19 53.09 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.94 100 GRSA 1 0.20 25.64 72.07 0.57 0.35 0.46 0.91 100 LAGA 2 0.33 34.84 61.60 0.90 0.55 0.70 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.20 17.77 78.88 0.83 0.51 0.71 1.31 100 MEVE 72 2.21 21.10 74.57 0.99 0.60 1.19 1.55 100 PECO 7 0.47 36.46 60.93 0.69 0.42 0.40 1.10 100 PEFO 1 0.16 61.93 32.63 1.41 0.86 0.86 2.30 100 SAPE 23 0.87 20.42 75.46 0.97 0.59 1.03 1.52 100 WEEL 0 0.32 25.28 71.00 0.92 0.56 0.79 1.45 100 WEMI 9 0.53 41.23 39.88 4.51 2.75 4.60 7.02 100 WHPE 2 0.30 27.31 70.64 0.52 0.32 0.39 0.83 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.71 21.29 76.25 1.06 0.27 0.29 0.83 100 BAND 6 0.43 24.61 72.87 1.13 0.29 0.24 0.87 100 BLCA 2 0.36 29.60 69.04 0.60 0.15 0.14 0.47 100 CANY 14 0.70 30.77 68.05 0.52 0.13 0.11 0.42 100 CARE 3 0.28 25.56 73.27 0.52 0.13 0.08 0.44 100 GRCA 0 0.16 69.23 26.85 1.73 0.44 0.37 1.37 100 GRSA 1 0.16 23.97 73.79 1.00 0.26 0.20 0.79 100 LAGA 1 0.24 33.99 64.15 0.83 0.21 0.14 0.67 100 MABE 0 0.12 33.93 64.36 0.75 0.19 0.17 0.59 100 MEVE 62 1.76 38.12 54.00 3.36 0.86 1.09 2.57 100 PECO 4 0.34 23.05 74.83 0.97 0.25 0.15 0.75 100 PEFO 0 0.12 65.07 31.52 1.53 0.39 0.27 1.23 100 SAPE 13 0.65 25.06 72.61 1.00 0.26 0.30 0.77 100 WEEL 0 0.24 17.71 80.05 0.98 0.25 0.25 0.76 100 WEMI 3 0.39 23.31 71.00 2.47 0.63 0.68 1.91 100 WHPE 0 0.23 26.01 72.20 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.62 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.56 26.91 69.99 1.34 0.34 0.37 1.05 100 BAND 4 0.35 30.79 66.04 1.42 0.36 0.30 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.29 36.52 61.81 0.74 0.19 0.17 0.58 100 CANY 12 0.57 48.38 49.91 0.75 0.19 0.16 0.60 100 CARE 2 0.23 91.42 0.86 3.36 0.86 0.90 2.59 100 GRCA 0 0.13 39.48 59.01 0.67 0.17 0.12 0.55 100 GRSA 1 0.13 30.08 67.11 1.26 0.32 0.25 0.99 100 LAGA 0 0.19 41.43 56.32 1.02 0.26 0.17 0.81 100 MABE 0 0.10 41.50 56.41 0.92 0.24 0.21 0.72 100 MEVE 54 1.54 44.19 46.66 3.90 1.00 1.27 2.98 100 PECO 1 0.28 45.46 52.55 0.90 0.23 0.15 0.71 100 PEFO 0 0.11 71.41 24.85 1.68 0.43 0.29 1.34 100 SAPE 11 0.52 31.25 65.84 1.25 0.32 0.37 0.96 100 WEEL 0 0.19 27.47 68.61 1.72 0.44 0.43 1.33 100 WEMI 3 0.32 28.88 64.07 3.07 0.78 0.84 2.37 100 WHPE 0 0.18 32.46 65.30 1.00 0.26 0.21 0.78 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 26 1.57 20.29 75.89 0.95 0.58 0.77 1.51 100 BAND 16 0.60 22.77 72.09 1.33 0.82 0.93 2.07 100 BLCA 11 0.68 23.71 71.46 1.22 0.75 0.98 1.89 100 CANY 44 2.01 22.20 74.01 0.93 0.57 0.80 1.48 100 CARE 20 1.30 25.11 72.63 0.55 0.34 0.51 0.86 100 GRCA 9 0.55 27.58 70.19 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.91 100 GRSA 2 0.34 28.57 68.05 0.89 0.55 0.55 1.39 100 LAGA 5 0.48 23.48 73.51 0.76 0.47 0.56 1.21 100 MABE 3 0.28 20.47 72.88 1.66 1.02 1.39 2.58 100 MEVE 105 3.05 41.43 41.99 3.84 2.36 4.42 5.96 100 PECO 10 0.53 29.57 67.24 0.89 0.55 0.35 1.40 100 PEFO 5 0.45 38.33 57.58 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.66 100 SAPE 39 1.23 27.44 69.21 0.82 0.50 0.74 1.28 100 WEEL 7 0.45 32.62 65.62 0.47 0.29 0.26 0.74 100 WEMI 16 0.71 19.95 75.15 1.14 0.70 1.25 1.79 100 WHPE 6 0.44 84.18 10.46 1.34 0.82 1.11 2.10 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 21 1.33 19.89 77.74 1.05 0.26 0.23 0.82 100 BAND 5 0.43 22.99 74.02 1.37 0.35 0.22 1.06 100 BLCA 6 0.49 26.43 70.93 1.19 0.30 0.23 0.92 100 CANY 35 1.67 20.87 76.89 0.98 0.25 0.24 0.77 100 CARE 17 0.99 23.26 75.38 0.59 0.15 0.15 0.46 100 GRCA 7 0.44 24.95 73.68 0.61 0.15 0.13 0.48 100 GRSA 0 0.27 28.15 66.77 2.31 0.58 0.39 1.79 100 LAGA 4 0.35 23.76 74.52 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 2 0.22 19.97 76.16 1.71 0.43 0.41 1.32 100 MEVE 77 2.42 22.60 75.76 0.70 0.18 0.22 0.54 100 PECO 3 0.39 35.16 62.59 1.01 0.25 0.20 0.79 100 PEFO 4 0.32 35.88 61.57 1.13 0.29 0.23 0.90 100 SAPE 27 0.95 20.25 77.31 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.82 100 WEEL 5 0.36 22.23 75.96 0.81 0.20 0.17 0.64 100 WEMI 9 0.52 28.06 67.78 1.82 0.46 0.49 1.40 100 WHPE 2 0.31 35.74 61.06 1.44 0.36 0.28 1.12 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 19 1.06 25.29 71.70 1.33 0.34 0.30 1.05 100 BAND 2 0.36 27.75 68.32 1.77 0.45 0.34 1.37 100 BLCA 4 0.39 33.01 63.69 1.48 0.37 0.29 1.15 100 CANY 30 1.34 26.45 70.72 1.25 0.31 0.30 0.98 100 CARE 14 0.79 29.44 68.84 0.75 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 GRCA 7 0.35 31.34 66.93 0.76 0.19 0.16 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.22 34.35 59.46 2.82 0.71 0.47 2.18 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.53 61.75 0.77 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.17 25.19 69.93 2.16 0.55 0.51 1.66 100 MEVE 71 2.11 35.00 59.44 2.37 0.60 0.76 1.82 100 PECO 2 0.33 83.43 12.33 1.90 0.48 0.37 1.48 100 PEFO 2 0.28 88.91 8.61 1.11 0.28 0.22 0.88 100 SAPE 17 0.76 25.65 71.26 1.35 0.34 0.36 1.04 100 WEEL 4 0.29 28.17 69.52 1.02 0.26 0.21 0.81 100 WEMI 4 0.43 38.99 58.82 0.99 0.25 0.18 0.77 100 WHPE 2 0.29 36.01 61.95 0.94 0.24 0.12 0.75 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1 ppb NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 19 1.00 25.02 70.59 1.04 0.64 1.06 1.63 100 BAND 24 0.97 23.54 70.12 1.56 0.96 1.39 2.43 100 BLCA 14 0.63 18.31 77.99 0.89 0.55 0.87 1.39 100 CANY 26 1.21 27.31 69.88 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CARE 5 0.40 88.20 1.52 2.56 1.57 2.06 4.08 100 GRCA 4 0.40 38.61 58.67 0.70 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 GRSA 4 0.41 24.01 73.37 0.70 0.43 0.38 1.10 100 LAGA 8 0.50 22.23 71.08 1.69 1.04 1.33 2.63 100 MABE 1 0.27 28.10 68.95 0.76 0.47 0.51 1.21 100 MEVE 109 3.49 24.22 71.80 0.95 0.58 0.98 1.48 100 PECO 11 0.64 31.85 62.09 1.60 0.99 0.94 2.53 100 PEFO 5 0.27 28.59 68.94 0.63 0.39 0.40 1.04 100 SAPE 51 1.48 25.87 69.84 1.06 0.65 0.92 1.66 100 WEEL 7 0.50 29.90 63.98 1.58 0.97 1.06 2.50 100 WEMI 33 1.03 30.27 55.86 3.21 1.97 3.70 4.98 100 WHPE 7 0.45 43.53 54.74 0.44 0.27 0.30 0.72 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.88 21.35 75.89 1.20 0.30 0.33 0.93 100 BAND 16 0.75 32.70 65.95 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.47 100 BLCA 9 0.52 20.78 77.27 0.86 0.22 0.21 0.67 100 CANY 21 1.12 19.54 78.13 1.00 0.25 0.30 0.77 100 CARE 5 0.28 26.39 72.44 0.51 0.13 0.12 0.40 100 GRCA 3 0.30 33.60 65.30 0.49 0.12 0.09 0.40 100 GRSA 0 0.26 25.26 73.28 0.66 0.17 0.11 0.53 100 LAGA 3 0.35 21.53 76.49 0.88 0.22 0.18 0.69 100 MABE 0 0.21 25.68 69.94 2.03 0.51 0.22 1.62 100 MEVE 87 2.86 22.26 75.45 0.99 0.25 0.29 0.77 100 PECO 7 0.48 31.05 65.04 1.78 0.45 0.30 1.39 100 PEFO 4 0.20 25.87 72.60 0.68 0.17 0.12 0.56 100 SAPE 42 1.14 24.39 72.96 1.17 0.29 0.29 0.91 100 WEEL 4 0.39 27.66 68.61 1.67 0.42 0.33 1.31 100 WEMI 22 0.79 19.17 78.62 0.96 0.24 0.28 0.74 100 WHPE 0 0.34 39.79 59.09 0.50 0.13 0.10 0.40 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.70 26.96 69.56 1.52 0.38 0.41 1.17 100 BAND 12 0.62 39.99 58.36 0.73 0.19 0.15 0.58 100 BLCA 4 0.41 26.34 71.20 1.09 0.27 0.26 0.84 100 CANY 16 0.89 24.83 72.22 1.27 0.32 0.39 0.98 100 CARE 5 0.25 35.22 62.99 0.79 0.20 0.16 0.64 100 GRCA 3 0.25 41.11 57.54 0.60 0.15 0.11 0.49 100 GRSA 0 0.21 85.42 11.36 1.45 0.37 0.27 1.14 100 LAGA 1 0.28 84.33 11.92 1.70 0.43 0.28 1.34 100 MABE 0 0.17 87.28 9.71 1.36 0.34 0.24 1.07 100 MEVE 81 2.37 29.40 66.35 1.82 0.46 0.56 1.40 100 PECO 4 0.40 37.91 57.32 2.17 0.55 0.37 1.69 100 PEFO 1 0.17 93.49 1.65 2.16 0.55 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 36 0.92 30.47 66.21 1.46 0.37 0.36 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.31 34.39 61.00 2.07 0.52 0.40 1.61 100 WEMI 12 0.62 24.38 72.80 1.22 0.31 0.35 0.94 100 WHPE 0 0.29 47.75 50.91 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.48 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.94 23.46 72.52 0.95 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 BAND 25 1.01 24.69 71.07 1.07 0.66 0.83 1.67 100 BLCA 11 0.76 26.94 68.80 1.03 0.63 0.98 1.62 100 CANY 23 1.26 33.30 64.85 0.46 0.29 0.35 0.75 100 CARE 11 0.54 28.70 66.04 1.27 0.78 1.21 2.00 100 GRCA 4 0.31 47.27 48.17 1.16 0.71 0.82 1.87 100 GRSA 3 0.31 43.09 53.30 0.93 0.57 0.66 1.46 100 LAGA 8 0.52 40.55 55.96 0.89 0.55 0.66 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.31 22.87 72.56 1.10 0.68 1.07 1.72 100 MEVE 105 2.92 35.60 56.23 1.91 1.18 2.12 2.97 100 PECO 19 0.75 41.68 55.78 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.06 100 PEFO 3 0.24 32.31 64.02 0.96 0.59 0.54 1.58 100 SAPE 52 1.25 27.23 68.49 1.01 0.62 1.09 1.57 100 WEEL 7 0.44 27.52 68.69 0.93 0.57 0.82 1.46 100 WEMI 22 0.81 27.40 68.93 0.88 0.54 0.85 1.39 100 WHPE 6 0.42 90.31 4.78 1.31 0.80 0.75 2.05 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.84 21.83 75.78 1.03 0.26 0.29 0.81 100 BAND 14 0.78 23.98 73.46 1.14 0.29 0.25 0.88 100 BLCA 10 0.61 24.17 72.43 1.48 0.37 0.40 1.14 100 CANY 17 1.07 23.31 74.92 0.79 0.20 0.16 0.63 100 CARE 7 0.42 26.87 70.05 1.34 0.34 0.35 1.05 100 GRCA 3 0.22 44.53 52.53 1.30 0.33 0.27 1.04 100 GRSA 2 0.23 25.94 72.51 0.72 0.18 0.08 0.56 100 LAGA 4 0.38 37.45 60.36 0.98 0.25 0.21 0.76 100 MABE 0 0.22 19.48 78.52 0.88 0.22 0.21 0.69 100 MEVE 83 2.41 22.51 74.84 1.13 0.28 0.38 0.87 100 PECO 9 0.55 38.31 60.04 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.59 100 PEFO 1 0.19 18.29 79.90 0.82 0.21 0.15 0.64 100 SAPE 32 1.02 21.75 75.73 1.09 0.27 0.33 0.84 100 WEEL 4 0.39 27.03 70.68 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.78 100 WEMI 15 0.58 46.86 41.17 5.19 1.31 1.49 3.99 100 WHPE 3 0.33 34.28 64.31 0.64 0.16 0.09 0.51 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 10 0.67 27.56 69.42 1.30 0.33 0.37 1.02 100 BAND 10 0.63 30.02 66.77 1.43 0.36 0.32 1.10 100 BLCA 7 0.49 30.07 65.71 1.84 0.47 0.49 1.42 100 CANY 15 0.85 29.47 68.28 0.99 0.25 0.21 0.80 100 CARE 3 0.36 91.41 0.86 3.37 0.85 0.91 2.61 100 GRCA 2 0.19 52.07 44.49 1.52 0.38 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.19 48.01 49.20 1.25 0.31 0.26 0.97 100 LAGA 1 0.32 44.87 52.50 1.17 0.30 0.26 0.91 100 MABE 0 0.17 24.91 72.54 1.13 0.29 0.26 0.88 100 MEVE 73 2.05 45.59 47.02 3.14 0.79 1.05 2.41 100 PECO 6 0.46 46.04 51.99 0.89 0.23 0.15 0.70 100 PEFO 1 0.16 90.50 5.58 1.76 0.44 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 20 0.82 27.34 69.48 1.37 0.35 0.41 1.05 100 WEEL 1 0.31 26.97 71.02 0.88 0.22 0.22 0.69 100 WEMI 8 0.52 38.37 51.50 4.46 1.13 1.11 3.43 100 WHPE 2 0.28 92.33 4.11 1.62 0.41 0.27 1.26 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 26 1.60 21.50 74.61 0.98 0.61 0.74 1.56 100 BAND 17 0.60 28.83 68.20 0.75 0.46 0.58 1.18 100 BLCA 11 0.67 23.99 71.26 1.19 0.74 0.96 1.86 100 CANY 45 2.00 21.46 74.32 1.01 0.63 1.00 1.58 100 CARE 21 1.31 25.72 72.08 0.53 0.33 0.50 0.84 100 GRCA 9 0.56 28.24 69.59 0.55 0.34 0.40 0.88 100 GRSA 2 0.35 29.11 67.59 0.87 0.54 0.53 1.36 100 LAGA 5 0.49 26.21 70.21 0.87 0.54 0.81 1.36 100 MABE 3 0.28 20.53 72.95 1.63 1.00 1.36 2.53 100 MEVE 104 3.03 32.66 56.59 2.45 1.51 2.97 3.81 100 PECO 10 0.53 30.14 66.75 0.87 0.53 0.35 1.36 100 PEFO 6 0.45 87.05 9.65 0.84 0.52 0.59 1.35 100 SAPE 41 1.24 21.71 74.16 1.00 0.62 0.96 1.55 100 WEEL 7 0.46 33.46 64.83 0.45 0.28 0.26 0.72 100 WEMI 17 0.70 20.22 74.99 1.12 0.69 1.23 1.75 100 WHPE 6 0.45 84.71 10.19 1.27 0.78 1.05 2.00 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 21 1.31 19.89 77.74 1.04 0.27 0.23 0.82 100 BAND 5 0.42 29.25 69.25 0.67 0.17 0.12 0.53 100 BLCA 6 0.48 22.59 74.52 1.28 0.33 0.29 0.99 100 CANY 34 1.66 20.86 76.90 0.98 0.25 0.23 0.77 100 CARE 17 0.99 23.31 75.33 0.59 0.15 0.15 0.46 100 GRCA 7 0.43 24.96 73.66 0.61 0.16 0.13 0.49 100 GRSA 0 0.27 28.12 66.80 2.31 0.59 0.39 1.79 100 LAGA 4 0.35 29.06 69.56 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.49 100 MABE 2 0.22 19.96 76.16 1.71 0.44 0.41 1.32 100 MEVE 77 2.39 22.59 75.77 0.70 0.18 0.22 0.54 100 PECO 3 0.38 35.00 62.75 1.01 0.26 0.20 0.79 100 PEFO 4 0.31 35.90 61.54 1.13 0.29 0.23 0.90 100 SAPE 25 0.94 20.24 77.32 1.06 0.27 0.28 0.82 100 WEEL 5 0.36 22.09 76.08 0.81 0.21 0.17 0.64 100 WEMI 9 0.51 28.05 67.78 1.81 0.47 0.49 1.40 100 WHPE 2 0.30 35.82 60.97 1.44 0.37 0.28 1.12 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 19 1.04 25.29 71.69 1.33 0.34 0.30 1.05 100 BAND 2 0.35 27.75 68.31 1.77 0.46 0.34 1.37 100 BLCA 4 0.39 40.46 57.78 0.76 0.20 0.21 0.59 100 CANY 30 1.33 26.44 70.72 1.24 0.32 0.30 0.98 100 CARE 14 0.79 29.50 68.78 0.75 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 GRCA 7 0.35 31.35 66.92 0.76 0.20 0.16 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.22 34.31 59.49 2.82 0.73 0.48 2.19 100 LAGA 0 0.28 36.22 62.06 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.17 25.17 69.94 2.16 0.56 0.51 1.67 100 MEVE 71 2.08 41.20 52.01 2.88 0.74 0.95 2.22 100 PECO 2 0.32 83.43 12.33 1.90 0.49 0.37 1.48 100 PEFO 4 0.31 35.90 61.54 1.13 0.29 0.23 0.90 100 SAPE 25 0.94 20.24 77.32 1.06 0.27 0.28 0.82 100 WEEL 4 0.28 28.01 69.68 1.03 0.26 0.21 0.82 100 WEMI 4 0.42 34.54 60.21 2.28 0.59 0.62 1.76 100 WHPE 2 0.28 36.06 61.89 0.94 0.24 0.12 0.75 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1 ppb NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 19 1.05 25.40 70.27 1.03 0.63 1.06 1.61 100 BAND 25 0.98 23.94 69.83 1.54 0.95 1.36 2.39 100 BLCA 14 0.64 18.60 77.81 0.87 0.54 0.84 1.35 100 CANY 26 1.22 27.93 69.33 0.69 0.42 0.54 1.10 100 CARE 5 0.41 88.77 1.47 2.43 1.50 1.95 3.88 100 GRCA 4 0.41 39.46 57.90 0.67 0.42 0.44 1.10 100 GRSA 4 0.39 24.57 72.88 0.69 0.42 0.36 1.08 100 LAGA 7 0.49 23.60 70.60 1.52 0.94 0.97 2.37 100 MABE 2 0.27 28.73 68.37 0.74 0.46 0.50 1.19 100 MEVE 110 3.51 25.67 71.36 0.70 0.43 0.75 1.10 100 PECO 12 0.65 32.51 61.55 1.57 0.97 0.92 2.48 100 PEFO 5 0.27 29.19 68.41 0.62 0.38 0.39 1.02 100 SAPE 51 1.48 26.41 69.38 1.04 0.64 0.90 1.63 100 WEEL 7 0.49 23.62 71.38 1.21 0.74 1.18 1.87 100 WEMI 32 1.03 30.31 56.03 3.16 1.95 3.64 4.91 100 WHPE 7 0.46 44.72 53.60 0.43 0.26 0.29 0.69 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.88 21.33 75.90 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 BAND 16 0.73 32.71 65.93 0.60 0.16 0.12 0.48 100 BLCA 8 0.51 20.80 77.25 0.85 0.22 0.20 0.67 100 CANY 22 1.11 19.59 78.11 0.99 0.25 0.30 0.76 100 CARE 5 0.27 26.40 72.43 0.51 0.13 0.12 0.40 100 GRCA 3 0.30 33.52 65.38 0.49 0.13 0.09 0.40 100 GRSA 0 0.26 21.36 77.06 0.70 0.18 0.12 0.57 100 LAGA 2 0.35 21.57 76.45 0.88 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.21 25.67 69.94 2.02 0.52 0.22 1.63 100 MEVE 87 2.82 22.22 75.49 0.99 0.25 0.29 0.77 100 PECO 7 0.47 31.11 64.97 1.78 0.46 0.30 1.39 100 PEFO 4 0.20 25.88 72.58 0.69 0.18 0.12 0.56 100 SAPE 42 1.11 24.36 72.96 1.17 0.30 0.29 0.91 100 WEEL 4 0.38 27.60 68.66 1.67 0.43 0.33 1.31 100 WEMI 21 0.70 19.58 77.34 1.32 0.34 0.39 1.02 100 WHPE 0 0.34 39.67 59.21 0.50 0.13 0.10 0.40 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.70 26.94 69.57 1.52 0.39 0.41 1.17 100 BAND 11 0.60 40.00 58.34 0.74 0.19 0.15 0.58 100 BLCA 4 0.40 26.36 71.17 1.08 0.28 0.26 0.84 100 CANY 15 0.89 24.89 72.19 1.25 0.32 0.38 0.97 100 CARE 5 0.25 35.22 62.98 0.79 0.20 0.17 0.64 100 GRCA 3 0.25 41.02 57.63 0.59 0.15 0.11 0.49 100 GRSA 0 0.20 85.37 11.40 1.45 0.37 0.27 1.14 100 LAGA 1 0.28 84.29 11.95 1.70 0.44 0.28 1.34 100 MABE 0 0.17 31.73 62.84 2.50 0.64 0.27 2.01 100 MEVE 80 2.35 29.19 66.58 1.81 0.47 0.56 1.40 100 PECO 4 0.39 37.97 57.24 2.17 0.56 0.37 1.70 100 PEFO 1 0.17 93.49 1.65 2.15 0.56 0.44 1.71 100 SAPE 33 0.90 30.42 66.24 1.46 0.38 0.36 1.14 100 WEEL 3 0.31 34.33 61.06 2.06 0.53 0.40 1.61 100 WEMI 11 0.56 24.79 71.32 1.67 0.43 0.50 1.29 100 WHPE 0 0.28 47.62 51.04 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.48 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - 1ppb NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.98 23.74 72.31 0.94 0.58 0.96 1.49 100 BAND 25 1.02 25.26 70.60 1.05 0.65 0.81 1.64 100 BLCA 11 0.77 27.92 69.72 0.59 0.36 0.47 0.93 100 CANY 23 1.28 34.14 64.05 0.45 0.28 0.34 0.73 100 CARE 11 0.55 88.23 0.97 2.61 1.61 2.49 4.09 100 GRCA 4 0.31 48.24 47.35 1.12 0.69 0.80 1.81 100 GRSA 3 0.31 21.75 73.22 1.27 0.79 0.97 2.00 100 LAGA 8 0.52 41.41 55.20 0.86 0.53 0.65 1.35 100 MABE 0 0.28 21.47 75.12 0.83 0.51 0.74 1.31 100 MEVE 105 2.91 35.46 56.73 1.83 1.13 2.01 2.84 100 PECO 19 0.76 42.63 54.92 0.65 0.40 0.37 1.03 100 PEFO 3 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 52 1.27 27.77 68.06 0.98 0.60 1.06 1.53 100 WEEL 7 0.43 28.04 68.26 0.91 0.56 0.81 1.43 100 WEMI 20 0.81 31.12 54.98 3.41 2.10 3.08 5.31 100 WHPE 6 0.42 38.69 59.22 0.56 0.35 0.29 0.90 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.82 21.83 75.77 1.03 0.27 0.29 0.81 100 BAND 14 0.75 23.85 73.57 1.14 0.29 0.25 0.89 100 BLCA 10 0.60 24.32 72.29 1.48 0.38 0.39 1.14 100 CANY 17 1.04 23.31 74.91 0.79 0.20 0.16 0.63 100 CARE 7 0.41 26.82 70.11 1.33 0.34 0.35 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.22 44.62 52.43 1.30 0.34 0.27 1.04 100 GRSA 1 0.23 25.90 72.56 0.71 0.18 0.08 0.56 100 LAGA 4 0.37 37.40 60.40 0.98 0.25 0.22 0.76 100 MABE 0 0.21 19.50 78.49 0.88 0.23 0.21 0.69 100 MEVE 82 2.34 22.52 74.82 1.13 0.29 0.38 0.87 100 PECO 8 0.54 38.31 60.05 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.59 100 PEFO 1 0.19 18.26 79.92 0.82 0.21 0.15 0.64 100 SAPE 30 1.00 21.78 75.69 1.08 0.28 0.33 0.84 100 WEEL 3 0.36 19.69 78.32 0.88 0.23 0.19 0.69 100 WEMI 15 0.58 28.17 69.86 0.85 0.22 0.26 0.65 100 WHPE 3 0.33 34.29 64.29 0.64 0.17 0.10 0.51 100

SNCR (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.66 27.56 69.41 1.30 0.34 0.37 1.02 100 BAND 11 0.60 29.87 66.90 1.43 0.37 0.32 1.11 100 BLCA 7 0.48 30.25 65.54 1.84 0.47 0.49 1.42 100 CANY 15 0.83 29.47 68.28 0.99 0.26 0.21 0.80 100 CARE 3 0.35 91.39 0.86 3.36 0.87 0.91 2.61 100 GRCA 2 0.19 52.16 44.40 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.18 48.14 49.05 1.25 0.32 0.26 0.98 100 LAGA 1 0.31 31.22 65.56 1.43 0.37 0.32 1.10 100 MABE 0 0.17 24.92 72.51 1.13 0.29 0.27 0.88 100 MEVE 72 2.01 45.48 47.12 3.14 0.81 1.04 2.41 100 PECO 5 0.46 46.03 51.99 0.89 0.23 0.15 0.71 100 PEFO 1 0.19 18.26 79.92 0.82 0.21 0.15 0.64 100 SAPE 30 1.00 21.78 75.69 1.08 0.28 0.33 0.84 100 WEEL 1 0.29 25.05 72.43 1.12 0.29 0.24 0.88 100 WEMI 8 0.51 38.32 51.54 4.45 1.15 1.11 3.44 100 WHPE 2 0.27 92.32 4.11 1.62 0.42 0.27 1.26 100

## 1 of 12 

# PNM San Juan Generating Station BART Analysis of Nalco Mobotec NO

x 

# Control Technologies August 29, 2008

Introduction In the June 18, 2008 meeting between th e Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Black & Veatch (B&V), a nd the New Mexico Environment Department – Air Quality Bureau (NMED), the NMED requested additional analyses be performed
for the Nalco Mobotec NO x 

# control technologies. Speci fically, the NMED requested additional consideration and modeling of the ROFA with Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA
NO x 

# control technologies. As described in the June 6, 2007 BART application document and in PNM’s March 31, 2008 response to NMED questions, th e ROFA technology is a type of overfire air (OFA) system, and the Rotamix technology is a version of SNCR cont rol technology. The NMED requested that ROFA and Rotami x be analyzed separately from other LNB/OFA technology and SNCR, respectively.

Part 1 - Engineering Impact Analysis At the request of the NMED, an engineering impact analysis was performed for
the Nalco Mobotec NO x 

# control technologies. The result s of that impact analysis are
shown in Attachment 1. Table 7-1 in Attach ment 1 is a modificat ion to the Table 7-1 found in PNM’s original BART submittal of June 6, 2007 and also the update submitted on May 30, 2008 to include SNCR. The ta ble has been updated to include the engineering impact of the Nalco Mobotec NO x 

# control technologies. In addition to Table 7-1, Attachment 1 also includes th e least cost curves for all NO x 

# control technologies evaluated for BART, detailed cost tables for installing Nalco Mobotec NO x 

# control technologies, cost development notes providi ng the basis for the ROFA cost estimates, and design concept definitions fo r each Nalco Mobotec technology

. 

# In the response submitted to the NMED on March 31, 2008, a technical
evaluation of the Nalco Mobotec NO x 

# control technologies was performed. The evaluation performed forms the basis of th e engineering impact analysis for this supplemental BART analysis. The BART analysis is based on the de monstrated experience of the Nalco Mobotec technologies. There is one installation of ROFA in units above 300 MW. This
installation is for a confidentia l Northeast client (570 MW). Also, there is one operating
installation of Rotamix in units above 300 MW; Sutton Station Unit 3 (424 MW). It
should also be noted that the ROFA a nd Rotamix applications over 300 MWs both

## 2 of 12 

# combust different fuels than SJGS. The Bo swell Unit 4 (565 MW) is currently in the process of installing Rotamix, but to B&V’ s knowledge, the Rotamix system is not in operation yet. It should be noted that the application of Rotami x at Sutton produces higher emissions (lb/MBtu) th an the Nalco Mobotec budgetary quote for PNM. There are no units greater than 300 MW in operation with both the ROFA and Rotamix technologies. Nalco Mobotec does have un its with ROFA and Rotomix technologies under the 300 MW size, but these units are si gnificantly smaller than the SJGS units and were not considered represen tative for this discussion. In the engineering impact analysis, the cost estimates include contingencies to retrofit the ROFA fan to the existing site and the additional auxili ary energy consumption of these fans used to impart kinetic energy to the overfire air system to promote turbulent mixing during combustion. Due to the large additional amount of kinetic energy required for the rotating overfire air system, the auxi liary energy consumed by the ROFA fans is significantly higher than the LNB/OFA system currently installed to meet consent decree requirements. At NMED’s request, the control effectiveness presented in this supplemental BART analysis document for the ROFA, Rota mix, and ROFA with Rotamix technologies are the values from Nalco Mobotec’s quotati on. The ROFA technologies are based on operating the furnace at a lower burner stoichiometric ratio (BSR) of 0.84 than the currently designed value of 0.90.

Control Effectiveness of Na lco Mobotec Technologies

Technology Control Eff ectiveness (lb/MBtu)
ROFA with Rotamix 0.20
Rotamix 0.23
ROFA 0.26

Also included in the updated Table 7-1 are the cost effectiveness evaluations previously completed and submitted for other NO x 

# control technologies. The cost
effectiveness values are for additional NO x 

# removal from the cons ent decree level. As stated previously, this anal ysis of the Nalco Mobotec technologies was done at the request of the NMED. B&V and PNM do not agree that Nalco Mobotec’s offerings
should be differentiated from the other ve ndors that supply overfire air systems and selective non-catalytic reduction systems.

## 3 of 12 

# Nalco Mobotec has no specific documente d operating experience with the SJGS coal. The fuel burned at SJGS is unique. It does not easily fit into either a bituminous or sub-bituminous fuel category. As previously mentioned, the new low NO x 

# burners, which were installed for the consent decree would most likely need to be modified to optimize NO x 

# performance with the ROFA technology. On August 15, 2008, B& V had a telephone c onversation with
Nalco Mobotec to better understand how thei r technology works. In this conversation,
Nalco Mobotec stated that their technol ogy can be operated at a lower boiler stoichiometric ratio, in part, because of the changes that they would likely make to the
new low NO x 

# burners. The burner modifications will, in effect, detune the new state-ofthe-art B&W low NO x 

# burners to reduce the NO x 

# reduction performance by the burner. These changes would consist of physically modifying the burners to improve mixing. This work is typically performed by extern al consultants hired by Nalco Mobotec to redesign the burner systems. Nalco Mobotec st ates that this impr oved mixing will reduce the potential for corrosion and temperature imbalance. This increase in turbulence and mixing at the burner in most cases results in higher flame temperature and more rapid
combustion close to the burner. The result w ould be expected to be less unburned carbon and less potential for flame impingemen t on the opposite boiler walls which would reduce the potential for fireside wate rwall corrosion from overheating and flame impingement. Without these modifications, th e previously discussed potential impacts of operating at this lower BSR may include corrosion due to the reducing environment in the boiler and impacts to the steam temperatures due to changing the location of the
fireball. It should also be noted that even with the burne r modifications, B&V continues to be concerned about the potential for incr eased slagging as well as the unproven nature of the Nalco Mobotec technology with the SJGS coal and units in this size range.
The control effectiveness used as the evaluation basis in this supplemental BART analysis is dependent on successfully addres sing all of these concerns to avoid any negative impacts to the SJGS plant operations and availability rate. Meanwhile, other
NO x 

# control technologies (LNB wi th OFA) are installed or be ing installed that have all these technical concerns already addressed. For Rotamix, there is only one unit with Rotamix above 300 MW. This unit does not produce the low level of NO x 

# quoted by Nalco Mobotec for PNM. In comparison, Fuel Tech has 17 commercial SNCR only (not in combination with other Fuel Tech technologies) installations and 3 demonstrat ion installations on uni ts greater than 300 MW. Fuel Tech has significantly more expe rience with SNCR on units in the size range of SJGS. Therefore, B&V and PNM have greater confidence in the performance guarantee quoted by Fuel Tech. B&V and PNM are not comfortable with the technology

## 4 of 12 

# risk that PNM would incur if a permit limit was applied to the SJ GS that was based on the quote received from Nalco Mobotec. Furthermore, there is not a significant difference between the Fuel Tech quotation and the Nalco Mobotec quotation to warrant
the risk that PNM would incur. Lastly, for the combination of ROFA with Rotamix, the lower control effectiveness value proposed by Nalco Mobo tec in comparison to the LNB/OFA with SNCR approach submitted in the May 30, 2008 update is due to the a lower starting (uncontrolled) NO x 

# level. With the ROFA technology, uncontrolled NO x 

# for Rotamix is 0.26 lb/MBtu. While for LNB/OFA, the uncontrolled NO x 

# for SNCR is 0.30 lb/MBtu.
Both Rotamix and SNCR then reduces NO x 

# by approximately 20% to 0.20 lb/MBtu and 0.24 lb/MBtu, respectively. Therefore, it is observed that the incremental NO x 

# reduction in terms of percentage is very simila r between the ROFA with Rotamix and the
LNB/OFA with SNCR combinations.

Part 2 – Visibility Analysis Subsequent to the June 6, 2007 submittal, PNM further investigated additional
refinements to the BART CALPUFF air di spersion modeling analyses which included nitrate repartitioning and mo re realistic ammonia background concentrations based on monitored values at several western Class I areas. These additional modeling options are
considered more realistic and therefore will again form the basis of this analysis. To date, PNM has previously submitted four BART modeling analyses in addition to the Wet ESP analysis being submitted separate ly but coincident with this analysis. To clarify the contents of these analyses, as we ll as for this submittal, a summary of each has been provided: June 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analyses were based on a constant 1 ppb background ammonia concentration a nd no nitrate repa rtitioning. The NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

November 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analysis was based on refinements which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. Again, the NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

## 5 of 12 

# March 31, 2008 Two main modeling analyses were perfor med to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the SCR NO x 

# control technology only. One of the analyses, believed to be the more representative of ammonia chemistry of the area, was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using th e nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia c oncentrations. The other analyses included nitrate repartitioning and a c onstant background ammonia concentration as requested by the NMED.

May 30, 2008 Two modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impact s at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology only. Similar to the March 31, 2008 analyses, one of the analyses was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses incl uded nitrate repartitioning and a constant background ammonia concentration. It s hould be noted that all vendors of SNCR (including Fuel Tech and Nalco Mobotec) have been modeled together as one technology called SNCR. This is the same approach that is used for modeling SCR control technology, where all vendors are modeled generically as SCR.

August 29, 2008 Three modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impact s at 16 Class I areas for the ROFA with Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA NO x 

# and WESP PM control technologies (the NO x 

# and PM analyses were submitted separately). Similar to the May 30, 2008 analyses, these analyses were also based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations.

The modeling refinements contained in this submittal using nitrate repartitioning and the variable ammonia background as we ll as the previous November 2007, March 2008, and May 30, 2008 submittals supersedes the original June 2007 BART modeling analyses as PNM believes these analyses are more representative of regional conditions in the modeling domain, as well as, allow for a more representative visibility analysis.

## 6 of 12 

# Information pertinent to these two refinements has been included in de tail in the previous four submittals. Furthermore, at the June 18, 2008 meeting NMED indicated that based on a current ammonia monitoring study conducte d by Mark E. Sather of EPA Region VI, the previous analyses provided utilizing the variable ammonia were representative of the surrounding background. Therefore, no other analyses were performed using nitrate repartitioning and constant background ammonia.

Visibility Summary Based on the refinements methodology cons isting of representative background
ammonia concentrations and ni trate repartitioning, revised CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed for five cases ; pre-consent decree, consen t decree (which represents SJGS’s BART baseline scenario), ROFA with Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA NO x 

# control technology scenarios. The modeling summari zed in this report is for the SJGS on a plant-wide basis and for each of the four SJ GS units on an individual unit basis. It is important to note that all other modeling optio ns as described in the BART application were unchanged. For simplicity, the following results discuss the differences between the
consent decree scenario and the NO x 

# control technology scenarios. The stack outlet
conditions for the NO x 

# control technology scenarios are included in Attachment 2 and the visibility modeling results are contained in Attachment 3.

SJGS Facility Visibility Summary wit h Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable Ammonia The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same control technology is inst alled on all four units, are illu strated in Tables 1 through 6 of Attachment 3. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over th e 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 6 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improvement for each control scenario for each unit (on a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the si xteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS’s baseline case, as well as the base line case for the individual unit analyses described later. Additionally, the cost-eff ectiveness for the potential BART control

## 7 of 12 

# technologies from the BART application were used to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/decivi ew ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the visibility improvement cost effectivene ss summary in Table 6 for each control technology:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to additional NO x 

# control technology alternative scenarios.

• Pre-consent decree to additional NO x 

# control technology alternative scenarios.

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the
three NO x 

# control technology scenarios range fr om 0.04 dv to 0.34 dv of expected visibility improvement above the consent d ecree scenario. The vi sibility improvements for each of the Nalco Mobotec control technology options are summarized below:

• Facility improvements with ROFA/Rotamix range from 0.09 dv to 0.34 dv.

• Facility improvements with Rotamix range from 0.09 dv to 0.25 dv.

• Facility improvements with RO FA range from 0.04 dv to 0.21 dv.

The results indicate that adding additional NO x 

# control technology beyond the consent decree does not yield visibility impr ovement greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. In fact, as previously noted, the maxi mum visibility improvement at any of the 16 class I areas is only 0.34 dv. Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART a pplication document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visi bility improvement. The resulting cost for
installation of Nalco Mobotec NO x 

# control technology for all f our units ranges from $464 million/dv to $69 million/dv. The visibility improvements for each of the Nalco Mobotec control technology opti ons are summarized below:

• ROFA/Rotamix range from $369 million/dv to $97 million/dv.

• Rotamix range from $269 million/dv to $69 million/dv.

• ROFA range from $464 million/dv to $82 million/dv.

Attachment 3 contains a SJGS plant-wide summary of the 98 th 

# percentile visibility impact for the three modeled technology sc enarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent

## 8 of 12 

# Decree, ROFA/Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA scenarios), provides information on the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold, and indicates the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98 th 

# percentile visibility imp act for each class I area.

Unit Specific Visibility Summary wit h Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable Ammonia
The results of the refined visibility modeling for Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 are illustrated in Tables 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, a nd 25-30 of Attachment 3, respectively.
These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde, in many cases, represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the 16 Class I areas. In addition, this analysis indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the ba seline (consent decree) scenario. The maximum visibility (deciview) improve ment seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 12, 18, 24, and 30. Again, the expected degree of visibility impr ovement for each control scenario for each unit was determined by the difference between the consent decree’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Cla ss I areas and the specific NO x 

# control technology scenario’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class areas. Furthermore, the same methodology previously described for the SJGS’s cost-effectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each unit. These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the NO x 

# control scenario for each unit are similar to that of the combined SJGS. The visibility improvements for each scenario are summarized below.

ROFA/Rotamix

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.23 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.23 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.05 dv to 0.24 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.04 dv to 0.24 dv

Rotamix

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.17 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.18 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.02 dv to 0.17 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.03 dv to 0.18 dv

## 9 of 12 

# ROFA

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.01 dv to 0.11 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.01 dv to 0.12 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.0 dv to 0.12 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.01 dv to 0.12 dv

The results again indicate that adding additional NO x 

# control technology beyond the consent decree consisting of ROFA/Rot amix, Rotamix, or ROFA does not yield visibility improvement greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. Based on the visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART application document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determined for each unit for each Class I area. The resulting cost for installation of additional control technology for each
unit is summarized below.

ROFA/Rotamix

• Unit 1 cost range is $322 million/dv to $33 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $308 million/dv to $29 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $209 million/dv to $41 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $224 million/dv to $40 million/dv.

Rotamix

• Unit 1 cost range is $197 million/dv to $21 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $187 million/dv to $20 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $214 million/dv to $28 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $176 million/dv to $27 million/dv.

ROFA

• Unit 1 cost range is $432 million/dv to $30 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $384 million/dv to $29 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $1,281 million/dv 1 

# to $43 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $512 million/dv to $42 million/dv.

1 

## The visibility improvement realized for Unit 3 is 0.004 dv but is illustrated in Attachment 3, Table 24 as 0.00 dv.

## 10 of 12 

# Attachment 3 also includes a unit sp ecific summary of the 98th percentile visibility impact for the three modeled te chnology scenarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, ROFA/Rotamix, Rotamix, a nd ROFA scenarios), includes the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold, and indicates the contribution of each pollutan t associated with the 98th percentile visibility impact for each class I area.

Additional Considerations The minimal visibility improvements discu ssed in this document for the variable ammonia case do not merit the large capital expenditure required to install ROFA/Rotamix, Rotamix, or ROFA NO x 

# control technology. In ad dition to the high cost and minimal visibility improvements associated with these technolog ies, there are other important reasons that LNB, OFA and NN s hould be considered BART for the SJGS units. First, the LNB, OFA and NN system s are being installed to meet the consent
decree are state-of-the-art combustion contro ls. State-of-the-art combustion controls comprising of LNB, OFA and NN technologie s were used to form the basis for the BART presumptive limits for NO x 

# in the BART guidelines. Second, the ROFA NO x 

# control technology is a LNB/OFA technology in which SJGS already has installed or will soon be in the process of inst alling on their four generating units. Third, the visibility results imply that visibility is influenced mo re by the SJGS’s sulfur emissions than by the
reduction of NO x 

# . However, sulfur emissions are not subject to BART requirements because New Mexico participates in the WRAP emissions trading program. Fourth, installation of SN CR, ROFA/Rotamix or Rota mix requires ammonia to
reduce NO x 

# emissions. Specifically, in a SNCR syst em, urea is injected into the boiler and this will decompose into ammonia for the NO x 

# reduction process. Any unreacted ammonia passes through the bo iler and out the stack as a mmonia emission s or ammonia slip. This additional ammonia would then be available to add to the ammonia background concentration, chemically react to fo rm nitrates and sulfates, and potentially further increase the visibility impacts at the Class I areas. The additional ammonia slip was not considered in this analysis. Fifth, as described in Part 1, the Nalco Mobotec ROFA or ROFA/Rotamix system requires detuning of the new LNB systems coincident with the installation of the ROFA system. This causes a potential negative scenario if a forced outage occurs with the ROFA fan system. Without the ROFA fa n to complete the combustion process, the detuned LNB, which has significantly higher NO x 

# emissions than the tuned LNB, will quite likely result in a forced outage of the unit to avoid exceedance of the NO x 

# emissions limit. This results in lost generation for PNM. This scenario may be avoided

## 11 of 12 

# in a LNB/OFA system since the increase in NO x 

# emissions when the OFA system is out
of service will be minimal when compared to the ROFA system. Finally, PNM entered into a consent decree with the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, and NMED on March 10, 2005, to settle alle ged violations of the Clean Air Act.
For NO x 

# control, the settlement required installation of state-of-the-art NO x 

# combustion controls which was deemed to be new LNB with OFA and a NN system. All four units
will have these controls insta lled by the spring of 2009. Due to the nature of the consent decree requiring the approval of and installatio n of state-of-the-art combustion controls to achieve a specific NO x 

# emission limit, detuning of this LNB system to increase NO x 

# emissions as part of the RO FA or ROFA/Rotamix may be prohibited without additional legal action. At a minimum, all parties identified in the consent decree may have to agree to the proposed modification should ROFA or ROFA/Rotamix be determined by NMED
to be BART.

Conclusion As noted in this document, PNM’s furthe r investigation of additional refinements to the June 2007 BART CALPUFF air disper sion modeling analyses to yield more realistic regional haze impacts was warrant ed. These analyses included nitrate repartitioning and more realistic amm onia background concen trations based on
monitored values at several western Class I areas, as well as, the additional ammonia study being conducted by EPA in New Mexico. The conclusi on of this study re-iterates and further supports the overall findings of the original June 2007, as well as, the three aforementioned additional submittals, that installation of additional NO x 

# control technology systems at the SJGS provide mi nimal visibility improvements and would require significant capital expenditure and modifications that will impact many areas of the plant including boiler draf t systems, air heater performance, and ash handling. The results from the analyses further substant iate that the addition of ROFA/Rotamix, Rotamix, or ROFA NO x 

# control technology does not yi eld a benefit nor meet the intended goal of BART. Specifi cally, these analyses indicate:

• The addition of ROFA/Rotamix, Rotamix, or ROFA NO x 

# control technology on a plant-wide or individual unit basis shows less than a 0.5 dv improvement for all Class I areas including the four Cla ss I areas located in New Mexico.

• Both the total annual costs evaluated and the cost-effectiveness ($/dv) are prohibitive given the minimal improvements realized.

• Although B&V has received additional clarifications from Nalco Mobotec on the ROFA technology, B&V and PNM continue to have concerns about the potential

## 12 of 12 

# for slag using the ROFA system, Nalco Mobotec’s lack of experience with the fuel burned at SJGS, and Nalco Mobotec’s minimal experience with units of a
similar size to SJGS.

Therefore, as previously noted, given th e minimal visibility improvement to the
Class I areas in the BART analysis, the recommended NO x 

# BART control for SJGS is LNB, OFA, and a NN.

# Attachment 1PNM BART Additional NOx Technology Control Strategy ReviewLast Updated: 8/15/2008Total TotalEmission Expected Expected Expected Capital Annualized IncrementalPerformance Emission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost Cost Energy Non-AirLevel Rate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness Effectiveness Impacts ImpactsAll Feasible Technologies(lb/MBtu) (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)SJGS Unit 1Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 259.5 966 3,174 156,805 20,525 6,466 2,844 1,496--SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 667.3 2,484 1,656 104,436 16,207 9,786 34,218 706 1,762ROFA & Rotamix0.20 741.4 2,760 1,380 29,350 6,762 4,900 7,765 1,4133Rotamix0.23 852.6 3,174 966 11,306 3,547 3,672 1,210 514SNCR0.24 889.7 3,312 828 15,321 3,380 4,082 -272 36--ROFA0.26 963.8 3,588 552 18,293 3,455 6,259 -- 1,363--SJGS Unit 2Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 258.2 961 3,158 169,251 21,891 6,932 3,457 1,492--SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 663.8 2,471 1,648 108,628 16,670 10,117 36,080 346 1,762ROFA & Rotamix0.20 737.6 2,746 1,373 29,350 6,762 4,925 7,805 1,4133Rotamix0.23 848.2 3,158 961 11,306 3,547 3,690 1,216 514SNCR0.24 885.1 3,295 824 15,321 3,380 4,103 -273 36--ROFA0.26 958.9 3,570 549 18,293 3,455 6,291 -- 1,363--SJGS Unit 3Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 403.1 1,501 4,931 215,568 28,359 5,752 1,167 2,194--SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 1,036.4 3,859 2,572 168,507 25,606 9,954 37,221 507 2,658ROFA & Rotamix0.20 1,151.6 4,287 2,144 34,070 9,648 4,501 7,338 2,8105Rotamix0.23 1,324.3 4,931 1,501 13,316 4,929 3,285 1,553 845SNCR0.24 1,381.9 5,145 1,286 18,977 4,596 3,573 -1,232 36--ROFA0.26 1,497.1 5,574 857 20,983 5,124 5,976 -- 2,725--SJGS Unit 4Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 395.4 1,472 4,837 199,558 26,592 5,497 753 2,215--SNCR/SCR Hybrid0.18 1,016.8 3,786 2,524 161,572 24,849 9,846 36,139 507 2,658ROFA & Rotamix0.20 1,129.8 4,206 2,103 34,070 9,648 4,587 7,479 2,8105Rotamix0.23 1,299.3 4,837 1,472 13,316 4,929 3,348 1,583 845SNCR0.24 1,355.8 5,047 1,262 18,977 4,596 3,642 -1,255 36--ROFA0.26 1,468.7 5,468 841 20,983 5,124 6,091 -- 2,725--Notes:1. All costs are in 2007$.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on 85 percent unit capacity factor (referer to Appendix A Design Basis).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were based on the consent decree upgrades control effectiveness as shown in Table 4-1.4. TCI and TAC are referenced from Appendix C Cost Analysis Summary.5. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is defined as ratio of TAC over Expected Emission Reduction (ton/yr).6. Expected emission reduction is based on annual emission reduction from consent decree upgrade emission levels (Table 4-1).7. Incremental cost effectiveness are based on increments in expected emission reduction (ton/yr)Table 7-1Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Results of Additional NOx Control Technologies for SJGSSJGS 1 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve02,5005,0007,50010,00012,50015,00017,50020,00022,50025,0000500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCRROFARotamixROFA & RotamixSJGS 2 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve02,5005,0007,50010,00012,50015,00017,50020,00022,50025,0000500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCRROFARotamixROFA & RotamixSJGS 3 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve03,0006,0009,00012,00015,00018,00021,00024,00027,00030,0000500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCRROFARotamixROFA & RotamixSJGS 4 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve03,0006,0009,00012,00015,00018,00021,00024,00027,00030,0000500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCRROFARotamixROFA & Rotamix

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology Nalco Mobotec ROFA

Process Description Nalco Mobotec ROFA technology utilizing rota ting, boosted overfire air system with combustion system (burner) modifications.

Pollutant NO x (Unit 1) NO x (Unit 2) NO x (Unit 3) NO x (Unit 4)
Emissions lb/MBtu 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 lb/h 1,112 1,106 1,727 1,695 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu (BSR* = 0.84) 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 lb/h (BSR* = 0.84) 964 959 1,497 1,469 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 2,082,166 2,082,819 3,205,572 3,144,890 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Reagent, lb/h NA NA NA NA Energy, kW 3,000 3,000 6,000 6,000
Maintenance Similar maintenance effort as other combustion control technologies. Byproduct Description CO and LOI levels to be monitored. Other None.

Location of Major Process Equipment Insta ll ROFA ports above existing cl ose coupled overfire air port s. Overfire air ports will be plugged up and new refractory installed. ROFA booster fans and new air ductwork to ROFA ports will be installed. Modifications to burners as recommended by manufacturer. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Ti e-in existing air duct wi th ROFA booster fans.
Reagent Storage None.
Control System Modifications Incorporated into existing control system.

Fan Modifications New ROFA booster fans.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications New transformer and aux electric system upgrade will be required for the new ROFA booster fans. Enclosures Requirements None.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Penetrations into boile r wall and as necessary for new air ductwork to ROFA ports.
Major Constructability Issues Constructing ROFA booster fans in congested plant site layout.
Significant Issues or Challenges Aux electric system upgrade for new ROFA booste r fans and monitoring CO and LOI levels during combustion. Modificati ons to burners to complement ROFA system operations. Other Assumptions:

• No major impact in plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Boiler/duct penetrations included.

• Minimal impact on potential ash sales. * BSR – Burner Stoichiometric Ratio

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable.

Technical Feasibility ROFA is technically feasible as a vari ant of the Overfire Air (OFA) system.

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology Nalco Mobotec Rotamix

Process Description Nalco Mobotec Rotamix utilizing urea rea gent addition into boiler upper-level zones.

Pollutant NO x (Unit 1) NO x (Unit 2) NO x (Unit 3) NO x (Unit 4)
Emissions lb/MBtu 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 lb/h 1,112 1,106 1,727 1,695 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 lb/h 853 848 1,324 1,299 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 2,082,166 2,082,819 3,205,572 3,144,890 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Reagent (urea), lb/h 1,313 1,313 2,062 2,062 Water, gpm 24 24 37 37 Energy, kW 112 112 186 186
Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. Byproduct Description No impact on ash sales. Other 5ppm ammonia slip.

Location of Major Process Equipment Install Rotamix injecti on nozzles above existing close coupled overfire air ports. Injection skid and reagent tank at grade with truck unloading station. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Ti e-in to existing air duct for Rotamix fans.
Reagent Storage 250,000 gallon tank at grade (estimated for 7 days storage).
Control System Modifications Incorporated into existing control system.

Fan Modifications New Rotamix fans for reagent system.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modificati ons Minimum impact/modifications.

Enclosures Requirements Enclos ed in existing boiler building.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Penetrations into boiler wall.
Major Constructability Issues None.
Significant Issues or Challenges Ammonia slip may cause buildup of ammonium bisu lfate on the air heater, which may require more frequent cleaning. Up to 5 ppm ammonia slip. Other Assumptions:

• No major impact in plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Boiler/duct penetrations included.

• Minimal impact on potential ash sales.

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable, as an alternate vendor for SNCR.

Technical Feasibility Rotamix is technically feasible as a variant of the SNCR system.

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology Nalco Mobotec ROFA with ROTAMIX

Process Description Nalco Mobotec ROFA with ROTAMIX utilizing urea reagent injection into turbulent boiler upper-level zones.

Pollutant NO x (Unit 1) NO x (Unit 2) NO x (Unit 3) NO x (Unit 4)
Emissions lb/MBtu 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 lb/h 1,112 1,106 1,727 1,695 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 lb/h 741 738 1,152 1,130 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 2,082,166 2,082,819 3,205,572 3,144,890 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Reagent (urea), lb/h 1,142 1,142 1,741 1,741 Water, gpm 21 21 32 32 Energy, kW 3,112 3,112 6,186 6,186
Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. Byproduct Description No impact on ash sales. Other 5ppm ammonia slip (if ROTAMIX).

Location of Major Process Equipment Insta ll ROFA ports above existing cl ose coupled overfire air ports. Install Rotamix injecti on nozzles above existing close coup led overfire air ports. Inject ion skid and reagent tank at grade with truck unloading station. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecti ng Ducts Tie-in to existing air duct.
Reagent Storage 250,000 gallon tank at grade (estimated for 7 days storage).
Control System Modifications Incorporated into existing control system.

Fan Modifications New ROFA booster fans.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications New transformer and aux electric system upgrade will be required for the new ROFA booster fans. Enclosures Requirements Enclos ed in existing boiler building.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Penetrations into boiler wall.
Major Constructability Issues Constructing ROFA booster fans in congested plant site layout.
Significant Issues or Challenges Ammonia slip may cause buildup of ammonium bisu lfate on the air heater, which may require more frequent cleaning. Up to 5 ppm ammonia s lip. Modifications to burners to complement ROFA system operations. Other Assumptions:

• No major impact in plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Boiler/duct penetrations included.

• Minimal impact on potential ash sales.

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable.

Technical Feasibility See technical feasibility of inde pendent ROFA and Rotamix application.

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA - Unit 1 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $6,681,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical system upgrades $1,159,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans Subtotal capital cost (CC) $8,185,000 Gross Receipt Tax $506,447 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $409,250 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $9,101,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $252,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Handling & erection $1,843,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical $435,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $301,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Relocation $455,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,286,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $12,387,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,239,000 (DC) X 10.0% Owner's cost $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% Start-up and spare parts $248,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,477,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $5,252,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $654,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $18,293,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $310,000 (DC) X 2.5% Total fixed annual costs $310,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,363,000 3000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $1,363,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,673,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,782,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,782,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,455,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA - Unit 2 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $6,681,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical system upgrades $1,159,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans Subtotal capital cost (CC) $8,185,000 Gross Receipt Tax $506,447 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $409,250 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $9,101,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $252,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Handling & erection $1,843,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical $435,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $301,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Relocation $455,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,286,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $12,387,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,239,000 (DC) X 10.0% Owner's cost $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% Start-up and spare parts $248,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,477,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $5,252,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $654,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $18,293,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $310,000 (DC) X 2.5% Total fixed annual costs $310,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,363,000 3000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $1,363,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,673,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,782,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,782,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,455,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA - Unit 3 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $7,651,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical system upgrades $1,214,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans Subtotal capital cost (CC) $9,210,000 Gross Receipt Tax $569,869 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $460,500 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $10,240,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $328,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Handling & erection $2,152,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical $585,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $396,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Relocation $512,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,973,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $14,213,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,421,000 (DC) X 10.0% Owner's cost $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% Start-up and spare parts $284,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,843,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $6,020,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $750,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $20,983,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $355,000 (DC) X 2.5% Total fixed annual costs $355,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,725,000 6000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco-Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,725,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,080,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $2,044,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,044,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $5,124,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA - Unit 4 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $7,651,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical system upgrades $1,214,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans Subtotal capital cost (CC) $9,210,000 Gross Receipt Tax $569,869 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $460,500 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $10,240,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $328,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Handling & erection $2,152,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Electrical $585,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $396,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes Relocation $512,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,973,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $14,213,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,421,000 (DC) X 10.0% Owner's cost $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% Start-up and spare parts $284,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,843,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $6,020,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $750,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $20,983,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $355,000 (DC) X 2.5% Total fixed annual costs $355,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,725,000 6000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco-Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,725,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,080,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $2,044,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,044,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $5,124,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,101,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,510,000 Gross Receipt Tax $155,306 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $125,500 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $2,791,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Handling & erection $1,702,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Electrical $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $284,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Relocation $113,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $3,233,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $7,095,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $708,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Owner's cost $355,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,012,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Start-up and spare parts $213,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,419,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $3,807,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $404,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $11,306,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $213,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $338,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,053,000 1,313 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $51,000 112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $4,000 24 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,108,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,446,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,101,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $1,101,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,547,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,101,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,510,000 Gross Receipt Tax $155,306 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $125,500 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $2,791,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Handling & erection $1,702,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Electrical $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $284,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Relocation $113,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $3,233,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $7,095,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $708,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Owner's cost $355,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,012,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Start-up and spare parts $213,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,419,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $3,807,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $404,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $11,306,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $213,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $338,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,053,000 1,313 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $51,000 112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $4,000 24 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,108,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,446,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,101,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $1,101,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,547,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,337,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,799,000 Gross Receipt Tax $173,188 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $139,950 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $3,112,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Handling & erection $2,159,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Electrical $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $360,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Relocation $144,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $4,103,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $8,286,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $879,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Owner's cost $414,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,255,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Start-up and spare parts $249,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,657,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $4,554,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $476,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $13,316,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $249,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $374,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $3,169,000 2,026 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $84,000 186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 37 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,258,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,632,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,297,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $1,297,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,929,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,337,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,799,000 Gross Receipt Tax $173,188 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $139,950 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $3,112,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Handling & erection $2,159,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Electrical $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $360,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Relocation $144,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $4,103,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $8,286,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $879,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Owner's cost $414,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,255,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 Start-up and spare parts $249,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,657,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $4,554,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $476,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $13,316,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $249,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $374,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $3,169,000 2,026 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $84,000 186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 37 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,258,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,632,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,297,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $1,297,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,929,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $8,782,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical system upgrades $1,348,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Subtotal capital cost (CC) $10,475,000 Gross Receipt Tax $648,141 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $523,750 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $11,647,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $819,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Handling & erection $3,545,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical $1,002,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $585,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Relocation $568,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $6,519,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $19,237,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,947,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Owner's cost $962,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,631,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Start-up and spare parts $577,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $3,847,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $9,064,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,049,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $29,350,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $577,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $702,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,785,000 1,142 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,413,000 3,112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $3,000 21 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,201,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,903,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $2,859,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $2,859,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $6,762,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $8,782,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical system upgrades $1,348,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Subtotal capital cost (CC) $10,475,000 Gross Receipt Tax $648,141 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $523,750 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $11,647,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $819,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Handling & erection $3,545,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical $1,002,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $585,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Relocation $568,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $6,519,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $19,237,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,947,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Owner's cost $962,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,631,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Start-up and spare parts $577,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $3,847,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $9,064,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,049,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $29,350,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $577,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $702,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,785,000 1,142 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,413,000 3,112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $3,000 21 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,201,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,903,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $2,859,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $2,859,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $6,762,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $9,988,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical system upgrades $1,456,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Subtotal capital cost (CC) $11,789,000 Gross Receipt Tax $729,444 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $589,450 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $13,108,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $1,048,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Handling & erection $4,311,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical $1,305,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $756,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Relocation $656,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $8,076,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $22,255,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $2,300,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Owner's cost $1,113,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,966,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Start-up and spare parts $668,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $4,451,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $10,598,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,217,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $34,070,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $668,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $793,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,722,000 1,741 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,810,000 6,186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 32 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $5,537,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $6,330,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $3,318,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $3,318,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $9,648,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $9,988,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical system upgrades $1,456,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Subtotal capital cost (CC) $11,789,000 Gross Receipt Tax $729,444 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $589,450 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC ) $13,108,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $1,048,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Handling & erection $4,311,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Electrical $1,305,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 Demolition $756,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Relocation $656,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Total direct installation costs (DIC ) $8,076,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $22,255,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $2,300,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Owner's cost $1,113,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,966,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost Start-up and spare parts $668,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $4,451,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $10,598,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,217,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $34,070,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $668,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $793,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,722,000 1,741 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,810,000 6,186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 32 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $5,537,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $6,330,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $3,318,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC ) $3,318,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $9,648,000

# 1 Estimating Notes for ROFA Cost Estimate

4.1 ROFA System Cost
Inputs: Nalco Mobotec proposal costs (dated 2/1/2008) SJGS 1 or 2 ROFA/Rotamix = $8,782,220 SJGS 3 or 4 ROFA/Rotamix = $9,987,917 SJGS 1 or 2 Rotamix only = $2,101,687 SJGS 1 or 2 Rotamix only = $2,336,853

Calculation: ROFA System Cost = ROFA/Rotamix cost – Rotamix only cost SJGS 1 or 2 ROFA System Cost = $8,782,220 - $2,101,687 = $6,681,00 SJGS 3 or 4 ROFA System Cost = $9,987,917 - $2,336,853 = $7,651,000

Notes/Remarks: Reference cost was based on Nalco Mobotec proposal (February 1, 2008) for ROFA/Rotamix and Rotamix only systems.

4.2.a Combustion System Modi fications (SJGS 1 or 2)
Inputs: Reference unit cost (18 burners) = $650,000 (previous B&V project with ROFA) Reference unit burner heat input = 133.3 MBtu/hr PNM (U12) burner heat input = 231.7 MBtu/hr
PNM (U12) number of burners = 16

Calculation:



# 000,000,1$cos 3.133 7.231
18 16 000,650$cos ___ ___ #_ #_ cos_ cos

= ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× = ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× =

tPNM tPNM inputheat burnerref inputheat burner PNM burner reference burner

PNM t reference tPNM

# 2 4.2.b Combustion System Modi fications (SJGS 3 or 4)


# Inputs: Reference unit cost (18 burners) = $650,000 (previous B&V proj ect with ROFA) Reference unit burner heat input = 133.3 MBtu/hr PNM (U34) burner heat input = 137.1 MBtu/hr
PNM (U34) number of burners = 42

Calculation:

000,500,1$cos 3.133 1.137
18 42 000,650$cos ___ ___ #_ #_ cos_ cos

= ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× = ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

× =

tPNM tPNM inputheat burnerref inputheat burner PNM burner reference burner

PNM t reference tPNM

4.3 NOx Monitoring System


# Inputs: Escalation rate = 1.03 (1 year to 2007) Reference cost = $427,200

Calculation:



# )_(000,220$2/000,440$cos )_(000,440$cos 200,427$03.1cos cos_

_ cos

ROFA tPNM SCR tPNM tPNM t reference rate escalation tPNM

= = = ×= × =

Notes/Remarks: Reference cost was based on a preliminary quotation. Final aw arded contract was $779,450. The final price also included sampli ng fans at a price of $17,555 for 2 units. Pricing used for SCR cost estimate (2 reactor s). Cost for ROFA is for 1 system only
(half).

# 3 4.4 Electrical System Upgrades 

# Electrical system upgrades fo r the ROFA fans are base d on the total electrical system modifications and new transformer for the new ID fans in the SCR project cost estimates. This is based on the assumption th at similar electrical system upgrades are required for the relatively similar sized fans between the ROFA and SCR projects.

The attached table shows a breakdown of the cost estimate for electrical/control

modifications of the PNM SJGS , required if an SCR were in stalled. The cost estimate was developed based on reference to the project cost of other reference units where B&V performed a balanced draft conversion. A scaling and retrofit factor was used to determine the engineering & materi al and construction labor costs. The total direct cost is the summation of the engineering and material, and

construction labor costs.

Reference Unit SJGS 1 or 2 SJGS 3 or 4

Balanced Draft Conversion Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Electrical/Control Modifications $285,000 $600,000 $159,000 $335,000 $214,000 $450,000 New transformer (subcontract) $1,000,000 $1,000,000

# 4 4.5 Direct Installation Costs D evelopment Notes (for SJGS 1 or 2) 

# 4.5.1 Foundation and supports a. ROFA structural steel = includ ed with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system b. Foundation for ROFA fans = $200,000 Based on estimated foun dation size for ROFA fan c. New platforms at ROFA ports elevation = $51,750 Quantity of platforms = 2 qty Estimated platform size (based on plant layout drawings) = 270 ft 2 

# / 2.5 tons Platform construction cost (l abor + material) = $4,600/ton Cost per platform = $11,500 Construction indirect = 125% of c onstruction cost (B&V estimating group expected value for this construction scope)

4.5.2 Handling and erection a. Mobotec installation = $1,592,750 (from Nalco Mobotec proposal, b. Inventory holding cost = $250,000 Estimated labor for holding = 1 man-year equivalent = $124,862 Estimated material cost for inventory holding = $125,000

4.5.3 Electrical a. installation cost for new ROFA fans = $435,000 From table in Section 4.4: Construction labor cost = $335,000 Construction indirect cost = $100,000

4.5.4 Piping a. included with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system

4.5.5 Insulation a. included with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system

4.5.6 Painting a. included with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system

4.5.7 Demolition a. ductwork demolition cost = $291,600 Estimated ductwork quantity for demo lition (based on plant layout drawings) = 160 tons Estimated man-hour for demolition = 2,880 hours Labor rate = $45/man-hour Ductwork demolition cost = $129,600 Construction indirect = 125% of c onstruction cost (B&V estimating group expected value for this construction scope)

# 5 b. platform demolition cost = $9,113 Estimated platform quantity for demolit ion (based on plant layout drawings) = 5 tons Estimated man-hour for demolition = 90 hours Labor rate = $45/man-hour Ductwork demolition cost = $4,050 Construction indirect = 125% of c onstruction cost (B&V estimating group expected value for this construction scope)

# 6 4.6 Direct Installation Costs D evelopment Notes (for SJGS 3 or 4) 

# 4.6.1 Foundation and supports a. ROFA structural steel = includ ed with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system b. Foundation for ROFA fans = $250,000 Based on estimated foun dation size for ROFA fan c. New platforms at ROFA ports elevation = $77,625 Quantity of platforms = 2 qty Estimated platform size (based on plant layout drawings) = 360 ft 2 

# / 3.75 tons Platform construction cost (l abor + material) = $4,600/ton Cost per platform = $17,250 Construction indirect = 125% of c onstruction cost (B&V estimating group expected value for this construction scope)

4.6.2 Handling and erection a. Mobotec installation = $1,901,595 (from Nalco Mobotec proposal, b. Inventory holding cost = $250,000 Estimated labor for holding = 1 man-year equivalent = $124,862 Estimated material cost for inventory holding = $125,000

4.6.3 Electrical a. installation cost for new ROFA fans = $585,000 From table in Section 4.4: Construction labor cost = $450,000 Construction indirect cost = $135,000

4.6.4 Piping a. included with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system

4.6.5 Insulation a. included with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system

4.6.6 Painting a. included with Nalco Mobotec ROFA system

4.6.7 Demolition a. ductwork demolition cost = $382,725 Estimated ductwork quantity for demoliti on (based on plant layout drawings) = 210 tons Estimated man-hour for demolition = 3,780 hours Labor rate = $45/man-hour Ductwork demolition cost = $170,100 Construction indirect = 125% of c onstruction cost (B&V estimating group expected value for this construction scope) b. platform demolition cost = $13,669 Estimated platform quantity for demolit ion (based on plant layout drawings) = 7.5 tons

# 7 Estimated man-hour for demolition = 135 hours Labor rate = $45/man-hour Ductwork demolition cost = $6,075 Construction indirect = 125% of c onstruction cost (B&V estimating group expected value for this construction scope)

# Attachment 2 –Page 1 of 5 

# Attachment 2Attachment 2 –Page 2 of 5SJGS Unit 1, Heat Input (HHV) =3,707 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,406,021 74 145.00 -0.20 0.43 1,592.0 0.24 877.8 0.050 185.4 0.013 50.0 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,323,494 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)1,325,998 70121.42 0.01 0.07 259.5 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.031 114.2 2 6.42. SNCR/SCR Hybrid1,324,112 70121.42 0.01 0.18 667.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.031 114.2 5 15.93. ROFA and Rotamix1,323,851 70121.42 0.01 0.20 741.4 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.94. ACT HERT SNCR1,323,851 70121.42 0.01 0.20 741.4 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.94. Rotamix1,323,904 70121.42 0.01 0.23 852.6 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.95. FuelTech SNCR1,323,904 70121.42 0.01 0.24 889.7 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.96. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)1,323,494 70121.42 0.01 0.26 963.8 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.9Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 1Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Attachment 2 –Page 3 of 5SJGS Unit 2, Heat Input (HHV) =3,688 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,444,718 77 148.00 -0.16 0.45 1,649.3 0.23 844.0 0.050 184.4 0.013 49.7 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)1,319,201 70121.42 0.01 0.07 258.2 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.031 113.6 2 6.42. SNCR/SCR Hybrid1,317,328 70121.42 0.01 0.18 663.8 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.031 113.6 5 15.93. ROFA and Rotamix1,317,067 70121.42 0.01 0.20 737.6 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.94. ACT HERT SNCR1,317,067 70121.42 0.01 0.20 737.6 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.94. Rotamix1,317,120 70121.42 0.01 0.23 848.2 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.95. FuelTech SNCR1,317,120 70121.42 0.01 0.24 885.1 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.96. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)1,316,710 70121.42 0.01 0.26 958.9 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.9Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 2Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Attachment 2 –Page 4 of 5SJGS Unit 3, Heat Input (HHV) =5,758 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,075,452 56 143.00 -0.22 0.42 2,405.5 0.28 1,591.1 0.050 287.9 0.013 77.7 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)2,059,643 56121.42 0.01 0.07 403.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.031 177.3 2 9.92. SNCR/SCR Hybrid2,056,712 56121.42 0.01 0.18 1,036.4 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.031 177.3 5 24.83. ROFA and Rotamix2,056,299 56121.42 0.01 0.20 1,151.6 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.84. ACT HERT SNCR2,056,299 56121.42 0.01 0.20 1,151.6 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.84. Rotamix2,056,389 56121.42 0.01 0.23 1,324.3 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.85. FuelTech SNCR2,056,389 56121.42 0.01 0.24 1,381.9 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.86. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)2,055,753 56121.42 0.01 0.26 1,497.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.8Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 3Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Attachment 2 –Page 5 of 5SJGS Unit 4, Heat Input (HHV) =5,649 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,093,240 57 137.00 -0.21 0.42 2,399.6 0.29 1,662.4 0.050 282.5 0.013 76.2 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)2,020,653 55121.42 0.01 0.07 395.4 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.031 174.0 2 9.72. SNCR/SCR Hybrid2,017,796 55121.42 0.01 0.18 1,016.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.031 174.0 5 24.33. ROFA and Rotamix2,017,383 55121.42 0.01 0.20 1,129.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.34. ACT HERT SNCR2,017,383 55121.42 0.01 0.20 1,129.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.34. Rotamix2,017,473 55121.42 0.01 0.23 1,299.3 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.35. FuelTech SNCR2,017,473 55121.42 0.01 0.24 1,355.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.36. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)2,016,837 55121.42 0.01 0.26 1,468.7 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.3Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 4Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 1 of 31 

# Attachment 3

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 2 of 31 Table 1 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 3 of 31 Table 2 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 4 of 31 Table 3 ROFA/Rotamix Visibility M odeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.58 1.40 1.25 1.41 1.58 Bandelier 0.88 1.28 1.08 1.08 1.28 Black Canyon 0.82 0.91 0.93 0.89 0.93 Canyonlands 2.10 1.55 1.57 1.74 2.10 Capitol Reef 1.55 0.65 0.93 1.05 1.55 Grand Canyon 0.79 0.63 0.56 0.66 0.79 Great Sand Dunes 0.56 0.60 0.48 0.55 0.60 La Garita 0.68 0.74 0.71 0.71 0.74 Maroon Bells 0.47 0.44 0.40 0.44 0.47 Mesa Verde 3.34 3.18 3.58 3.37 3.58 Pecos 0.82 0.86 0.88 0.85 0.88 Petrified Forest 0.73 0.50 0.49 0.57 0.73 San Pedro 1.28 1.67 1.45 1.47 1.67 West Elk 0.69 0.71 0.65 0.68 0.71 Weminuche 0.97 1.24 1.07 1.09 1.24 Wheeler Peak 0.65 0.69 0.70 0.68 0.70 Overall 1.08 3.58

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 5 of 31 Table 4 Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.61 1.49 1.27 1.45 1.61 Bandelier 0.91 1.35 1.14 1.13 1.35 Black Canyon 0.84 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.98 Canyonlands 2.13 1.60 1.60 1.78 2.13 Capitol Reef 1.62 0.71 0.98 1.10 1.62 Grand Canyon 0.84 0.64 0.57 0.68 0.84 Great Sand Dunes 0.57 0.61 0.51 0.56 0.61 La Garita 0.74 0.79 0.77 0.77 0.79 Maroon Bells 0.50 0.47 0.43 0.47 0.50 Mesa Verde 3.35 3.21 3.58 3.38 3.58 Pecos 0.88 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.92 Petrified Forest 0.77 0.54 0.50 0.60 0.77 San Pedro 1.30 1.77 1.47 1.51 1.77 West Elk 0.73 0.76 0.69 0.73 0.76 Weminuche 1.03 1.32 1.14 1.16 1.32 Wheeler Peak 0.68 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.75 Overall 1.12 3.58

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 6 of 31 Table 5 ROFA Visibility Modeli ng Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.63 1.53 1.29 1.48 1.63 Bandelier 0.94 1.41 1.16 1.17 1.41 Black Canyon 0.86 1.04 0.98 0.96 1.04 Canyonlands 2.17 1.64 1.63 1.81 2.17 Capitol Reef 1.68 0.76 1.04 1.16 1.68 Grand Canyon 0.88 0.68 0.57 0.71 0.88 Great Sand Dunes 0.58 0.65 0.54 0.59 0.65 La Garita 0.79 0.83 0.80 0.81 0.83 Maroon Bells 0.52 0.51 0.46 0.49 0.52 Mesa Verde 3.36 3.23 3.59 3.39 3.59 Pecos 0.93 0.97 0.92 0.94 0.97 Petrified Forest 0.78 0.55 0.50 0.61 0.78 San Pedro 1.32 1.86 1.49 1.56 1.86 West Elk 0.74 0.80 0.74 0.76 0.80 Weminuche 1.05 1.36 1.21 1.21 1.36 Wheeler Peak 0.70 0.79 0.79 0.76 0.79 Overall 1.15 3.59Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 7 of 31Table 6SJGS Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results(dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree ROFA/Rotamix Rotamix ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent DecreetoROFA/RotamixConsent Decreeto RotamixConsent Decreeto ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree toRotamixPre-ConsentDecree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toROFA/RotamixConsent Decree toRotamixConsent Decree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to ROFAArches1.921.691.581.611.630.230.110.090.060.340.310.29 224,751,092 293,035,714 199,435,294 281,278,689 247,178,886 217,898,089 236,641,379Bandelier1.861.561.281.351.410.310.280.210.140.590.520.45 167,648,208 116,797,153 81,500,000 120,830,986 143,346,939 132,854,369 152,841,871Black Canyon1.401.150.930.981.040.260.220.170.110.480.430.37 201,835,294 149,181,818 99,134,503 154,576,577 177,448,421 160,610,329 187,502,732Canyonlands2.592.262.102.132.170.330.170.130.090.490.450.42 158,363,077 197,710,843 131,410,853 180,610,526 171,665,988 150,704,846 163,395,238Capitol Reef1.971.811.551.621.680.160.250.190.130.420.350.29 319,677,019 129,212,598 88,753,927 130,977,099 203,103,614 194,375,000 235,020,548Grand Canyon1.140.970.790.840.880.170.180.130.090.350.300.26 304,544,379 185,423,729 128,424,242 190,644,444 243,606,936 227,308,970 264,965,251Great Sand Dunes1.000.710.600.610.650.290.110.100.060.400.390.34 179,331,010 298,363,636 163,000,000 301,017,544 212,312,343 174,987,212 199,494,186La Garita1.300.940.740.790.830.360.200.160.110.560.520.47 142,966,667 163,283,582 109,367,742 154,576,577 150,245,989 132,854,369 145,702,760Maroon Bells0.780.560.470.500.520.220.090.060.040.310.280.26 236,091,743 356,739,130 269,079,365 463,729,730 271,896,774 243,487,544 269,121,569Mesa Verde4.853.803.583.583.591.060.220.220.211.281.271.27 48,692,526 150,550,459 78,846,512 82,490,385 66,108,235 53,789,308 54,249,802Pecos1.401.090.880.920.970.310.210.180.120.520.480.43 168,196,078 155,545,024 96,318,182 140,639,344 163,032,882 141,950,207 160,341,121Petrified Forest1.130.820.730.770.780.310.090.050.040.400.360.35 165,491,961 368,764,045 353,166,667 428,950,000 210,720,000 190,584,958 195,515,670San Pedro2.372.011.671.771.860.360.340.250.150.700.610.51 142,966,667 96,529,412 68,631,579 111,415,584 120,411,429 112,718,287 133,513,619West Elk1.150.910.710.760.800.240.210.160.110.440.400.35 216,252,101 159,320,388 107,291,139 154,576,577 189,837,838 172,777,778 196,636,103Weminuche1.851.481.241.321.360.370.240.160.120.620.530.49 138,727,763 134,508,197 104,641,975 145,406,780 137,053,659 128,367,730 140,339,468Wheeler Peak1.050.890.700.750.790.160.190.140.100.350.300.26 323,698,113 169,175,258 117,722,222 168,215,686 238,776,204 225,808,581 262,934,866Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$51,468 (Includes LNB/OFA/NN and PJFF)Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$32,820Consent Decree to Rotamix$16,952Consent Decree to ROFA$17,158Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$84,288Pre-Consent Decree to Rotamix$68,420Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA$68,626

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 8 of 31 Table 7 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 9 of 31 Table 8 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 10 of 31 Table 9 ROFA/Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.52 0.39 0.42 0.44 0.52 Bandelier 0.18 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.30 Black Canyon 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.21 Canyonlands 0.80 0.47 0.45 0.57 0.80 Capitol Reef 0.41 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.41 Grand Canyon 0.20 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.20 Great Sand Dunes 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 La Garita 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 Maroon Bells 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 Mesa Verde 1.13 1.17 1.03 1.11 1.17 Pecos 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.22 Petrified Forest 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.16 San Pedro 0.32 0.44 0.39 0.39 0.44 West Elk 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.17 Weminuche 0.23 0.34 0.27 0.28 0.34 Wheeler Peak 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.16 Overall 0.29 1.17

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 11 of 31 Table 10 Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.56 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.56 Bandelier 0.20 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.32 Black Canyon 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Canyonlands 0.85 0.51 0.48 0.61 0.85 Capitol Reef 0.45 0.14 0.21 0.27 0.45 Grand Canyon 0.21 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.21 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 La Garita 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Maroon Bells 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 Mesa Verde 1.17 1.23 1.11 1.17 1.23 Pecos 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.21 0.23 Petrified Forest 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.16 San Pedro 0.35 0.47 0.42 0.41 0.47 West Elk 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Weminuche 0.25 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.36 Wheeler Peak 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.17 Overall 0.31 1.23

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 12 of 31 Table 11 ROFA Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.60 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.60 Bandelier 0.22 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.34 Black Canyon 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Canyonlands 0.90 0.55 0.50 0.65 0.90 Capitol Reef 0.48 0.16 0.22 0.29 0.48 Grand Canyon 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.23 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 La Garita 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Maroon Bells 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.12 Mesa Verde 1.25 1.29 1.17 1.23 1.29 Pecos 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.24 Petrified Forest 0.18 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.18 San Pedro 0.38 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.50 West Elk 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 Weminuche 0.27 0.38 0.32 0.32 0.38 Wheeler Peak 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.18 Overall 0.33 1.29Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 13 of 31Table 12Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results(dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree ROFA/Rotamix Rotamix ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent DecreetoROFA/RotamixConsent Decreeto RotamixConsent Decreeto ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree toRotamixPre-ConsentDecree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toROFA/RotamixConsent Decree toRotamixConsent Decree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to ROFAArches0.820.690.520.560.600.130.170.130.090.300.260.22 91,146,154 39,776,471 27,710,938 39,261,364 27,280,000 19,259,690 22,371,560Bandelier0.540.400.300.320.340.140.100.080.060.240.220.20 84,635,714 65,019,231 43,790,123 59,568,966 33,540,984 22,484,163 24,631,313Black Canyon0.380.290.210.220.240.090.090.070.050.180.160.14 131,655,556 79,552,941 52,161,765 71,979,167 46,765,714 31,449,367 35,340,580Canyonlands1.101.000.800.850.900.100.210.150.100.310.250.20 118,490,000 32,985,366 23,966,216 35,618,557 26,832,787 20,036,290 24,756,345Capitol Reef0.760.570.410.450.480.190.160.120.090.350.310.28 62,363,158 42,797,468 29,073,770 40,174,419 23,517,241 15,926,282 17,670,290Grand Canyon0.310.270.200.210.230.040.070.060.040.110.100.08 296,225,000 93,916,667 63,339,286 86,375,000 73,071,429 51,760,417 60,962,500Great Sand Dunes0.200.140.120.120.130.060.020.020.010.080.080.07 197,483,333 322,000,000 197,055,556 431,875,000 101,037,037 63,705,128 71,720,588La Garita0.290.210.160.170.180.080.050.040.030.130.120.11 148,112,500 130,038,462 88,675,000 123,392,857 62,000,000 41,408,333 45,157,407Maroon Bells0.180.140.100.110.120.040.040.030.020.080.070.06 296,225,000 164,926,829 114,419,355 164,523,810 101,037,037 69,985,915 79,950,820Mesa Verde1.791.401.171.231.290.390.230.170.110.620.560.50 30,382,051 29,788,546 20,502,890 30,307,018 13,264,182 8,825,933 9,676,587Pecos0.350.270.220.230.240.080.050.040.030.130.120.11 148,112,500 135,240,000 88,675,000 119,137,931 62,953,846 41,408,333 44,743,119Petrified Forest0.250.190.160.160.180.060.040.030.020.100.090.08 197,483,333 193,200,000 122,310,345 230,333,333 86,147,368 55,831,461 65,026,667San Pedro0.730.590.440.470.500.140.150.130.090.290.270.23 84,635,714 45,689,189 28,376,000 39,261,364 28,416,667 18,750,943 21,390,351West Elk0.280.220.170.180.190.060.060.040.030.120.100.09 197,483,333 122,945,455 84,452,381 119,137,931 71,165,217 48,715,686 54,797,753Weminuche0.540.430.340.360.380.110.090.070.050.200.180.16 107,718,182 75,977,528 49,957,746 63,981,481 41,125,628 27,453,039 29,737,805Wheeler Peak0.260.200.160.170.180.060.040.030.020.100.090.08 197,483,333 161,000,000 122,310,345 181,842,105 80,235,294 55,831,461 61,734,177Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$11,849 (Includes LNB/OFA/NN and PJFF)Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$6,762Consent Decree to Rotamix$3,547Consent Decree to ROFA$3,455Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$8,184Pre-Consent Decree to Rotamix$4,969Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA$4,877

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 14 of 31 Table 13 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 15 of 31 Table 14 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 16 of 31 Table 15 ROFA/Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.52 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.52 Bandelier 0.18 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.29 Black Canyon 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.21 Canyonlands 0.79 0.47 0.45 0.57 0.79 Capitol Reef 0.41 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.41 Grand Canyon 0.20 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.20 Great Sand Dunes 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 La Garita 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 Maroon Bells 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 Mesa Verde 1.13 1.17 1.03 1.11 1.17 Pecos 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.22 Petrified Forest 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.15 San Pedro 0.32 0.44 0.39 0.38 0.44 West Elk 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 Weminuche 0.22 0.34 0.27 0.28 0.34 Wheeler Peak 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.16 Overall 0.29 1.17

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 17 of 31 Table 16 Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.56 0.43 0.44 0.47 0.56 Bandelier 0.20 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.32 Black Canyon 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Canyonlands 0.85 0.51 0.48 0.61 0.85 Capitol Reef 0.45 0.14 0.21 0.27 0.45 Grand Canyon 0.21 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.21 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 La Garita 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Maroon Bells 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 Mesa Verde 1.16 1.22 1.10 1.16 1.22 Pecos 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.23 Petrified Forest 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.16 San Pedro 0.35 0.46 0.42 0.41 0.46 West Elk 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Weminuche 0.24 0.36 0.29 0.30 0.36 Wheeler Peak 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.17 Overall 0.31 1.22

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 18 of 31 Table 17 ROFA Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.60 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.60 Bandelier 0.21 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.34 Black Canyon 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Canyonlands 0.90 0.55 0.50 0.65 0.90 Capitol Reef 0.48 0.15 0.22 0.28 0.48 Grand Canyon 0.23 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.23 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 La Garita 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Maroon Bells 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.12 Mesa Verde 1.24 1.28 1.16 1.23 1.28 Pecos 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.24 Petrified Forest 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.17 San Pedro 0.38 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.50 West Elk 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19 Weminuche 0.26 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.37 Wheeler Peak 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.18 Overall 0.33 1.28Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 19 of 31Table 18Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results(dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree ROFA/Rotamix Rotamix ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent DecreetoROFA/RotamixConsent Decreeto RotamixConsent Decreeto ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree toRotamixPre-ConsentDecree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toROFA/RotamixConsent Decree toRotamixConsent Decree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to ROFAArches0.830.690.520.560.600.140.170.130.090.310.270.23 86,728,571 39,313,953 27,284,615 38,388,889 26,089,744 18,240,741 21,013,043Bandelier0.540.400.290.320.340.140.110.080.060.250.220.20 86,728,571 63,792,453 42,734,940 58,559,322 33,089,431 22,085,202 24,286,432Black Canyon0.390.290.210.220.240.100.090.070.050.190.170.15 121,420,000 79,552,941 51,405,797 69,100,000 44,000,000 29,142,012 32,220,000Canyonlands1.070.990.790.850.900.080.200.140.090.280.220.17 151,775,000 33,979,899 24,978,873 37,967,033 29,175,627 22,184,685 28,263,158Capitol Reef0.780.570.410.450.480.210.160.120.090.370.330.30 57,819,048 42,000,000 28,604,839 39,261,364 21,940,701 14,745,509 16,218,121Grand Canyon0.310.270.200.210.230.040.070.060.040.110.100.08 303,550,000 92,630,137 62,228,070 84,268,293 72,035,398 50,773,196 59,666,667Great Sand Dunes0.210.140.120.120.130.070.020.020.010.090.090.08 173,457,143 307,363,636 186,684,211 383,888,889 88,478,261 55,337,079 61,177,215La Garita0.290.210.160.170.180.080.050.040.030.130.120.11 151,775,000 127,584,906 86,512,195 123,392,857 61,203,008 40,702,479 44,750,000Maroon Bells0.180.140.100.110.120.040.040.030.020.080.070.06 303,550,000 164,926,829 110,843,750 157,045,455 100,493,827 68,402,778 77,951,613Mesa Verde1.821.401.171.221.280.420.230.180.120.650.600.54 28,909,524 29,272,727 19,926,966 29,033,613 12,503,840 8,235,786 8,966,605Pecos0.360.270.220.230.240.090.050.040.030.140.130.12 134,911,111 130,038,462 86,512,195 115,166,667 57,323,944 37,595,420 40,275,000Petrified Forest0.250.190.150.160.170.060.040.030.020.100.090.08 202,366,667 187,833,333 118,233,333 215,937,500 84,791,667 54,722,222 63,592,105San Pedro0.730.580.440.460.500.150.140.120.080.290.270.23 80,946,667 48,300,000 30,316,239 42,654,321 28,068,966 18,445,693 20,922,078West Elk0.290.220.160.180.190.070.060.040.030.130.110.10 173,457,143 120,750,000 82,488,372 115,166,667 64,603,175 43,584,071 48,330,000Weminuche0.560.420.340.360.370.140.080.060.050.220.200.19 86,728,571 83,481,481 56,301,587 75,108,696 36,832,579 24,261,084 25,983,871Wheeler Peak0.260.200.160.170.180.060.040.030.020.100.090.08 202,366,667 161,000,000 118,233,333 172,750,000 79,803,922 54,722,222 60,412,500Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$12,142 (Includes LNB/OFA/NN and PJFF)Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$6,762Consent Decree to Rotamix$3,547Consent Decree to ROFA$3,455Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$8,140Pre-Consent Decree to Rotamix$4,925Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA$4,833

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 20 of 31 Table 19 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 21 of 31 Table 20 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 22 of 31 Table 21 ROFA/Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.74 0.49 0.50 0.58 0.74 Bandelier 0.29 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.45 Black Canyon 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.32 0.34 Canyonlands 0.97 0.64 0.63 0.75 0.97 Capitol Reef 0.64 0.21 0.30 0.38 0.64 Grand Canyon 0.26 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.26 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.19 La Garita 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Maroon Bells 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.66 1.51 1.55 1.66 Pecos 0.27 0.28 0.34 0.30 0.34 Petrified Forest 0.24 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.24 San Pedro 0.54 0.63 0.55 0.57 0.63 West Elk 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 Weminuche 0.33 0.48 0.37 0.39 0.48 Wheeler Peak 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.24 Overall 0.42 1.66

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 23 of 31 Table 22 Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.78 0.53 0.54 0.62 0.78 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.49 Black Canyon 0.35 0.33 0.37 0.35 0.37 Canyonlands 1.01 0.69 0.67 0.79 1.01 Capitol Reef 0.69 0.23 0.32 0.41 0.69 Grand Canyon 0.28 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.28 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.19 La Garita 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 Maroon Bells 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.16 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.73 1.57 1.60 1.73 Pecos 0.29 0.30 0.36 0.31 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.27 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.27 San Pedro 0.58 0.66 0.59 0.61 0.66 West Elk 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.27 Weminuche 0.35 0.53 0.40 0.43 0.53 Wheeler Peak 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.26 Overall 0.44 1.73

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 24 of 31 Table 23 ROFA Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.82 0.56 0.58 0.65 0.82 Bandelier 0.34 0.52 0.53 0.46 0.53 Black Canyon 0.37 0.35 0.40 0.37 0.40 Canyonlands 1.03 0.74 0.70 0.82 1.03 Capitol Reef 0.74 0.24 0.34 0.44 0.74 Grand Canyon 0.30 0.21 0.18 0.23 0.30 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 Mesa Verde 1.50 1.78 1.62 1.64 1.78 Pecos 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.33 0.38 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.29 San Pedro 0.62 0.71 0.64 0.65 0.71 West Elk 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.30 Weminuche 0.38 0.57 0.43 0.46 0.57 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.27 Overall 0.46 1.78Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 25 of 31Table 24Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results(dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree ROFA/Rotamix Rotamix ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent DecreetoROFA/RotamixConsent Decreeto RotamixConsent Decreeto ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree toRotamixPre-ConsentDecree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toROFA/RotamixConsent Decree toRotamixConsent Decree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to ROFAArches1.040.890.740.780.820.150.150.110.070.300.260.22 91,293,333 63,473,684 44,008,929 69,243,243 36,052,980 23,545,802 28,410,714Bandelier0.810.610.450.490.530.200.160.120.080.360.320.28 68,470,000 61,846,154 41,075,000 63,259,259 30,584,270 19,278,125 22,647,687Black Canyon0.590.460.340.370.400.130.120.090.060.250.220.19 105,338,462 82,461,538 54,766,667 81,333,333 44,080,972 28,040,909 32,974,093Canyonlands1.441.150.971.011.030.290.180.150.120.470.440.41 47,220,690 54,508,475 33,993,103 42,700,000 23,314,775 14,181,609 15,521,951Capitol Reef1.100.860.640.690.740.240.220.170.120.460.410.36 57,058,333 43,071,429 28,994,118 43,794,872 23,465,517 15,046,341 17,826,331Grand Canyon0.480.350.260.280.300.130.100.080.050.230.210.18 105,338,462 101,557,895 65,720,000 94,888,889 48,391,111 30,092,683 34,586,957Great Sand Dunes0.330.240.190.190.210.090.050.050.030.140.140.12 152,155,556 201,000,000 107,152,174 165,290,323 78,898,551 45,360,294 52,595,041La Garita0.440.330.250.270.290.110.080.060.040.190.170.15 124,490,909 125,298,701 86,473,684 119,162,791 58,224,599 36,940,120 41,594,771Maroon Bells0.250.200.150.160.170.050.050.040.030.100.090.08 273,880,000 182,037,736 120,219,512 176,689,655 105,708,738 67,791,209 80,556,962Mesa Verde2.181.901.661.731.780.280.240.170.120.520.450.40 48,907,143 40,708,861 28,327,586 44,172,414 21,059,961 13,588,106 16,070,707Pecos0.580.420.340.360.380.160.080.060.040.240.220.20 85,587,500 123,692,308 80,803,279 116,454,545 45,747,899 27,914,027 31,196,078Petrified Forest0.430.290.240.270.290.140.050.020.000.190.160.14 97,814,286 209,739,130 214,304,348 1,281,000,000 58,537,634 37,846,626 44,194,444San Pedro1.030.810.630.660.710.220.180.150.100.400.370.32 62,245,455 53,899,441 32,215,686 49,269,231 27,288,221 16,538,874 19,641,975West Elk0.420.350.250.270.300.070.100.080.050.170.150.12 195,628,571 94,588,235 64,012,987 94,888,889 63,302,326 41,965,986 51,322,581Weminuche0.820.640.480.530.570.180.160.110.070.340.290.25 76,077,778 61,452,229 44,405,405 74,260,870 32,308,605 21,199,313 25,558,233Wheeler Peak0.390.310.240.260.270.080.070.050.040.150.130.12 171,175,000 141,882,353 93,000,000 134,842,105 73,567,568 46,383,459 53,932,203Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$13,694 (Includes LNB/OFA/NN and PJFF)Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$9,648Consent Decree to Rotamix$4,929Consent Decree to ROFA$5,124Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$10,888Pre-Consent Decree to Rotamix$6,169Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA$6,364

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 26 of 31 Table 25 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 27 of 31 Table 26 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 28 of 31 Table 27 ROFA/Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.73 0.49 0.48 0.57 0.73 Bandelier 0.29 0.44 0.44 0.39 0.44 Black Canyon 0.31 0.30 0.34 0.32 0.34 Canyonlands 0.97 0.64 0.62 0.74 0.97 Capitol Reef 0.64 0.21 0.30 0.38 0.64 Grand Canyon 0.26 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.26 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.19 La Garita 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.25 Maroon Bells 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 Mesa Verde 1.48 1.65 1.50 1.54 1.65 Pecos 0.27 0.28 0.34 0.29 0.34 Petrified Forest 0.24 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.24 San Pedro 0.53 0.62 0.53 0.56 0.62 West Elk 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.24 Weminuche 0.32 0.48 0.36 0.39 0.48 Wheeler Peak 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 Overall 0.41 1.65

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 29 of 31 Table 28 Rotamix Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.77 0.53 0.51 0.61 0.77 Bandelier 0.30 0.47 0.48 0.42 0.48 Black Canyon 0.34 0.33 0.36 0.34 0.36 Canyonlands 1.00 0.69 0.66 0.79 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.69 0.22 0.32 0.41 0.69 Grand Canyon 0.28 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.28 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.19 La Garita 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.27 Maroon Bells 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.16 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.71 1.56 1.59 1.71 Pecos 0.28 0.29 0.35 0.31 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.26 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.26 San Pedro 0.57 0.65 0.57 0.59 0.65 West Elk 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Weminuche 0.35 0.52 0.39 0.42 0.52 Wheeler Peak 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.25 Overall 0.43 1.71

# Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 30 of 31 Table 29 ROFA Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.81 0.57 0.55 0.64 0.81 Bandelier 0.33 0.51 0.52 0.45 0.52 Black Canyon 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.03 0.74 0.69 0.82 1.03 Capitol Reef 0.74 0.24 0.33 0.44 0.74 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.17 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 Maroon Bells 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 Mesa Verde 1.50 1.77 1.62 1.63 1.77 Pecos 0.30 0.31 0.37 0.33 0.37 Petrified Forest 0.28 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.28 San Pedro 0.61 0.69 0.60 0.63 0.69 West Elk 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.57 0.42 0.45 0.57 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.27 Overall 0.46 1.77Attachment 3 – Results Tables Page 31 of 31Table 30Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated fromMaximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree ROFA/Rotamix Rotamix ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent DecreetoROFA/RotamixConsent Decreeto RotamixConsent Decreeto ROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree toRotamixPre-ConsentDecree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toROFA/RotamixConsent Decree toRotamixConsent Decree toROFAPre-ConsentDecree toROFA/RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to RotamixPre-ConsentDecree to ROFAArches1.05 0.880.730.770.810.170.150.110.070.320.280.24 81,076,471 63,894,040 45,638,889 72,169,014 33,968,847 22,248,201 26,473,029Bandelier0.81 0.600.440.480.520.210.160.120.080.370.330.29 65,633,333 60,679,245 40,735,537 61,734,940 29,550,136 18,685,801 21,774,744Black Canyon0.59 0.440.340.360.380.150.100.080.060.250.230.21 91,886,667 93,669,903 60,109,756 89,894,737 43,098,814 26,659,483 30,821,256Canyonlands1.47 1.140.971.001.030.330.170.140.110.500.470.44 41,766,667 56,421,053 35,717,391 45,750,000 21,764,471 13,215,812 14,434,389Capitol Reef1.11 0.860.640.690.740.250.230.170.120.480.420.37 55,132,000 42,880,000 28,824,561 43,423,729 22,955,789 14,691,211 17,336,957Grand Canyon0.48 0.360.260.280.310.120.100.080.050.220.200.17 114,858,333 97,454,545 64,855,263 96,679,245 49,789,954 31,556,122 36,878,613Great Sand Dunes 0.34 0.230.190.190.200.110.040.040.030.150.150.14 125,300,000 224,372,093 120,219,512 197,076,923 71,267,974 40,960,265 46,911,765La Garita0.45 0.320.250.270.280.130.070.050.040.200.180.17 106,023,077 132,164,384 93,000,000 128,100,000 53,714,286 33,797,814 37,529,412Maroon Bells0.25 0.200.150.160.170.050.050.040.030.100.090.08 275,660,000 185,538,462 126,384,615 189,777,778 106,901,961 69,494,382 82,857,143Mesa Verde2.18 1.891.651.711.770.290.240.180.120.530.470.41 47,527,586 39,703,704 27,383,333 42,347,107 20,457,786 13,159,574 15,523,114Pecos0.59 0.410.340.350.370.180.070.060.040.250.240.22 76,572,222 134,000,000 88,017,857 131,384,615 43,269,841 26,207,627 29,132,420Petrified Forest 0.44 0.290.240.260.280.150.050.030.010.200.180.16 91,886,667 192,960,000 176,035,714 512,400,000 54,520,000 34,747,191 39,875,000San Pedro1.04 0.800.620.650.690.240.180.150.110.420.390.35 57,429,167 54,202,247 32,006,494 48,339,623 26,086,124 15,697,970 18,439,306West Elk0.43 0.330.240.260.280.100.090.070.050.190.170.15 137,830,000 109,636,364 73,567,164 111,391,304 58,000,000 37,035,928 43,698,630Weminuche0.81 0.630.480.520.570.180.150.110.060.330.290.24 76,572,222 62,649,351 45,638,889 80,062,500 32,646,707 21,475,694 26,147,541Wheeler Peak0.41 0.300.230.250.270.110.070.050.030.180.160.14 125,300,000 139,826,087 100,591,837 160,125,000 60,916,201 38,899,371 44,929,577Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$13,783 (Includes LNB/OFA/NN and PJFF)Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$9,648Consent Decree to Rotamix$4,929Consent Decree to ROFA$5,124Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA/Rotamix$10,904Pre-Consent Decree to Rotamix$6,185Pre-Consent Decree to ROFA$6,380PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 44 1.61 72.81 19.83 3.28 0.84 0.54 2.71 100 BAND 42 0.91 42.35 53.31 1.92 0.49 0.46 1.49 100 BLCA 20 0.84 53.56 41.60 2.14 0.55 0.46 1.70 100 CANY 63 2.13 73.54 22.85 1.60 0.41 0.34 1.27 100 CARE 27 1.62 59.78 35.30 2.16 0.55 0.54 1.68 100 GRCA 11 0.84 44.44 53.10 1.09 0.28 0.22 0.87 100 GRSA 10 0.57 82.01 11.72 2.88 0.74 0.39 2.25 100 LAGA 14 0.74 33.33 61.80 2.16 0.55 0.48 1.68 100 MABE 7 0.50 45.94 50.47 1.61 0.41 0.29 1.27 100 MEVE 153 3.35 76.19 8.88 6.33 1.62 2.11 4.87 100 PECO 30 0.88 49.12 47.72 1.41 0.36 0.28 1.11 100 PEFO 13 0.77 88.60 7.79 1.58 0.40 0.38 1.24 100 SAPE 85 1.30 76.93 16.40 2.88 0.74 0.83 2.22 100 WEEL 16 0.73 43.95 54.37 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 WEMI 42 1.03 90.48 1.83 3.42 0.87 0.73 2.67 100 WHPE 20 0.68 81.21 12.88 2.65 0.68 0.51 2.07 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 43 1.58 74.14 18.36 3.34 0.85 0.55 2.76 100 BAND 42 0.88 35.70 59.75 2.08 0.53 0.33 1.61 100 BLCA 18 0.82 54.95 40.08 2.19 0.56 0.47 1.75 100 CANY 62 2.10 74.97 21.34 1.63 0.42 0.35 1.29 100 CARE 27 1.55 62.41 32.45 2.25 0.58 0.56 1.75 100 GRCA 11 0.79 47.12 50.27 1.15 0.29 0.24 0.92 100 GRSA 9 0.56 83.34 10.29 2.93 0.75 0.40 2.29 100 LAGA 13 0.68 36.28 58.42 2.35 0.60 0.52 1.82 100 MABE 4 0.47 36.99 59.09 1.75 0.45 0.37 1.35 100 MEVE 151 3.34 76.56 8.44 6.36 1.62 2.12 4.90 100 PECO 24 0.82 67.42 28.63 1.76 0.45 0.37 1.37 100 PEFO 12 0.73 38.79 58.64 1.11 0.28 0.31 0.86 100 SAPE 84 1.28 78.09 15.14 2.92 0.75 0.85 2.25 100 WEEL 13 0.69 46.55 51.67 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.63 100 WEMI 41 0.97 37.21 57.74 2.21 0.56 0.57 1.71 100 WHPE 18 0.65 72.83 21.74 2.42 0.62 0.51 1.88 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 45 1.63 71.63 21.12 3.22 0.82 0.53 2.66 100 BAND 45 0.94 40.98 54.81 1.85 0.47 0.44 1.44 100 BLCA 21 0.86 52.42 42.84 2.09 0.53 0.45 1.67 100 CANY 64 2.17 72.23 24.21 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.25 100 CARE 27 1.68 57.45 37.82 2.08 0.53 0.52 1.61 100 GRCA 11 0.88 42.20 55.46 1.03 0.26 0.21 0.83 100 GRSA 12 0.58 80.71 13.12 2.84 0.73 0.39 2.22 100 LAGA 14 0.79 30.85 64.65 2.00 0.51 0.45 1.55 100 MABE 8 0.52 43.59 53.00 1.53 0.39 0.27 1.21 100 MEVE 155 3.36 75.90 9.23 6.30 1.61 2.10 4.85 100 PECO 31 0.93 46.24 50.79 1.33 0.34 0.26 1.04 100 PEFO 13 0.78 87.66 8.77 1.56 0.40 0.38 1.23 100 SAPE 87 1.32 75.88 17.54 2.84 0.73 0.82 2.19 100 WEEL 16 0.74 86.11 7.90 2.67 0.68 0.49 2.14 100 WEMI 47 1.05 31.86 61.86 2.70 0.69 0.80 2.08 100 WHPE 22 0.70 51.18 44.25 2.05 0.52 0.40 1.60 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 30 1.49 41.03 53.51 2.38 0.61 0.62 1.85 100 BAND 50 1.35 41.58 51.66 2.97 0.76 0.73 2.29 100 BLCA 26 0.98 39.93 57.72 1.06 0.27 0.17 0.84 100 CANY 50 1.60 44.84 50.30 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.62 100 CARE 13 0.71 40.05 57.91 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.73 100 GRCA 10 0.64 52.99 45.29 0.76 0.19 0.14 0.63 100 GRSA 10 0.61 35.16 60.88 1.78 0.45 0.33 1.39 100 LAGA 22 0.79 33.99 59.77 2.77 0.71 0.62 2.14 100 MABE 6 0.47 36.12 61.24 1.17 0.30 0.23 0.93 100 MEVE 157 3.21 78.44 9.96 4.96 1.27 1.54 3.84 100 PECO 34 0.92 50.34 47.87 0.80 0.20 0.16 0.63 100 PEFO 8 0.54 36.19 60.97 1.27 0.32 0.21 1.04 100 SAPE 95 1.77 41.15 53.49 2.34 0.60 0.59 1.83 100 WEEL 20 0.76 42.88 51.47 2.54 0.65 0.48 1.99 100 WEMI 60 1.32 40.77 57.10 0.93 0.24 0.23 0.73 100 WHPE 17 0.75 38.81 59.44 0.78 0.20 0.15 0.62 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 29 1.40 43.16 54.28 1.12 0.29 0.24 0.90 100 BAND 49 1.28 46.28 50.38 1.47 0.38 0.33 1.15 100 BLCA 25 0.91 42.83 54.65 1.14 0.29 0.18 0.90 100 CANY 50 1.55 46.31 48.67 2.16 0.55 0.64 1.67 100 CARE 13 0.65 43.30 54.49 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.79 100 GRCA 10 0.63 92.98 1.42 2.50 0.64 0.50 1.96 100 GRSA 10 0.60 90.60 5.80 1.63 0.42 0.26 1.29 100 LAGA 17 0.74 36.39 56.87 2.99 0.76 0.67 2.30 100 MABE 6 0.44 39.30 54.01 3.09 0.79 0.33 2.48 100 MEVE 157 3.18 79.12 9.17 5.01 1.28 1.55 3.87 100 PECO 29 0.86 53.65 44.44 0.85 0.22 0.17 0.68 100 PEFO 7 0.50 39.28 57.64 1.38 0.35 0.22 1.13 100 SAPE 92 1.67 56.84 35.88 3.18 0.81 0.84 2.46 100 WEEL 18 0.71 45.88 48.07 2.72 0.69 0.51 2.12 100 WEMI 58 1.24 61.67 35.82 1.11 0.28 0.22 0.90 100 WHPE 14 0.69 42.02 56.08 0.85 0.22 0.17 0.67 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 30 1.53 41.09 54.91 1.75 0.45 0.43 1.37 100 BAND 52 1.41 47.94 48.13 1.74 0.44 0.39 1.37 100 BLCA 27 1.04 37.51 60.28 1.00 0.25 0.16 0.79 100 CANY 52 1.64 55.52 40.75 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.30 100 CARE 14 0.76 37.26 60.84 0.84 0.21 0.17 0.68 100 GRCA 10 0.68 50.03 48.35 0.72 0.18 0.13 0.59 100 GRSA 11 0.65 32.60 63.73 1.65 0.42 0.31 1.29 100 LAGA 29 0.83 31.97 62.22 2.59 0.66 0.58 1.99 100 MABE 8 0.51 33.43 64.13 1.09 0.28 0.21 0.86 100 MEVE 158 3.23 77.81 10.68 4.92 1.26 1.53 3.81 100 PECO 35 0.97 47.44 50.88 0.75 0.19 0.15 0.60 100 PEFO 9 0.55 93.49 1.68 2.15 0.55 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 102 1.86 50.36 42.56 3.08 0.79 0.82 2.39 100 WEEL 22 0.80 35.09 62.73 0.98 0.25 0.16 0.78 100 WEMI 65 1.36 63.95 19.46 7.08 1.81 2.25 5.45 100 WHPE 18 0.79 51.48 42.87 2.55 0.65 0.46 1.99 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 24 1.27 75.89 21.42 1.18 0.30 0.26 0.94 100 BAND 49 1.14 82.29 12.61 2.23 0.57 0.55 1.74 100 BLCA 18 0.96 45.73 49.82 1.94 0.50 0.50 1.52 100 CANY 43 1.60 74.16 20.85 2.18 0.56 0.51 1.74 100 CARE 21 0.98 49.83 47.77 1.05 0.27 0.25 0.84 100 GRCA 8 0.57 94.24 0.81 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 10 0.51 27.65 70.10 0.98 0.25 0.24 0.77 100 LAGA 14 0.77 54.10 42.54 1.49 0.38 0.34 1.16 100 MABE 6 0.43 33.03 63.63 1.46 0.37 0.34 1.16 100 MEVE 156 3.58 82.06 0.90 7.26 1.85 2.36 5.58 100 PECO 40 0.91 47.63 48.61 1.70 0.43 0.30 1.33 100 PEFO 6 0.50 90.98 5.08 1.76 0.45 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 90 1.47 84.37 8.84 2.95 0.75 0.79 2.30 100 WEEL 14 0.69 33.89 61.30 2.10 0.54 0.53 1.64 100 WEMI 54 1.14 37.46 59.26 1.46 0.37 0.30 1.15 100 WHPE 22 0.74 37.08 59.00 1.77 0.45 0.29 1.40 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 24 1.25 77.67 19.58 1.21 0.31 0.26 0.97 100 BAND 47 1.08 33.00 60.40 2.93 0.75 0.68 2.25 100 BLCA 18 0.93 47.21 48.19 2.00 0.51 0.51 1.57 100 CANY 42 1.57 51.69 37.85 4.46 1.14 1.43 3.43 100 CARE 20 0.93 52.85 44.60 1.11 0.28 0.26 0.89 100 GRCA 8 0.56 63.87 33.17 1.30 0.33 0.27 1.05 100 GRSA 6 0.48 92.42 4.29 1.50 0.38 0.24 1.17 100 LAGA 12 0.71 30.67 63.78 2.57 0.66 0.24 2.10 100 MABE 5 0.40 35.46 60.97 1.57 0.40 0.37 1.24 100 MEVE 154 3.58 82.14 0.80 7.26 1.86 2.36 5.58 100 PECO 37 0.88 65.41 27.63 3.08 0.79 0.68 2.41 100 PEFO 6 0.49 80.66 15.11 1.89 0.48 0.33 1.52 100 SAPE 90 1.45 56.13 38.49 2.31 0.59 0.69 1.78 100 WEEL 13 0.65 36.43 58.41 2.26 0.58 0.57 1.76 100 WEMI 53 1.07 54.55 41.81 1.57 0.40 0.46 1.21 100 WHPE 21 0.70 39.12 56.75 1.87 0.48 0.31 1.47 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 26 1.29 36.00 61.62 1.04 0.27 0.25 0.83 100 BAND 53 1.16 80.94 14.04 2.20 0.56 0.54 1.71 100 BLCA 18 0.98 44.54 51.13 1.89 0.48 0.48 1.48 100 CANY 45 1.63 72.89 22.21 2.14 0.55 0.51 1.71 100 CARE 22 1.04 47.25 50.47 0.99 0.25 0.23 0.80 100 GRCA 9 0.57 94.13 0.92 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 11 0.54 28.58 67.16 1.90 0.48 0.41 1.47 100 LAGA 18 0.80 51.93 44.84 1.43 0.36 0.32 1.11 100 MABE 6 0.46 31.08 65.79 1.38 0.35 0.32 1.09 100 MEVE 158 3.59 45.46 48.23 2.71 0.69 0.81 2.10 100 PECO 41 0.92 72.69 24.19 1.41 0.36 0.24 1.11 100 PEFO 8 0.50 90.35 5.73 1.75 0.45 0.31 1.40 100 SAPE 92 1.49 83.45 9.84 2.91 0.74 0.78 2.27 100 WEEL 17 0.74 28.59 69.31 0.91 0.23 0.23 0.72 100 WEMI 57 1.21 34.90 62.04 1.36 0.35 0.28 1.07 100 WHPE 23 0.79 28.01 67.65 1.92 0.49 0.42 1.51 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.56 31.25 65.08 1.61 0.41 0.38 1.27 100 BAND 1 0.20 32.57 63.38 1.85 0.47 0.29 1.43 100 BLCA 1 0.22 30.31 66.73 1.28 0.33 0.34 1.00 100 CANY 18 0.85 43.20 54.65 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 CARE 6 0.45 34.30 63.72 0.86 0.22 0.22 0.68 100 GRCA 2 0.21 38.64 59.21 0.95 0.24 0.19 0.77 100 GRSA 0 0.12 80.85 12.97 2.84 0.73 0.39 2.23 100 LAGA 0 0.16 32.90 62.21 2.16 0.55 0.48 1.69 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.50 68.43 2.24 0.57 0.52 1.74 100 MEVE 31 1.17 54.36 34.96 4.52 1.16 1.50 3.50 100 PECO 0 0.18 33.94 63.34 1.22 0.31 0.22 0.96 100 PEFO 1 0.16 34.18 63.57 0.97 0.25 0.27 0.77 100 SAPE 6 0.35 34.33 61.69 1.75 0.45 0.44 1.35 100 WEEL 0 0.18 41.98 54.76 1.46 0.37 0.27 1.16 100 WEMI 2 0.25 31.02 63.05 2.56 0.65 0.74 1.98 100 WHPE 0 0.16 45.27 52.16 1.16 0.30 0.20 0.91 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 33.84 62.18 1.75 0.45 0.41 1.37 100 BAND 1 0.18 34.57 62.39 1.35 0.35 0.29 1.06 100 BLCA 1 0.20 33.22 63.54 1.41 0.36 0.37 1.10 100 CANY 17 0.80 46.44 51.25 1.02 0.26 0.22 0.81 100 CARE 5 0.41 37.41 60.43 0.93 0.24 0.24 0.74 100 GRCA 2 0.20 41.85 55.82 1.03 0.26 0.21 0.83 100 GRSA 0 0.11 48.84 47.95 1.45 0.37 0.24 1.14 100 LAGA 0 0.15 35.88 58.79 2.36 0.60 0.53 1.84 100 MABE 0 0.10 29.10 65.34 2.46 0.63 0.57 1.91 100 MEVE 29 1.13 56.21 32.75 4.67 1.20 1.56 3.62 100 PECO 0 0.17 51.47 45.22 1.48 0.38 0.29 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.16 89.30 7.04 1.60 0.41 0.39 1.26 100 SAPE 4 0.32 37.25 58.43 1.90 0.49 0.47 1.47 100 WEEL 0 0.17 45.31 51.16 1.58 0.40 0.30 1.25 100 WEMI 1 0.23 33.75 59.79 2.78 0.71 0.81 2.15 100 WHPE 0 0.15 48.63 48.61 1.25 0.32 0.21 0.98 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.60 29.10 67.48 1.50 0.38 0.35 1.18 100 BAND 1 0.22 30.05 66.22 1.70 0.44 0.27 1.32 100 BLCA 1 0.24 27.87 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.31 0.92 100 CANY 20 0.90 42.38 55.07 1.12 0.29 0.25 0.89 100 CARE 7 0.48 31.68 66.49 0.79 0.20 0.20 0.63 100 GRCA 2 0.23 35.91 62.09 0.88 0.23 0.18 0.72 100 GRSA 0 0.12 40.61 52.08 3.32 0.85 0.55 2.59 100 LAGA 0 0.17 82.11 13.26 2.04 0.52 0.46 1.60 100 MABE 0 0.12 24.34 71.01 2.06 0.53 0.48 1.59 100 MEVE 32 1.25 31.83 65.89 0.97 0.25 0.31 0.75 100 PECO 0 0.20 31.25 66.25 1.13 0.29 0.20 0.88 100 PEFO 1 0.18 31.50 66.42 0.90 0.23 0.25 0.71 100 SAPE 6 0.38 31.86 64.44 1.62 0.42 0.40 1.26 100 WEEL 0 0.19 39.09 57.87 1.36 0.35 0.26 1.08 100 WEMI 2 0.27 28.71 65.80 2.37 0.61 0.69 1.83 100 WHPE 1 0.17 42.34 55.25 1.09 0.28 0.18 0.85 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.43 30.43 65.58 1.74 0.45 0.44 1.36 100 BAND 4 0.32 38.79 58.51 1.18 0.30 0.28 0.93 100 BLCA 0 0.22 32.57 64.57 1.26 0.32 0.26 1.01 100 CANY 9 0.51 30.04 66.43 1.53 0.39 0.40 1.20 100 CARE 1 0.14 37.78 60.53 0.73 0.19 0.17 0.59 100 GRCA 0 0.14 52.70 45.61 0.74 0.19 0.14 0.62 100 GRSA 0 0.12 35.34 60.80 1.73 0.44 0.32 1.36 100 LAGA 0 0.17 32.85 63.61 1.54 0.39 0.42 1.19 100 MABE 0 0.10 35.80 58.15 2.79 0.72 0.29 2.26 100 MEVE 44 1.23 58.05 29.73 5.18 1.32 1.71 4.00 100 PECO 1 0.20 50.71 45.43 1.71 0.44 0.36 1.35 100 PEFO 0 0.11 35.18 62.04 1.24 0.32 0.20 1.02 100 SAPE 7 0.47 33.93 61.87 1.84 0.47 0.45 1.45 100 WEEL 0 0.16 31.41 64.48 1.79 0.46 0.48 1.38 100 WEMI 0 0.36 53.71 40.15 2.64 0.67 0.79 2.04 100 WHPE 0 0.14 61.79 33.59 2.11 0.54 0.28 1.68 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 3 0.39 33.17 62.48 1.90 0.49 0.48 1.48 100 BAND 4 0.30 64.61 28.57 3.07 0.79 0.56 2.40 100 BLCA 0 0.20 35.69 61.18 1.39 0.35 0.29 1.11 100 CANY 7 0.47 32.86 63.28 1.68 0.43 0.43 1.32 100 CARE 1 0.13 42.78 55.04 0.96 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 GRCA 0 0.13 56.13 42.08 0.79 0.20 0.15 0.66 100 GRSA 0 0.12 90.48 5.94 1.62 0.41 0.26 1.29 100 LAGA 0 0.16 35.82 60.33 1.67 0.43 0.46 1.30 100 MABE 0 0.09 87.34 9.03 1.60 0.41 0.37 1.25 100 MEVE 40 1.17 43.27 46.96 4.19 1.07 1.26 3.24 100 PECO 0 0.19 53.93 41.97 1.82 0.47 0.38 1.44 100 PEFO 0 0.10 38.27 58.70 1.35 0.35 0.22 1.11 100 SAPE 7 0.44 60.54 34.61 2.15 0.55 0.49 1.66 100 WEEL 0 0.14 34.26 61.26 1.95 0.50 0.52 1.51 100 WEMI 0 0.34 56.56 36.98 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WHPE 0 0.13 64.66 30.51 2.21 0.57 0.29 1.76 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 6 0.46 28.51 69.02 1.09 0.28 0.22 0.87 100 BAND 4 0.34 36.08 61.42 1.10 0.28 0.26 0.87 100 BLCA 0 0.24 29.93 67.44 1.16 0.30 0.24 0.93 100 CANY 10 0.55 27.68 69.07 1.41 0.36 0.37 1.11 100 CARE 1 0.16 34.97 63.47 0.68 0.17 0.16 0.54 100 GRCA 0 0.15 49.65 48.76 0.70 0.18 0.13 0.58 100 GRSA 0 0.13 32.75 63.67 1.61 0.41 0.30 1.26 100 LAGA 0 0.18 29.04 68.34 1.16 0.30 0.24 0.92 100 MABE 0 0.10 33.27 61.10 2.60 0.66 0.27 2.10 100 MEVE 47 1.29 31.43 65.84 1.16 0.30 0.37 0.91 100 PECO 1 0.21 47.85 48.51 1.61 0.41 0.34 1.28 100 PEFO 0 0.11 93.50 1.70 2.12 0.54 0.44 1.69 100 SAPE 8 0.50 31.42 64.69 1.70 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 WEEL 0 0.17 29.01 67.20 1.65 0.42 0.44 1.28 100 WEMI 1 0.38 51.16 42.99 2.51 0.64 0.76 1.94 100 WHPE 0 0.14 36.85 61.56 0.71 0.18 0.14 0.57 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.44 59.02 38.91 0.91 0.23 0.20 0.73 100 BAND 1 0.29 30.40 65.49 1.80 0.46 0.45 1.40 100 BLCA 0 0.22 32.67 64.98 1.03 0.26 0.24 0.82 100 CANY 6 0.48 58.53 39.41 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.73 100 CARE 2 0.21 94.29 1.11 2.01 0.52 0.47 1.60 100 GRCA 0 0.12 94.09 0.96 2.19 0.56 0.45 1.75 100 GRSA 0 0.11 34.30 62.50 1.43 0.36 0.28 1.14 100 LAGA 0 0.17 43.30 53.72 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.02 100 MABE 0 0.09 41.33 54.55 1.91 0.49 0.23 1.50 100 MEVE 43 1.11 29.36 66.76 1.66 0.42 0.50 1.30 100 PECO 1 0.23 61.77 33.72 2.02 0.52 0.37 1.61 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.79 5.30 1.75 0.45 0.32 1.40 100 SAPE 5 0.42 33.54 61.20 2.26 0.58 0.66 1.76 100 WEEL 0 0.16 44.53 53.47 0.88 0.22 0.20 0.70 100 WEMI 2 0.30 30.97 61.48 3.27 0.84 0.90 2.55 100 WHPE 0 0.17 43.59 54.56 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.42 62.14 35.68 0.96 0.25 0.21 0.77 100 BAND 1 0.27 33.19 62.31 1.97 0.50 0.50 1.53 100 BLCA 0 0.21 53.30 41.86 2.10 0.54 0.57 1.64 100 CANY 6 0.45 61.63 36.20 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 CARE 2 0.21 94.43 0.96 2.02 0.52 0.47 1.60 100 GRCA 0 0.12 94.21 0.84 2.19 0.56 0.45 1.75 100 GRSA 0 0.10 37.34 59.17 1.55 0.40 0.31 1.24 100 LAGA 0 0.16 46.57 50.23 1.41 0.36 0.34 1.10 100 MABE 0 0.08 44.61 50.94 2.06 0.53 0.25 1.62 100 MEVE 42 1.03 71.30 11.15 7.49 1.92 2.36 5.78 100 PECO 1 0.22 58.29 39.17 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.91 100 PEFO 0 0.10 80.27 15.52 1.87 0.48 0.33 1.52 100 SAPE 5 0.39 35.87 58.50 2.42 0.62 0.71 1.88 100 WEEL 0 0.15 47.87 49.97 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.76 100 WEMI 1 0.27 29.70 65.44 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.62 100 WHPE 0 0.16 46.98 51.02 0.88 0.23 0.18 0.71 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.46 56.21 41.82 0.87 0.22 0.19 0.70 100 BAND 1 0.32 28.05 68.15 1.66 0.43 0.42 1.29 100 BLCA 0 0.24 30.09 67.74 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.76 100 CANY 8 0.50 55.75 42.29 0.86 0.22 0.18 0.70 100 CARE 2 0.22 52.65 45.21 0.93 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 GRCA 0 0.12 93.96 1.09 2.18 0.56 0.45 1.75 100 GRSA 0 0.12 31.72 65.32 1.32 0.34 0.26 1.05 100 LAGA 0 0.18 40.47 56.75 1.22 0.31 0.29 0.95 100 MABE 0 0.09 38.48 57.67 1.78 0.45 0.22 1.39 100 MEVE 45 1.17 45.88 43.77 4.39 1.12 1.45 3.39 100 PECO 1 0.24 59.01 36.68 1.93 0.49 0.35 1.54 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.14 5.97 1.74 0.44 0.32 1.39 100 SAPE 5 0.44 31.63 63.40 2.13 0.55 0.63 1.66 100 WEEL 0 0.18 41.61 56.51 0.82 0.21 0.19 0.66 100 WEMI 3 0.32 28.70 64.30 3.03 0.78 0.83 2.36 100 WHPE 0 0.18 92.03 4.39 1.62 0.42 0.27 1.27 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.56 31.23 65.10 1.62 0.41 0.38 1.26 100 BAND 1 0.20 32.57 63.38 1.86 0.48 0.29 1.43 100 BLCA 1 0.22 30.31 66.73 1.29 0.33 0.34 1.00 100 CANY 18 0.85 43.19 54.66 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.75 100 CARE 6 0.45 34.30 63.72 0.86 0.22 0.22 0.68 100 GRCA 2 0.21 38.64 59.21 0.95 0.24 0.19 0.77 100 GRSA 0 0.12 80.85 12.97 2.85 0.73 0.39 2.21 100 LAGA 0 0.16 32.90 62.21 2.17 0.56 0.48 1.68 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.50 68.42 2.25 0.58 0.52 1.73 100 MEVE 31 1.16 54.29 35.03 4.53 1.16 1.51 3.47 100 PECO 0 0.18 33.95 63.34 1.23 0.31 0.22 0.95 100 PEFO 1 0.16 34.18 63.56 0.98 0.25 0.27 0.76 100 SAPE 5 0.35 34.32 61.69 1.76 0.45 0.44 1.35 100 WEEL 0 0.18 41.98 54.75 1.47 0.38 0.27 1.15 100 WEMI 2 0.24 31.02 63.04 2.57 0.66 0.74 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.16 45.27 52.16 1.17 0.30 0.20 0.91 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 33.83 62.19 1.76 0.45 0.41 1.37 100 BAND 1 0.18 34.57 62.38 1.36 0.35 0.29 1.05 100 BLCA 1 0.20 33.22 63.53 1.42 0.36 0.37 1.10 100 CANY 17 0.79 46.43 51.26 1.03 0.26 0.22 0.81 100 CARE 5 0.41 37.41 60.43 0.94 0.24 0.24 0.74 100 GRCA 2 0.20 41.85 55.82 1.03 0.26 0.21 0.83 100 GRSA 0 0.11 82.32 11.39 2.90 0.74 0.40 2.25 100 LAGA 0 0.15 35.88 58.78 2.37 0.61 0.53 1.83 100 MABE 0 0.10 29.09 65.33 2.47 0.63 0.57 1.90 100 MEVE 29 1.13 56.15 32.81 4.69 1.20 1.56 3.59 100 PECO 0 0.17 51.47 45.22 1.49 0.38 0.29 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.15 89.30 7.04 1.60 0.41 0.39 1.26 100 SAPE 4 0.32 37.24 58.43 1.91 0.49 0.47 1.46 100 WEEL 0 0.16 45.31 51.16 1.59 0.41 0.30 1.24 100 WEMI 1 0.22 33.75 59.79 2.79 0.72 0.81 2.14 100 WHPE 0 0.14 48.63 48.61 1.26 0.32 0.21 0.97 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.60 29.08 67.50 1.51 0.39 0.35 1.17 100 BAND 1 0.21 30.05 66.21 1.71 0.44 0.27 1.32 100 BLCA 1 0.24 27.87 69.41 1.19 0.30 0.31 0.92 100 CANY 20 0.90 42.34 55.12 1.12 0.29 0.25 0.88 100 CARE 7 0.48 31.68 66.50 0.80 0.20 0.20 0.62 100 GRCA 2 0.23 35.90 62.10 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.71 100 GRSA 0 0.12 40.61 52.08 3.34 0.85 0.55 2.57 100 LAGA 0 0.17 82.11 13.26 2.05 0.53 0.46 1.59 100 MABE 0 0.12 24.34 71.00 2.07 0.53 0.48 1.59 100 MEVE 32 1.24 31.82 65.90 0.98 0.25 0.31 0.75 100 PECO 0 0.20 31.25 66.25 1.13 0.29 0.20 0.88 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.50 66.41 0.90 0.23 0.25 0.70 100 SAPE 6 0.38 31.85 64.45 1.63 0.42 0.40 1.25 100 WEEL 0 0.19 39.09 57.87 1.37 0.35 0.26 1.07 100 WEMI 2 0.26 28.70 65.80 2.38 0.61 0.69 1.82 100 WHPE 1 0.17 42.34 55.26 1.09 0.28 0.18 0.85 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.43 30.42 65.59 1.75 0.45 0.44 1.35 100 BAND 4 0.32 38.79 58.51 1.19 0.30 0.28 0.93 100 BLCA 0 0.22 32.57 64.57 1.27 0.33 0.26 1.01 100 CANY 9 0.51 30.04 66.43 1.54 0.39 0.40 1.20 100 CARE 1 0.14 37.78 60.53 0.74 0.19 0.17 0.58 100 GRCA 0 0.14 52.70 45.61 0.75 0.19 0.14 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.12 35.34 60.79 1.74 0.45 0.32 1.36 100 LAGA 0 0.17 32.85 63.60 1.54 0.40 0.42 1.19 100 MABE 0 0.10 35.80 58.14 2.81 0.72 0.29 2.25 100 MEVE 44 1.22 58.02 29.75 5.20 1.33 1.72 3.98 100 PECO 0 0.20 50.70 45.43 1.72 0.44 0.36 1.35 100 PEFO 0 0.11 35.18 62.04 1.25 0.32 0.20 1.02 100 SAPE 7 0.46 33.93 61.87 1.85 0.47 0.45 1.44 100 WEEL 0 0.16 31.41 64.48 1.80 0.46 0.48 1.38 100 WEMI 0 0.36 53.70 40.15 2.65 0.68 0.79 2.03 100 WHPE 0 0.13 61.79 33.59 2.13 0.54 0.28 1.67 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 3 0.39 33.17 62.48 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.47 100 BAND 4 0.29 48.71 49.07 0.97 0.25 0.23 0.76 100 BLCA 0 0.20 35.69 61.17 1.39 0.36 0.29 1.10 100 CANY 7 0.47 32.86 63.28 1.69 0.43 0.43 1.31 100 CARE 1 0.13 42.78 55.04 0.96 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 GRCA 0 0.13 56.13 42.07 0.80 0.20 0.15 0.65 100 GRSA 0 0.12 90.47 5.94 1.63 0.42 0.26 1.28 100 LAGA 0 0.15 35.81 60.32 1.68 0.43 0.46 1.29 100 MABE 0 0.09 87.34 9.03 1.61 0.41 0.37 1.25 100 MEVE 40 1.17 43.21 47.02 4.21 1.08 1.26 3.22 100 PECO 0 0.19 53.92 41.97 1.83 0.47 0.38 1.43 100 PEFO 0 0.10 38.27 58.70 1.36 0.35 0.22 1.11 100 SAPE 7 0.44 60.49 34.67 2.15 0.55 0.49 1.65 100 WEEL 0 0.14 34.25 61.26 1.96 0.50 0.52 1.50 100 WEMI 0 0.34 56.54 36.98 2.79 0.71 0.84 2.14 100 WHPE 0 0.13 64.65 30.51 2.22 0.57 0.29 1.75 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 6 0.46 28.50 69.03 1.10 0.28 0.22 0.87 100 BAND 4 0.34 36.07 61.42 1.11 0.28 0.26 0.86 100 BLCA 0 0.24 29.94 67.43 1.17 0.30 0.24 0.92 100 CANY 10 0.55 27.67 69.07 1.42 0.36 0.37 1.10 100 CARE 1 0.15 34.97 63.47 0.68 0.17 0.16 0.54 100 GRCA 0 0.14 49.65 48.76 0.70 0.18 0.13 0.58 100 GRSA 0 0.13 32.75 63.67 1.61 0.41 0.30 1.26 100 LAGA 0 0.18 30.35 66.38 1.43 0.36 0.39 1.10 100 MABE 0 0.10 33.27 61.10 2.61 0.67 0.27 2.09 100 MEVE 47 1.28 31.40 65.86 1.17 0.30 0.37 0.90 100 PECO 1 0.21 47.84 48.51 1.62 0.41 0.34 1.27 100 PEFO 0 0.11 93.49 1.70 2.14 0.55 0.44 1.68 100 SAPE 7 0.50 31.42 64.69 1.71 0.44 0.42 1.33 100 WEEL 0 0.17 29.01 67.20 1.66 0.42 0.44 1.27 100 WEMI 1 0.37 51.15 42.99 2.52 0.65 0.76 1.93 100 WHPE 0 0.14 36.85 61.56 0.71 0.18 0.14 0.56 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.44 59.01 38.92 0.92 0.23 0.20 0.73 100 BAND 1 0.29 30.39 65.49 1.81 0.46 0.45 1.39 100 BLCA 0 0.22 32.67 64.98 1.03 0.26 0.24 0.82 100 CANY 6 0.48 58.52 39.42 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.73 100 CARE 2 0.21 94.29 1.11 2.02 0.52 0.47 1.59 100 GRCA 0 0.12 94.08 0.96 2.20 0.56 0.45 1.74 100 GRSA 0 0.11 34.29 62.50 1.43 0.37 0.28 1.13 100 LAGA 0 0.17 43.30 53.72 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 MABE 0 0.09 41.33 54.54 1.92 0.49 0.23 1.49 100 MEVE 43 1.10 29.35 66.76 1.67 0.43 0.50 1.29 100 PECO 1 0.23 61.77 33.72 2.03 0.52 0.37 1.60 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.78 5.29 1.76 0.45 0.32 1.40 100 SAPE 5 0.42 33.50 61.24 2.27 0.58 0.66 1.74 100 WEEL 0 0.16 44.52 53.47 0.88 0.23 0.20 0.70 100 WEMI 2 0.29 30.97 61.47 3.29 0.84 0.90 2.54 100 WHPE 0 0.17 43.59 54.56 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 5 0.41 62.13 35.69 0.96 0.25 0.21 0.77 100 BAND 1 0.27 33.19 62.31 1.98 0.51 0.50 1.52 100 BLCA 0 0.21 53.27 41.89 2.11 0.54 0.57 1.63 100 CANY 6 0.45 61.62 36.21 0.96 0.25 0.20 0.77 100 CARE 2 0.21 94.43 0.96 2.03 0.52 0.47 1.59 100 GRCA 0 0.12 94.20 0.84 2.20 0.56 0.45 1.74 100 GRSA 0 0.10 37.34 59.17 1.56 0.40 0.31 1.23 100 LAGA 0 0.16 46.57 50.23 1.41 0.36 0.34 1.09 100 MABE 0 0.08 44.61 50.93 2.07 0.53 0.25 1.61 100 MEVE 42 1.03 71.22 11.24 7.52 1.92 2.36 5.75 100 PECO 1 0.22 64.77 30.50 2.13 0.54 0.39 1.68 100 PEFO 0 0.10 80.27 15.52 1.88 0.48 0.33 1.51 100 SAPE 5 0.39 35.83 58.54 2.43 0.62 0.71 1.87 100 WEEL 0 0.15 47.87 49.97 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 WEMI 1 0.27 29.69 65.44 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WHPE 0 0.16 46.98 51.02 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.46 56.20 41.83 0.87 0.22 0.19 0.69 100 BAND 1 0.31 28.05 68.15 1.67 0.43 0.42 1.28 100 BLCA 0 0.24 30.09 67.74 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 CANY 7 0.50 55.73 42.30 0.87 0.22 0.18 0.69 100 CARE 2 0.22 52.66 45.21 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 GRCA 0 0.12 93.96 1.09 2.19 0.56 0.45 1.74 100 GRSA 0 0.12 31.72 65.32 1.32 0.34 0.26 1.04 100 LAGA 0 0.18 40.46 56.75 1.23 0.31 0.29 0.95 100 MABE 0 0.09 38.48 57.67 1.79 0.46 0.22 1.39 100 MEVE 44 1.16 45.84 43.81 4.40 1.13 1.45 3.37 100 PECO 1 0.24 59.01 36.67 1.94 0.50 0.35 1.53 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.13 5.97 1.74 0.45 0.32 1.39 100 SAPE 5 0.44 31.59 63.45 2.14 0.55 0.63 1.65 100 WEEL 0 0.17 41.61 56.51 0.83 0.21 0.19 0.65 100 WEMI 3 0.32 28.70 64.29 3.05 0.78 0.83 2.35 100 WHPE 0 0.18 92.03 4.39 1.63 0.42 0.27 1.26 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.78 40.87 56.94 0.97 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 BAND 1 0.31 31.84 64.02 1.90 0.48 0.31 1.46 100 BLCA 2 0.35 32.29 63.59 1.83 0.46 0.42 1.41 100 CANY 27 1.01 50.16 47.27 1.09 0.28 0.36 0.84 100 CARE 12 0.69 33.89 64.13 0.86 0.22 0.22 0.68 100 GRCA 4 0.28 39.91 57.90 0.97 0.24 0.20 0.78 100 GRSA 0 0.18 80.87 12.95 2.85 0.72 0.39 2.22 100 LAGA 0 0.26 83.22 12.07 2.09 0.53 0.47 1.62 100 MABE 0 0.16 41.46 55.21 1.50 0.38 0.26 1.18 100 MEVE 57 1.49 75.65 6.15 7.70 1.94 2.65 5.90 100 PECO 2 0.29 38.39 58.72 1.34 0.34 0.16 1.04 100 PEFO 2 0.27 34.09 63.66 0.97 0.25 0.28 0.76 100 SAPE 10 0.58 33.94 61.97 1.79 0.45 0.48 1.37 100 WEEL 1 0.24 42.36 53.85 1.72 0.43 0.30 1.34 100 WEMI 2 0.35 32.54 62.98 1.96 0.49 0.51 1.51 100 WHPE 2 0.22 64.93 30.18 2.18 0.55 0.46 1.69 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.74 39.89 56.67 1.54 0.39 0.27 1.25 100 BAND 1 0.29 88.82 6.42 2.11 0.53 0.47 1.65 100 BLCA 2 0.32 35.09 60.43 1.99 0.50 0.46 1.53 100 CANY 24 0.97 51.91 45.43 1.13 0.29 0.37 0.87 100 CARE 11 0.64 36.89 60.95 0.94 0.24 0.24 0.74 100 GRCA 4 0.26 43.16 54.48 1.05 0.26 0.22 0.84 100 GRSA 0 0.18 82.37 11.35 2.90 0.73 0.39 2.26 100 LAGA 0 0.25 42.10 54.01 1.75 0.44 0.33 1.36 100 MABE 0 0.15 44.76 51.65 1.62 0.41 0.28 1.28 100 MEVE 49 1.49 75.96 5.77 7.73 1.95 2.66 5.93 100 PECO 2 0.27 54.32 42.15 1.60 0.40 0.29 1.24 100 PEFO 2 0.24 37.25 60.29 1.06 0.27 0.31 0.83 100 SAPE 9 0.54 36.60 58.99 1.93 0.49 0.51 1.48 100 WEEL 0 0.23 45.66 50.25 1.85 0.47 0.32 1.45 100 WEMI 2 0.33 45.02 48.15 2.98 0.75 0.81 2.29 100 WHPE 2 0.21 81.42 12.66 2.67 0.67 0.51 2.08 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 17 0.82 38.90 59.01 0.92 0.23 0.20 0.74 100 BAND 1 0.34 29.35 66.83 1.75 0.44 0.28 1.35 100 BLCA 3 0.37 29.93 66.24 1.70 0.43 0.39 1.31 100 CANY 27 1.03 48.87 48.63 1.07 0.27 0.35 0.82 100 CARE 12 0.74 31.38 66.79 0.80 0.20 0.21 0.63 100 GRCA 4 0.30 37.13 60.83 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 GRSA 0 0.19 41.40 55.47 1.42 0.36 0.25 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.26 81.85 13.52 2.05 0.52 0.47 1.60 100 MABE 0 0.17 38.59 58.31 1.40 0.35 0.24 1.10 100 MEVE 59 1.50 75.38 6.49 7.67 1.94 2.64 5.88 100 PECO 2 0.31 35.50 61.82 1.24 0.31 0.15 0.96 100 PEFO 2 0.29 88.23 9.30 1.10 0.28 0.22 0.87 100 SAPE 13 0.62 31.74 64.44 1.67 0.42 0.45 1.28 100 WEEL 1 0.26 39.48 56.99 1.60 0.40 0.28 1.25 100 WEMI 2 0.38 30.11 65.75 1.81 0.46 0.47 1.40 100 WHPE 2 0.24 32.70 65.19 0.95 0.24 0.16 0.75 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.53 36.25 59.06 2.04 0.51 0.56 1.57 100 BAND 6 0.49 38.40 58.77 1.25 0.32 0.28 0.98 100 BLCA 4 0.33 35.84 61.95 1.00 0.25 0.18 0.79 100 CANY 14 0.69 38.25 59.17 1.14 0.29 0.25 0.90 100 CARE 4 0.23 39.67 58.31 0.89 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 GRCA 1 0.20 51.57 46.74 0.75 0.19 0.14 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.19 34.60 61.43 1.79 0.45 0.33 1.39 100 LAGA 0 0.27 39.99 58.06 0.86 0.22 0.18 0.68 100 MABE 0 0.15 35.85 58.03 2.83 0.71 0.30 2.27 100 MEVE 72 1.73 47.30 48.60 1.75 0.44 0.53 1.37 100 PECO 3 0.30 47.45 46.26 2.86 0.72 0.47 2.23 100 PEFO 0 0.17 93.56 1.58 2.16 0.55 0.44 1.71 100 SAPE 21 0.66 35.08 60.21 2.06 0.52 0.53 1.60 100 WEEL 1 0.26 40.25 54.36 2.42 0.61 0.47 1.89 100 WEMI 8 0.53 26.74 69.07 1.81 0.46 0.54 1.39 100 WHPE 0 0.26 53.43 45.07 0.67 0.17 0.13 0.53 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.49 39.15 55.79 2.20 0.56 0.60 1.70 100 BAND 5 0.45 41.49 55.44 1.35 0.34 0.30 1.06 100 BLCA 4 0.30 39.05 58.55 1.08 0.27 0.20 0.86 100 CANY 11 0.64 41.32 55.90 1.23 0.31 0.27 0.97 100 CARE 3 0.21 42.95 54.86 0.97 0.24 0.20 0.78 100 GRCA 1 0.20 92.90 1.51 2.50 0.63 0.50 1.95 100 GRSA 0 0.19 90.29 6.12 1.63 0.41 0.26 1.29 100 LAGA 0 0.25 33.53 60.22 2.78 0.70 0.63 2.13 100 MABE 0 0.14 86.93 9.47 1.59 0.40 0.37 1.24 100 MEVE 67 1.66 49.26 46.47 1.83 0.46 0.55 1.42 100 PECO 3 0.28 50.42 42.90 3.04 0.77 0.50 2.37 100 PEFO 0 0.16 39.39 57.54 1.38 0.35 0.23 1.12 100 SAPE 18 0.63 65.57 29.23 2.31 0.58 0.54 1.77 100 WEEL 0 0.25 43.81 50.28 2.65 0.67 0.52 2.07 100 WEMI 7 0.48 29.34 66.06 1.98 0.50 0.59 1.52 100 WHPE 0 0.24 56.87 41.53 0.71 0.18 0.14 0.57 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 10 0.56 33.79 61.85 1.90 0.48 0.52 1.47 100 BAND 8 0.52 57.62 36.21 2.79 0.70 0.51 2.17 100 BLCA 4 0.35 33.11 64.84 0.92 0.23 0.17 0.73 100 CANY 14 0.74 35.65 61.94 1.06 0.27 0.24 0.84 100 CARE 4 0.24 36.85 61.27 0.83 0.21 0.17 0.67 100 GRCA 1 0.21 48.54 49.87 0.70 0.18 0.13 0.58 100 GRSA 0 0.21 32.04 64.28 1.65 0.42 0.31 1.29 100 LAGA 0 0.29 83.45 12.84 1.68 0.42 0.28 1.32 100 MABE 0 0.16 33.33 60.98 2.63 0.66 0.28 2.11 100 MEVE 74 1.78 45.63 50.42 1.69 0.43 0.51 1.32 100 PECO 3 0.31 44.85 49.21 2.70 0.68 0.44 2.11 100 PEFO 0 0.17 93.36 1.80 2.16 0.54 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 25 0.71 32.66 62.96 1.92 0.48 0.49 1.49 100 WEEL 1 0.28 37.24 57.73 2.25 0.57 0.44 1.76 100 WEMI 10 0.57 35.07 57.27 3.27 0.83 1.04 2.51 100 WHPE 0 0.27 50.36 48.23 0.63 0.16 0.13 0.50 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 8 0.54 35.92 57.81 2.71 0.68 0.80 2.08 100 BAND 7 0.49 29.39 66.38 1.85 0.47 0.48 1.43 100 BLCA 1 0.37 41.35 56.42 0.98 0.25 0.22 0.77 100 CANY 11 0.67 57.58 38.92 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.25 100 CARE 3 0.32 54.79 42.95 0.99 0.25 0.21 0.80 100 GRCA 0 0.18 94.11 0.94 2.19 0.55 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.16 55.45 41.33 1.44 0.36 0.30 1.12 100 LAGA 1 0.26 45.37 51.98 1.19 0.30 0.22 0.95 100 MABE 0 0.14 29.06 67.75 1.40 0.35 0.35 1.09 100 MEVE 58 1.57 49.70 38.94 4.83 1.22 1.61 3.71 100 PECO 2 0.36 61.08 34.44 2.01 0.51 0.37 1.59 100 PEFO 0 0.16 90.72 5.35 1.77 0.45 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 11 0.59 33.13 60.81 2.62 0.66 0.76 2.01 100 WEEL 0 0.27 29.50 67.38 1.36 0.34 0.36 1.06 100 WEMI 5 0.40 29.81 63.38 3.05 0.77 0.58 2.40 100 WHPE 1 0.23 29.86 65.52 2.05 0.52 0.44 1.61 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 8 0.50 38.69 54.55 2.92 0.74 0.86 2.24 100 BAND 6 0.45 32.04 63.35 2.02 0.51 0.52 1.55 100 BLCA 1 0.34 44.67 52.92 1.06 0.27 0.24 0.83 100 CANY 11 0.63 50.45 47.62 0.85 0.22 0.18 0.68 100 CARE 2 0.30 58.25 39.35 1.05 0.27 0.22 0.86 100 GRCA 0 0.18 94.23 0.82 2.19 0.55 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.15 58.75 37.84 1.52 0.38 0.31 1.19 100 LAGA 0 0.25 48.67 48.48 1.27 0.32 0.24 1.01 100 MABE 0 0.13 45.14 52.43 1.06 0.27 0.27 0.83 100 MEVE 57 1.51 51.79 36.37 5.03 1.27 1.68 3.86 100 PECO 1 0.34 64.12 31.18 2.11 0.53 0.38 1.67 100 PEFO 0 0.15 80.04 15.77 1.88 0.47 0.33 1.51 100 SAPE 11 0.55 35.74 57.73 2.83 0.71 0.82 2.17 100 WEEL 0 0.25 29.64 67.42 1.31 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 WEMI 3 0.37 32.44 60.16 3.32 0.84 0.64 2.61 100 WHPE 0 0.22 91.73 3.29 2.24 0.57 0.42 1.74 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.58 33.56 60.58 2.53 0.64 0.75 1.95 100 BAND 8 0.53 27.20 68.89 1.71 0.43 0.44 1.32 100 BLCA 2 0.40 38.50 59.43 0.91 0.23 0.21 0.72 100 CANY 13 0.70 36.93 55.69 3.16 0.80 1.00 2.42 100 CARE 3 0.34 51.71 46.16 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 GRCA 0 0.18 93.99 1.07 2.19 0.55 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.18 27.83 67.99 1.86 0.47 0.40 1.44 100 LAGA 1 0.28 42.50 55.01 1.11 0.28 0.21 0.89 100 MABE 0 0.15 26.73 70.33 1.29 0.33 0.32 1.00 100 MEVE 62 1.62 47.89 41.16 4.65 1.17 1.55 3.57 100 PECO 2 0.38 58.29 37.43 1.92 0.48 0.35 1.52 100 PEFO 0 0.16 90.06 6.04 1.75 0.44 0.31 1.40 100 SAPE 12 0.64 30.94 63.40 2.45 0.62 0.71 1.88 100 WEEL 0 0.30 27.20 69.93 1.25 0.32 0.33 0.98 100 WEMI 5 0.43 46.96 41.68 4.84 1.22 1.58 3.71 100 WHPE 2 0.25 27.52 68.22 1.89 0.48 0.41 1.48 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.77 40.70 57.11 0.96 0.25 0.21 0.77 100 BAND 1 0.30 31.87 63.98 1.89 0.49 0.30 1.47 100 BLCA 2 0.34 32.25 63.63 1.82 0.47 0.42 1.41 100 CANY 25 1.00 49.88 47.56 1.09 0.28 0.35 0.84 100 CARE 12 0.69 33.93 64.09 0.86 0.22 0.22 0.68 100 GRCA 4 0.28 35.23 62.74 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.70 100 GRSA 0 0.18 80.86 12.95 2.84 0.73 0.39 2.22 100 LAGA 0 0.25 83.24 12.04 2.08 0.54 0.47 1.63 100 MABE 0 0.16 41.26 55.45 1.48 0.38 0.26 1.17 100 MEVE 56 1.49 75.24 6.66 7.63 1.97 2.63 5.87 100 PECO 2 0.28 51.01 45.66 1.50 0.39 0.27 1.17 100 PEFO 2 0.26 34.06 63.67 0.97 0.25 0.28 0.76 100 SAPE 10 0.57 33.87 62.04 1.78 0.46 0.47 1.37 100 WEEL 1 0.24 42.07 54.19 1.69 0.43 0.29 1.33 100 WEMI 2 0.35 32.57 62.96 1.95 0.50 0.51 1.51 100 WHPE 2 0.22 35.71 62.01 1.03 0.27 0.17 0.81 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.73 39.57 57.01 1.52 0.39 0.27 1.24 100 BAND 1 0.29 54.58 41.58 1.71 0.44 0.36 1.33 100 BLCA 2 0.31 35.06 60.46 1.98 0.51 0.45 1.53 100 CANY 24 0.97 51.67 45.67 1.13 0.29 0.37 0.87 100 CARE 10 0.64 36.94 60.90 0.93 0.24 0.24 0.74 100 GRCA 4 0.26 38.37 59.42 0.97 0.25 0.23 0.76 100 GRSA 0 0.18 82.33 11.37 2.90 0.75 0.39 2.26 100 LAGA 0 0.24 42.01 54.10 1.75 0.45 0.33 1.36 100 MABE 0 0.15 29.24 65.08 2.51 0.65 0.60 1.94 100 MEVE 46 1.48 75.58 6.24 7.66 1.97 2.64 5.90 100 PECO 2 0.27 54.29 42.16 1.60 0.41 0.29 1.25 100 PEFO 2 0.24 37.23 60.30 1.06 0.27 0.31 0.83 100 SAPE 8 0.53 36.55 59.05 1.92 0.49 0.51 1.48 100 WEEL 0 0.23 45.39 50.57 1.82 0.47 0.32 1.43 100 WEMI 2 0.32 44.95 48.22 2.97 0.76 0.81 2.29 100 WHPE 2 0.21 81.40 12.66 2.66 0.69 0.51 2.09 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 17 0.81 39.61 56.55 1.70 0.44 0.29 1.41 100 BAND 1 0.33 29.25 66.95 1.73 0.45 0.28 1.34 100 BLCA 3 0.36 29.89 66.29 1.69 0.44 0.39 1.30 100 CANY 27 1.03 48.56 48.95 1.06 0.27 0.34 0.82 100 CARE 12 0.74 31.41 66.76 0.79 0.20 0.21 0.63 100 GRCA 4 0.31 32.57 65.55 0.82 0.21 0.19 0.65 100 GRSA 0 0.18 40.97 51.63 3.36 0.87 0.57 2.61 100 LAGA 0 0.26 81.87 13.49 2.05 0.53 0.47 1.60 100 MABE 0 0.17 38.41 58.52 1.38 0.36 0.24 1.09 100 MEVE 59 1.50 32.55 62.69 2.03 0.52 0.63 1.57 100 PECO 2 0.30 30.41 67.10 1.12 0.29 0.21 0.87 100 PEFO 2 0.28 88.24 9.29 1.10 0.28 0.22 0.87 100 SAPE 11 0.61 31.65 64.53 1.66 0.43 0.44 1.28 100 WEEL 1 0.26 39.21 57.31 1.57 0.41 0.27 1.23 100 WEMI 2 0.37 30.14 65.73 1.80 0.46 0.47 1.40 100 WHPE 2 0.24 32.90 65.00 0.95 0.24 0.16 0.75 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.53 36.12 59.19 2.03 0.52 0.55 1.57 100 BAND 6 0.47 38.36 58.82 1.25 0.32 0.28 0.98 100 BLCA 4 0.33 25.95 70.85 1.38 0.36 0.39 1.07 100 CANY 14 0.69 38.16 59.26 1.13 0.29 0.25 0.90 100 CARE 4 0.22 39.68 58.29 0.89 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 GRCA 1 0.20 51.48 46.83 0.75 0.19 0.14 0.62 100 GRSA 0 0.19 34.60 61.42 1.78 0.46 0.34 1.40 100 LAGA 0 0.27 40.02 58.03 0.86 0.22 0.18 0.68 100 MABE 0 0.15 41.76 53.67 2.05 0.53 0.37 1.62 100 MEVE 69 1.71 46.90 49.03 1.73 0.45 0.52 1.36 100 PECO 3 0.29 47.48 46.21 2.86 0.74 0.47 2.24 100 PEFO 0 0.17 93.56 1.58 2.16 0.56 0.44 1.71 100 SAPE 21 0.65 35.00 60.30 2.05 0.53 0.53 1.60 100 WEEL 1 0.26 31.62 64.09 1.86 0.48 0.51 1.44 100 WEMI 8 0.52 26.63 69.19 1.80 0.46 0.53 1.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 37.48 60.78 0.77 0.20 0.15 0.62 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.49 39.02 55.92 2.19 0.57 0.60 1.70 100 BAND 4 0.44 41.46 55.48 1.35 0.35 0.30 1.06 100 BLCA 4 0.30 39.09 58.51 1.08 0.28 0.20 0.86 100 CANY 10 0.64 41.23 55.98 1.22 0.32 0.27 0.97 100 CARE 3 0.21 42.97 54.84 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 GRCA 1 0.19 92.88 1.52 2.50 0.64 0.50 1.96 100 GRSA 0 0.19 90.26 6.13 1.63 0.42 0.26 1.29 100 LAGA 0 0.25 33.50 60.24 2.77 0.71 0.63 2.14 100 MABE 0 0.14 44.99 50.09 2.21 0.57 0.39 1.74 100 MEVE 66 1.65 48.88 46.89 1.81 0.47 0.55 1.42 100 PECO 3 0.28 50.46 42.84 3.04 0.78 0.50 2.38 100 PEFO 0 0.16 39.28 57.64 1.37 0.35 0.22 1.13 100 SAPE 16 0.62 65.20 29.60 2.29 0.59 0.54 1.77 100 WEEL 0 0.24 34.43 60.89 2.03 0.52 0.56 1.57 100 WEMI 6 0.48 29.23 66.18 1.97 0.51 0.59 1.52 100 WHPE 0 0.23 40.72 57.39 0.84 0.22 0.17 0.67 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 10 0.57 33.66 61.98 1.89 0.49 0.52 1.47 100 BAND 8 0.51 35.71 61.66 1.16 0.30 0.26 0.91 100 BLCA 4 0.35 23.86 73.19 1.27 0.33 0.36 0.98 100 CANY 14 0.74 35.57 62.03 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 CARE 4 0.24 36.87 61.25 0.83 0.21 0.17 0.67 100 GRCA 1 0.21 48.44 49.97 0.70 0.18 0.13 0.58 100 GRSA 0 0.20 32.04 64.27 1.65 0.43 0.31 1.29 100 LAGA 0 0.28 83.41 12.86 1.68 0.43 0.28 1.33 100 MABE 0 0.16 38.96 56.78 1.92 0.49 0.34 1.51 100 MEVE 74 1.77 45.22 50.86 1.67 0.43 0.51 1.31 100 PECO 3 0.31 44.88 49.17 2.70 0.70 0.44 2.12 100 PEFO 0 0.17 93.36 1.79 2.15 0.55 0.44 1.70 100 SAPE 25 0.69 32.58 63.05 1.90 0.49 0.49 1.49 100 WEEL 2 0.28 29.24 66.78 1.72 0.44 0.48 1.33 100 WEMI 9 0.57 24.47 71.69 1.65 0.43 0.49 1.28 100 WHPE 0 0.27 50.19 48.39 0.63 0.16 0.13 0.50 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

Rotamix (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 8 0.51 35.67 58.15 2.66 0.69 0.77 2.06 100 BAND 7 0.48 29.38 66.39 1.85 0.48 0.48 1.43 100 BLCA 1 0.36 40.98 53.38 2.46 0.63 0.65 1.90 100 CANY 11 0.66 57.43 39.07 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.25 100 CARE 3 0.32 54.80 42.94 0.99 0.26 0.21 0.81 100 GRCA 0 0.17 94.11 0.94 2.18 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.16 30.20 65.25 2.02 0.52 0.44 1.57 100 LAGA 0 0.25 27.42 67.58 2.31 0.59 0.20 1.89 100 MABE 0 0.14 41.88 55.87 0.98 0.25 0.25 0.77 100 MEVE 58 1.56 49.78 38.83 4.82 1.24 1.61 3.72 100 PECO 2 0.35 61.23 34.29 2.00 0.52 0.37 1.59 100 PEFO 0 0.15 90.72 5.35 1.76 0.45 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 11 0.57 41.14 53.10 2.49 0.64 0.70 1.92 100 WEEL 0 0.26 30.06 67.70 0.98 0.25 0.25 0.77 100 WEMI 5 0.39 29.77 63.42 3.04 0.78 0.59 2.40 100 WHPE 1 0.23 29.84 65.53 2.05 0.53 0.44 1.61 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

ROFA/Rotamix (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.48 38.45 54.89 2.87 0.74 0.84 2.22 100 BAND 5 0.44 32.03 63.36 2.01 0.52 0.52 1.56 100 BLCA 1 0.34 56.06 38.77 2.24 0.58 0.61 1.74 100 CANY 11 0.62 50.43 47.63 0.85 0.22 0.18 0.68 100 CARE 2 0.30 58.26 39.34 1.05 0.27 0.22 0.86 100 GRCA 0 0.17 94.23 0.82 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.15 58.91 37.65 1.53 0.39 0.32 1.20 100 LAGA 0 0.23 49.10 48.11 1.25 0.32 0.22 1.00 100 MABE 0 0.13 45.26 52.30 1.06 0.27 0.27 0.83 100 MEVE 57 1.50 51.86 36.27 5.03 1.30 1.68 3.87 100 PECO 1 0.34 64.27 31.03 2.10 0.54 0.38 1.67 100 PEFO 0 0.15 80.05 15.75 1.87 0.48 0.33 1.51 100 SAPE 11 0.53 43.95 49.90 2.66 0.69 0.75 2.05 100 WEEL 0 0.23 32.98 64.56 1.07 0.28 0.27 0.84 100 WEMI 3 0.36 32.40 60.19 3.31 0.85 0.64 2.61 100 WHPE 0 0.21 91.72 3.30 2.24 0.58 0.42 1.74 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

ROFA (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.55 33.30 60.93 2.49 0.64 0.72 1.92 100 BAND 8 0.52 27.18 68.91 1.71 0.44 0.44 1.32 100 BLCA 1 0.38 38.73 59.20 0.91 0.24 0.21 0.72 100 CANY 13 0.69 52.63 43.93 1.50 0.39 0.35 1.20 100 CARE 3 0.33 51.72 46.15 0.93 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 GRCA 0 0.17 93.99 1.07 2.18 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 1 0.17 27.83 67.98 1.86 0.48 0.40 1.45 100 LAGA 1 0.27 25.21 70.19 2.12 0.55 0.19 1.74 100 MABE 0 0.15 38.95 58.95 0.91 0.24 0.23 0.72 100 MEVE 61 1.62 47.97 41.05 4.65 1.20 1.55 3.58 100 PECO 2 0.37 58.46 37.27 1.91 0.49 0.35 1.52 100 PEFO 0 0.15 90.06 6.03 1.75 0.45 0.31 1.40 100 SAPE 12 0.60 38.75 55.83 2.34 0.60 0.66 1.81 100 WEEL 0 0.28 27.61 70.32 0.90 0.23 0.23 0.71 100 WEMI 5 0.42 46.89 41.75 4.82 1.24 1.58 3.72 100 WHPE 1 0.24 27.50 68.23 1.89 0.49 0.40 1.49 100

## Identification of Available PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technologies

080828 1-1 

# 1.0 Identification of Available PM Control Technologies

1.1 Available PM Control Technologies PM control technologies that were identifie d as available for retrofit at SJGS are listed below. Only post-combustion control is available for PM control. A short summary of each technology is includ ed in the following sub-sections:

− Pulse Jet Fabric Filter

− Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP)

1.1.1 Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (PJFF) As part of the consent decree environmental upgrade project, a PJFF system will
be installed on each of the four units at SJGS. The PJFFs wi ll be installed downstream of the existing hot-side ESPs and air heat ers, and upstream of the wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. After the commissioning of the PJFF, the hot-side ESP will be de-energized. In addition to particulate removal, the PJ FF system being installed is also part of the emission control system for Hg emission reduction. Activated carbon will be injected into the flue gas downstream of the air heater for adsorption of Hg in the flue gas. The PJFF is used to capture the Hg-l aden activated carbon and other PM. The PJFF outlet will be connected to the existing wet FGD system for SO 2 

# emissions removal from flue gas. The wet FGD system is equipped with mist eliminators for the removal of entrained moisture droplet , which might also contain unreacted reagent (limestone particle in the slurry) from the FGD or byproduct particulat es (calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate). These are also k nown as re-entrained scrubber solids.
While the control effectiveness of the PJFF is usually defined by vendors at the outlet ductwork of the PJFF, the BART determination is based on the control effectiveness for particulate matter at the stack outlet. Therefore, the particulate matter
emission rate has to take into account both the removal efficiency of the PJFF and the impacts of the wet FGD operation, where there is a potential for additional re-entrainment of scrubber solids into the flue gas, which increases the stack out let particulate matter
emission concentration. In this BART dete rmination for particulate matter, the control
effectiveness defined for the PJFF installed at SJGS for consent decree requirements, takes into account the impacts of operating th e wet FGD system. The overall particulate matter emissions will be the cumulative removal efficiency of the consent decree PJFF
and the mist eliminators of the wet FGD.

## Identification of Available PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technologies

080828 1-2 

# 1.1.2 Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) A WESP collects particles on the same theore tical basis as a dr y ESP: negatively charged particles are collected on positively charged surfaces. However, the collecting surfaces are wet instead of dry and are flushed with water to remove the particulate. Typically, a WESP is installed downstream of an existing wet FGD system where the flue gas is already saturated, so the amount of added water is minimized. The particulate collection efficiency is enhanced by a lack of re-entrainment after contact with the wet walls (as contrasted with re-entrainment due to rapping on a dry ESP). Therefore, the WESP can remove fine particulate or acid mi st applications because it reduces opacity, sulfuric acid mist (H 2 

# SO 4 

# ), and other aerosols.
A WESP can be installed in either horizontal or vertical gas flow orientation. In a horizontal gas flow orientation, a WESP is si milar to a common dry ESP, and is located on the grade elevation of the plant. Vertical gas flow WESPs are usually of the tubular collection plate type, and is t ypically used if installed as part of the wet FGD absorber module. Since the existing wet FGD system at SJGS consists of a multiple absorber tower arrangement, the vertical flow wet ESP was not selected as it is more suited for retrofit on wet FGD systems with a single absorber tower. The horizontal flow wet ESP
is therefore considered as the ba seline design for th is analysis.
The WESP will be installed downstream of the existing wet FGD system with the consent decree PJFF in operation to remove a significant amount of particulate matter prior to the flue gas entering the wet FGD system. The moisture saturated flue gas at the
wet FGD outlet will then be flowed thr ough the WESP for additiona l particulate matter removal. In addition to PM, condensible par ticulate matter (including acid mist), will be effectively removed at the WESP. An alternative WESP arrangement where it is located upstream of the wet FGD system with the consent decree PJFF decommissioned was not considered for the following reasons. The inlet ductwork into the WESP would need to have a quenching system to saturate flue gas with moisture. The WESP casing would also have to be larger
as more electrical fields w ould be needed for the higher particulate loading. A larger quantity of collected particul ate matter from the WESP woul d also have to be removed from the collector plate wash water. Due to the increase in WESP cas ing size and retrofit complexity of the additional flue gas quenchi ng and wash water treatment system, this arrangement for the WESP was not considered. In addition to that, the treated flue gas from the WESP will flow through the wet F GD system, where impacts of the wet FGD operations, as described in Subsection 1.1.1 wi ll increase the stack outlet PM emission
concentration.

## Technical Feasibility of PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technologies

080828 2-1 

# 2.0 Technical Feasibility of PM Control Technologies

2.1 Technically Feasible PM Control Technologies In the process of eliminating technically infeasible alternatives, it is necessary to demonstrate that a technology is not applicable or not available for application at the source. This demonstration is made by s howing that the technol ogy is commercially
unavailable and/or there are insurmountable technical difficulties with applying the technology to the applicable unit. Other factor s that are considered when determining the technical feasibility of a technology include the following:

− Size of the unit.

− Location of the proposed technology.

− Operating problems after retrofit of technology.

− Space constraints.

− Reliability.

− Adverse effects on the re st of the facility.

− Adverse community impacts. Additionally, a technology is technically inf easible if its level of emissions control does not achieve the required permit emissi ons limit applied to the source by the regulating agency. Finally, if there are multiple control technologies that have an equivalent level of control, the BART proce dure allows for the consideration of the less costly control technology, th erefore eliminating the need to evaluate higher cost technologies. For all the PM control technologies identif ied as available, a determination was made regarding the technical feasibility of th e technology at the SJGS site on the basis of the criteria highlighted above.

2.1.1 PJFF The PJFF is currently being installe d at SJGS for the consent decree environmental upgrade project. Therefore, this technology combination is technically
feasible for the reduction of PM emissions.

2.1.2 WESP The WESP technology is based on th e fundamentals of the ESP technology. WESP have also been installed in flue ga s streams downstream of a Wet FGD for the removal of PM. Therefore, this t echnology is technically feasible.Technical Feasibility ofPNM San Juan Generating StationPM Control Technologies0808282-22.2 Technical Feasibility SummaryTable 2-1Technically Feasible PM Control Technology AlternativesPollutant Philosophy TechnologyTechnicallyFeasible andApplicable?Remarks/Reasons for Technical InfeasibilityPM Control Technologies: PJFFYesIn the process of being installed in response to theConsent Decree with existing wet FGD system inoperation.WESPYesTechnically feasible arrangement includesoperating the Consent Decree PJFF and existingwet FGD system.

## Evaluation of Technically Feasible PNM San Juan Generating Station PM Control Technology

080828 3-1



# 3.0 Evaluation of Technically Feasible Retrofit PM Emissions Control Technologies

This section discusses the control effec tiveness evaluation of technically feasible PM control technologies beyond that achieved currently by the newly installed PJFF for
the consent decree.



# 3.1 Control Effectiveness The evaluation process in Step 3 determines the control effectiveness of the technically feasible PM cont rol technologies. Control eff ectiveness is expressed in a common metric based on the amount of pollu tant generated per unit of heat input (lb/MBtu). The evalua tion of the control effectiveness wa s translated into an hourly rate (lb/h) for each pollutant, according to the design basis heat input data for each SJGS unit.
The evaluation of control effectiveness was based on information indicated in Subsection
1.2.3.
Table 3-1 indicates the cont rol effectiveness of each PM control technology. This
control effectiveness was calculated from the consent decree values established for front half, filterable particulate matter at 0.015 lb/MBtu.
The control effectiveness for each technol ogy is also summarized in the Design Concept Definition tables in Appendix B

.Evaluation of Technically FeasiblePNM San Juan Generating StationPM Control Technology0808283-2Table3-1Control Effectiveness for PM Control TechnologyAlternatives (Annual Average Emissions Rates)UnitSJGS 1SJGS 2SJGS 3SJGS 4Design Basis HeatInput Data, MBtu/h3,707 3,688 5,758 5,649PM Emissions Caseslb/MBtulb/hton/yrlb/MBtulb/hton/yrlb/MBtulb/hton/yrlb/MBtulb/hton/yrPJFF(consent decree)0.015 55.6 207 0.015 55.3 207 0.015 86.4 321 0.015 84.7 315WESP0.010 37.1 138 0.010 36.9 137 0.010 57.6 214 0.010 56.5 210Notes:1.Emissions levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on an annualaverage basis, front-half filterable PM only.2.Emissions (lb/h) calculations were based on the emissions level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3.Emissions levels listed were based on performance guarantees provided by the equipment vendor.4.Yearly emissions (ton/yr) calculations were based on an annual unit capacity of 85 percent.

## Cost-Effectiveness PNM San Juan Generating Station of PM Control Technologies

080828 4-1 

# 4.0 Cost-Effectiveness of PM Control Technologies

This section discusses the cost-effectiveness for PM control technol ogies considered in this BART analysis.



# 4.1 Cost-Effectiveness The cost-effectiveness of each control technology was calculated from the cost of compliance and the amount of pollutant reduced. Th e cost-effectiveness is defined as the cost of control per amount of pollutant removed. The co st of control takes into account the impact analyses performed. The reduced emissions were estimated on a yearly basis according to the
reduction from the consent decree emissions level s hown in Table 3-1. Both the consent decree
emissions level and the additiona l control technology alternative emissions level are documented
in Table 3-1 and in the Desi gn Concept Definition tables ( Appendix B ).
The cost-effectiveness values were based on 2007 dollars.



# 4.2 Impact Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Results An impact analysis was performed for all the identified technically feasible control technologies. A summary of the calcula ted impact analysis is presented in Appendix C . The impact analysis of WESP includes auxiliary energy to power the WESP and fans, and an
estimate of the additional water consumption requirements when operating the WESP. Water is consumed when collector plate wash water is re-ent rained into the flue gas flow, as well as waste water discharged from WESP through the blow down process to maintain the wash water chemical properties. The cost of this impact is significant due to the scarcity of water in the region where SJGS is located. For all the additional PM control technologies evaluated, a summary table was developed for the impact analysis performe d and the resultant cost-effectiveness. Table 4-1 presents the final evaluations for all four units. The expected post-control emissions levels are also included
in the table.Cost-EffectivenessPNM San Juan Generating Stationof PM Control Technologies0808284-2Table 4-1Impact Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Results of PM Control TechnologiesTotal TotalEmission Expected Expected Expected Capital Annualized IncrementalPerformance Emission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost Energy Non-AirLevel Rate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness Impacts ImpactsAll Feasible Technologies (lb/MBtu) (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)SJGS Unit 1WESP (see note 8) 0.010 37.1 138 69 99,308 11,855 171,797 1,112 --PJFF (see note 9) 0.015 55.6 207 -- 67,072 10,427 -- 4,488 --SJGS Unit 2WESP (see note 8)0.010 36.9 137 69 99,663 11,895 173,265 1,112 --PJFF (see note 9)0.015 55.3 206-- 69,840 10,764 -- 4,488 --SJGS Unit 3WESP (see note 8)0.010 57.6 214 107 129,565 15,558 145,151 1,728 --PJFF (see note 9)0.015 86.4 322-- 72,696 12,454 -- 6,895 --SJGS Unit 4WESP (see note 8)0.010 56.5 210 105 130,012 15,609 148,436 1,728 --PJFF (see note 9)0.015 84.7 315-- 73,328 12,527 -- 6,895 --Notes:1. All costs are in 2007$.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on85 percent unit capacity factor (referer to Appendix A Design Basis).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were basedon the consent decree upgrades control effectiveness as shown in Table 4-1.4. TCI and TAC are referenced from Appendix C Cost Analysis Summary.5. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is defined as ratio of TAC over Expected Emission Reduction (ton/yr).6. Expected emission reduction is based on annual emission reduction from consent decree upgrade emission levels (Table 4-1).7. Incremental cost effectiveness are based on increments in expected emission reduction (ton/yr).8. WESP scenario includes operating consent decee PJFF and existing wet FGD system.9. PJFF scenario includes operating existing wet FGD system.

## Cost-Effectiveness PNM San Juan Generating Station of PM Control Technologies

080828 4-3 

# 4.2.1 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison The Total Capital Investment (TCI) a nd Total Annualized Cost (TAC) for the
consent decree PJFF at SJGS as shown in Table 4-1 are based on the values submitted in the June 6, 2007 BART application. The emission performance level of the consent decree PJFF at 0.015 lb/MBtu for front-half, filterable PM is the contract guarantee emission level for the on-going consent decr ee required environmental upgrade project at SJGS. This emission performance level is based on measuring PM emissions at the stack, which takes into account the impacts of operating the wet FGD system downstream of the newly-installed consent decree PJFF. The TCI for the consent decree PJFF ranges from $67 million to $73 million per SJGS unit. The WESP technology when operated downs tream of the consent decree PJFF and existing wet FGD system will achieve an expected emission performance level of 0.010 lb/MBtu for front-half, filterable PM. The corresponding TCI for the WESP ranges from $99 million to $130 million per SJGS unit. The increment cost effectiveness to impr ove PM emission level from the consent
decree level of 0.015 lb/MBtu to 0.010 lb/MBt u utilizing the WE SP technology in addition to operating the consent decree PJFF and wet FGD system ranges from $145 to $173 million per additional ton of PM.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts

080828 5-1 

# 5.0 Visibility Impacts

Visibility impact is the fifth step to cons ider in the engineering analysis required under the EPA BART guidelines. This step addresses the degree of improvement in visibility that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of the ‘‘best control technology’’ for sources subject to BART. Visibility impact analysis is achieved through a two phase process. First, the model was run using the pre-BART conditions to
establish a baseline. For this analysis, the baseline consiste d of the technologies and unit operations associated with the consent degr ee. Second, model runs were conducted for the WESP PM control technology identified fo r each unit during the BART engineering analysis. In the June 18, 2008 meeting between th e Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Black & Veatch (B&V), a nd the New Mexico Environment Department – Air Quality Bureau (NMED), the NMED requested additional analyses be performed for the particulate control technology that could meet a lower limit than 0.015 lb/MBtu. The objective of this modeling an alysis is to evaluate visi bility impacts for the WESP control technology selected using the first four steps of the BART analysis (as discussed in the previous sections) for PNM’s SJGS Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. The following sections discuss the modeling met hodology in greater detail.

5.1 Visibility Analysis Subsequent to the June 6, 2007 submittal, PNM further investigated additional
refinements to the BART CALPUFF air di spersion modeling analyses which included nitrate repartitioning and mo re realistic ammonia background concentrations based on monitored values at several western Class I areas. These additional modeling options are
considered more realistic and therefore will again form the basis of this analysis. To date, PNM has previously submitted four BART modeling analyses in addition to the additional Nalco Mobotec analyses bein g submitted separately but coincident with this analysis. To clarify the contents of these analyses, as well as for this submittal, a summary of each has been provided:

June 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to pr ovide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. Th e analyses were base d on a constant 1 ppb background ammonia concentration and no nitrate repartitioning. The NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the Selectiv e Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts

080828 5-2 

# November 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to pr ovide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analysis was based on refinements which included using the nitrat e repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. Again, the NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

March 31, 2008 Two main modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) imp acts at 16 Class I areas for the SCR NO x 

# control technology only. One of the analyses, believ ed to be the more representative of ammonia chemistry of the area, was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using the nitrate repart itioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses included nitrate repartitioning and a constant background am monia concentration as requested by the
NMED.

May 30, 2008 Two modeling analyses were performed to pr ovide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology only. Similar to the March 31, 2008 analyses, one of the analyses was based on the November 6, 2007 refineme nts which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and mont hly variable background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses incl uded nitrate repartitioning and a constant background ammonia concentration. It s hould be noted that all vendors of SNCR (including Fuel Tech and Nalco Mobotec) have been modeled together as one technology called SNCR. This is the same approach that is used for modeling SCR control technology, where all vendors ar e modeled generically as SCR.

August 29, 2008 Four modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wi de and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas for the ROFA with Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA NO x 

# and WESP PM control t echnologies (the NO x 

# and PM analyses were submitted separately. Si milar to the May 30, 2008 analyses, these analyses were also based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which included using

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts

080828 5-3 

# the nitrate repartitioning methodology a nd monthly variable background ammonia
concentrations.

The modeling refinements contained in this submittal using nitrate repartitioning and the variable ammonia background as we ll as the previous November 2007, March 2008, and May 30, 2008 submittals supersedes the original June 2007 BART modeling analyses as PNM believes these analyses are more representative of regional conditions in the modeling domain, as well as, allow for a more representative visibility analysis. Information pertinent to these two refinements has been included in de tail in the previous four submittals. Furthermore, at the June 18, 2008 meeting NMED indicated that based on a current ammonia monitoring study conducte d by Mark E. Sather of EPA Region VI, the previous analyses provided utilizing the variable ammonia were representative of the surrounding background. Therefore, no other analyses were performed using nitrate repartitioning and constant background ammonia.

5.2 Visibility Summary Based on the refinements methodology cons isting of representative background ammonia concentrations and nitrate repa rtitioning, CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed for three cases; pre-consent decree , consent decree (which represents SJGS’s BART baseline scenario), and WESP PM c ontrol technology scen arios. The modeling summarized in this report is for the SJGS on a plant-wide basis and for each of the four
SJGS units on an individual unit basis. It is important to note that all other modeling options as described in the BART applic ation were unchanged. For simplicity, the following results discuss the differences between the consent decree scenario and the WESP control technology scenarios. A dditionally, the updated NPS particulate speciation is contained in Appendix D, th e stack outlet conditions are contained in Appendix E, and the visibility modeling results are contained in Appendix F.

5.2.1 SJGS Facility Visibility Summary with Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable Ammonia The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same control technology is inst alled on all four units, are illu strated in Tables 1 through 4 of Appendix F. These tables summarize th e scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over th e 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts

080828 5-4 

# areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario, with the exception of Mesa Verde, which shows a visibility improvement of 0.62 dv. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 4 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improvement for each control scenario for each unit (on a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the si xteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS’s baseline case, as well as the base line case for the individual unit analyses described later. Additionally, the cost-eff ectiveness for the potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/decivi ew ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the visibility improvement cost effectivene ss summary in Table 4 for each control technology:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to additional WESP c ontrol technology alternative scenario.

• Pre-consent decree to additional WESP c ontrol technology alte rnative scenario.

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the WESP control technology scenario range from 0.02 dv to 0.62 dv of expected visibility improvement above the consent decree scenario. The results indicate that adding additi onal WESP control technology beyond the consent decree does yield visibility improveme nt greater than 0.5 dv at the Mesa Verde Class I area. However, this visibility impr ovement is an isolated incident as no other Class I area’s visibility improvement is gr eater than 0.5 dv. The next highest visibility improvement is 0.14 dv. Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART a pplication document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visi bility improvement. The resulting cost for installation of WESP control technology for all four units ranges from $2,496 million/dv to $89 million/dv. Appendix F contains a SJGS pl ant-wide summary of the 98 th 

# percentile visibility impact for the WESP modele d technology scenarios (i.e., Pr e-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, and WESP scenario), provides inform ation on the number of days above 0.5 dv

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts

080828 5-5 

# threshold for specific scenarios, and indicates the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98 th 

# percentile visibility imp act for each class I area.

5.2.2 Unit Specific Visi bility Summary with Nitrate Repartitioning and Variable Ammonia
The results of the refined visibility modeling for Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 are illustrated in Tables 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, a nd 17-20 of Appendix F, respectively. These
tables summarize the scenarios and the maximu m visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the 16 Class I areas. In addition, this analysis indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario. The maximum visibility (deciview) improve ment seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 8, 12, 16, and 20. Again, the expected degree of visibility impr ovement for each control scenario for each unit was determined by the difference between the consent decree’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the si xteen Class I areas and the specific WESP control technology scenario’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class areas. Furthermore, the same methodology previously described for the SJGS’s cost-effectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each unit. These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the
WESP control scenario for each unit are similar to that of the combined SJGS. The visibility improvements for each scenario are summarized below.

WESP

• Unit 1 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.07 dv

• Unit 2 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.07 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.21 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from less than 0.01 dv to 0.21 dv

The results again indicate that addi ng additional PM control technology beyond the consent decree consisting of WESPs does not yield visibility improvement greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. Based on th e visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART application document, the cost-effectiveness for vi sibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determined for each unit for each Class I area. The

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Visibility Impacts

080828 5-6 

# resulting cost for installation of additional control technology for each unit is summarized
below.

WESP

• Unit 1 cost range is $2,964 million/dv to $174 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $2,974 million/dv to $172 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $2,222 million/dv to $76 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $3,902 million/dv to $75 million/dv.

Appendix F also includes a unit specific su mmary of the 98th percentile visibility impact for the three modeled technology sc enarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, WESP scenarios), includes the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold for specific scenarios, and indicates the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98th percentile visibility im pact for each class I area.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Conclusion

080828 6-1 

# 6.0 Conclusion

As noted in this document, PNM’s furthe r investigation of additional refinements to the June 2007 BART CALPUFF air disper sion modeling analyses to yield more realistic regional haze impacts was warrant ed. These analyses included nitrate repartitioning and more realistic amm onia background concen trations based on
monitored values at several western Class I areas, as well as, the additional ammonia study being conducted by EPA in New Mexico. The conclusi on of this study re-iterates and further supports the overall findings of the original June 2007, as well as, the three aforementioned additional submittals, that installation of additional WESP PM control technology systems at the SJGS provide mi nimal visibility improvements and would require significant capital expenditure and m odifications that will impact many areas of the plant including boiler draft systems and as h handling. The results from the analyses
further substantiate that th e addition of WESP PM contro l technology does not yield a benefit nor meet the intended goal of BART . Specifically, these analyses indicate:

• The addition of WESP PM control technology on a plant- wide or individual unit
basis shows less than a 0.5 dv improvement for all Class I areas including the four
Class I areas located in New Mexico. (Plant wide showed a 0.62 dv improvement at Mesa Verde.)

• The minimal visibility improvements disc ussed in this document do not merit the large capital expenditure required to inst all WESP PM control technology. Both the total annual costs evaluated and the cost-effectiveness ($/dv) are extremely prohibitive given the minimal improvements realized.

Therefore, as previously noted, given th e minimal visibility improvement to the class I areas in the BART analysis, the reco mmended PM BART control for SJGS is the
PJFF.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix A

080828 A-1 

# Appendix A (Previously Submitted in June 6, 2007 BART Analysis)

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix B

080828 B-1 

# Appendix B Design Concept Definitions

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix B

080828 B-2 

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology Pulse Jet Fabric Filter (PJFF)

Process Description PJFF for particulate matter removal upstream of Wet FGD system. This is the process technology applied to meet Consent Decree requirements.

Pollutant PM (Unit 1) PM (Unit 2) PM (Unit 3) PM (Unit 4)
Inlet Emissions lb/MBtu 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 lb/h 65,144 64,810 101,187 99,271 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 lb/h 55.6 55.3 86.4 84.7 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 1,571,717 1,563,662 2,441,313 2,395,099 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Reagent None. Energy (kW) 4,488 4,488 6,895 6,895 Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. Byproduct Description None. Other None.

Location of Major Process Equipment PJFF casing located in ba ck-end of plant. Refer to Consent Decree environmental upgrade project plant arrangement. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Inlet ductwor k connection downstream of de-energize hot-side ESP and outlet ductwork connection upstream of modified ID fan inlet. Reagent Storage None.
Control System Modifications PJFF control system tie into plant control system.

Fan Modifications ID fan modifications.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications Minor aux electric system modifi cation required for PJFF and ID fans.

Enclosures Requirements Enclosures included with PJFF casing required.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwor k for retrofit, demolition and relocation of existing site structures/equipment to locate PJFF casing and ductwork routing. Major Constructability Issues Accessibil ity to the back-end area of the plant.
Significant Issues or Challenges None.
Other Assumptions

• No major impact on plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Retrofit project is completed/in progress as part of the Consent Decree environmental upgrade project.

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable.

Technical Feasibility Currently installed or under construction.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix B

080828 B-3 

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP)

Process Description Install a WESP downstream of Wet FGD for additional particulate matter collection.

Pollutant PM (Unit 1) PM (Unit 2) PM (Unit 3) PM (Unit 4)
Inlet Emissions lb/MBtu 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 lb/h 55.6 55.3 86.4 84.7 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 lb/h 37.1 36.9 57.6 56.5 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 1,323,494 1,316,710 2,055,753 2,016,837 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg NA Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Make-up Water (gpm) 100 100 100 100 Energy (kW) 1,112 1,112 1,728 1,728
Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. Byproduct Description None. Other None.

Location of Major Process Equipment Conceptual layout of WESP at the back-end of plant, in the same general location as consent decree PJFF. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts Inlet ductwor k connection downstream of Wet FGD and outlet ductwork connecti on into stack breeching. Reagent Storage None.
Control System Modifications New stand-alone contro l system, tie in to plant DCS control system.

Fan Modifications FGD booster fan modifications required to over come additional pressure drop.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modifications Aux el ectric system modification required for WESP electrical systems and FGD booster fan modifications. Enclosures Requirements Enclosures included with WESP casing required.

Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwor k for retrofit, demolition and relocation of existing site structures/equipment to locate WESP casing and ductwork routing. Major Constructability Issues Accessibil ity to the back-end area of the plant.
Significant Issues or Challenges None.
Other Assumptions

• No major impact in plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Demolition and relocation of existing site structures /equipment are based on a conceptual layout approach.

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable.

Technical Feasibility Technically feasible.

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-4 

# Appendix C Cost Analysis Summary

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-5 Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $9,020,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork $812,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling system scope $1,155,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan modifications $3,434,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant modifications $3,938,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $18,359,000 Gross Receipt Tax $2,855,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $21,214,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $7,543,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork construction cost $10,958,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling construction cost $475,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan construction cost $1,283,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant construction cost $8,099,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $28,358,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $49,572,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,304,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Owner's cost $1,479,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Construction management $4,957,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $744,000 (DC) X 1.5% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $3,289,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $12,873,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $4,627,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $67,072,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,487,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,487,000

Variable annual costs Bag replacement cost $296,000 2,957 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements Cage replacement cost $74,000 1,478 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements ID fan power $1,828,000 4,028 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H 2 O d.p. Auxiliary power $209,000 460 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $2,407,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,894,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $6,533,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $6,533,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $10,427,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-6 Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $8,658,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork $904,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling system scope $1,155,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan modifications $3,434,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant modifications $4,072,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $18,223,000 Gross Receipt Tax $2,977,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $21,200,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $7,412,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork construction cost $13,335,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling construction cost $472,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan construction cost $1,283,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant construction cost $8,139,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $30,641,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $51,841,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,238,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Owner's cost $1,541,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Construction management $5,184,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $778,000 (DC) X 1.5% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $3,340,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $13,181,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $4,818,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $69,840,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,555,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,555,000

Variable annual costs Bag replacement cost $296,000 2,957 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements Cage replacement cost $74,000 1,478 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements ID fan power $1,828,000 4,028 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H 2 O d.p. Auxiliary power $209,000 460 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $2,407,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,962,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $6,802,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $6,802,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $10,764,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-7 Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $10,901,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork $1,364,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling system scope $977,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan modifications $2,871,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant modifications $4,733,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $20,846,000 Gross Receipt Tax $3,183,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $24,029,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $11,089,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork construction cost $9,007,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling construction cost $706,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan construction cost $1,403,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant construction cost $9,286,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $31,491,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $55,520,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,535,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Owner's cost $1,655,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Construction management $5,552,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $833,000 (DC) X 1.5% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,486,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $12,161,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $5,015,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $72,696,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,666,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,666,000

Variable annual costs Bag replacement cost $462,000 4,620 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements Cage replacement cost $116,000 2,310 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements ID fan power $2,856,000 6,294 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H 2 O d.p. Auxiliary power $273,000 601 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $3,707,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $5,373,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $7,081,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $7,081,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $12,454,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-8 Technology: Pulse Jet Fabric Filter - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 4/25/2007

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

PJFF system scope $12,572,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork $1,479,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling system scope $932,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan modifications $2,870,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant modifications $5,040,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $22,893,000 Gross Receipt Tax $3,212,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $26,105,000

Direct installation costs

PJFF construction cost $10,937,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ductwork construction cost $7,946,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Ash handling construction cost $685,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Booster fan construction cost $1,406,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Balance of plant construction cost $8,856,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $29,830,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $55,935,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $2,645,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Owner's cost $1,670,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost Construction management $5,594,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $839,000 (DC) X 1.5% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,486,000 PNM environmental upgrade cost

Total indirect costs (IC) $12,334,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $5,059,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 2 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $73,328,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Maintenance labor and materials $1,678,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $1,678,000

Variable annual costs Bag replacement cost $462,000 4,620 bags and 100 $/bag B&W bag offerings, 3 yr replacements Cage replacement cost $116,000 2,310 cages and 50 $/cage B&W cage offerings, 6 yr replacements ID fan power $2,856,000 6,294 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh B&W guarantees, 15 in. H 2 O d.p. Auxiliary power $273,000 601 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $3,707,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $5,385,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $7,142,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $7,142,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $12,527,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-9 Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 1 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $19,289,000 from B&V reference cost database penthouse blower & heater, access provisions Ductwork $812,000 from B&V reference cost database Booster fans $2,400,000 from B&V reference cost database Electrical system upgrades $2,318,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades Subtotal capital cost (CC) $24,819,000 Instrumentation and controls $1,539,000 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $1,241,000 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $27,599,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $8,280,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Handling & erection $8,280,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $4,140,000 (PEC) X 15.0% Piping $828,000 (PEC) X 3.0% Insulation $552,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Painting $276,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Demolition $8,280,000 (PEC) X 30.00% Relocation $2,760,000 (PEC) X 10.00% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $33,396,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $61,995,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $4,340,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $3,100,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $6,200,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $1,240,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $12,399,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $27,379,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $9,934,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $99,308,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance materials and labor $1,860,000 (DC) X 3.0% Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level Total fixed annual costs $1,960,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary power $113,000 248 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level ID fan power $392,000 864 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level Total variable annual costs $520,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,480,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $9,375,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $9,375,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $11,855,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-10 Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 2 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $19,289,000 from B&V reference cost database penthouse blower & heater, access provisions Ductwork $904,000 from B&V reference cost database Booster fans $2,400,000 from B&V reference cost database Electrical system upgrades $2,318,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades Subtotal capital cost (CC) $24,911,000 Instrumentation and controls $1,544,000 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $1,246,000 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $27,701,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $8,310,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Handling & erection $8,310,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $4,155,000 (PEC) X 15.0% Piping $831,000 (PEC) X 3.0% Insulation $554,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Painting $277,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Demolition $8,310,000 (PEC) X 30.00% Relocation $2,770,000 (PEC) X 10.00% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $33,517,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $62,218,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $4,355,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $3,111,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $6,222,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $1,244,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $12,444,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $27,476,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $9,969,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $99,663,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance materials and labor $1,867,000 (DC) X 3.0% Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level Total fixed annual costs $1,967,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary power $113,000 248 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level ID fan power $392,000 864 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level Total variable annual costs $520,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,487,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $9,408,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $9,408,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $11,895,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-11 Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 3 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $25,123,000 from B&V reference cost database penthouse blower & heater, access provisions Ductwork $1,364,000 from B&V reference cost database Booster fans $3,600,000 from B&V reference cost database Electrical system upgrades $2,427,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades Subtotal capital cost (CC) $32,514,000 Instrumentation and controls $2,016,000 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $1,626,000 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $36,156,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $10,847,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Handling & erection $10,847,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $5,423,000 (PEC) X 15.0% Piping $1,085,000 (PEC) X 3.0% Insulation $723,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Painting $362,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Demolition $10,847,000 (PEC) X 30.00% Relocation $3,616,000 (PEC) X 10.00% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $43,750,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $80,906,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $5,663,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $4,045,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $8,091,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $1,618,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $16,181,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $35,698,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $12,961,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $129,565,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance materials and labor $2,427,000 (DC) X 3.0% Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level Total fixed annual costs $2,527,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary power $175,000 386 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level ID fan power $610,000 1,342 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level Total variable annual costs $800,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,327,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $12,231,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $12,231,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $15,558,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix C

080828 C-12 Technology: Wet ESP - Unit 4 Date: 7/24/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs WESP system includes casing, electrical sys., $25,123,000 from B&V reference cost database penthouse blower & heater, access provisions Ductwork $1,479,000 from B&V reference cost database Booster fans $3,600,000 from B&V reference cost database Electrical system upgrades $2,427,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades Subtotal capital cost (CC) $32,629,000 Instrumentation and controls $2,023,000 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $1,631,000 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $36,283,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $10,885,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Handling & erection $10,885,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $5,442,000 (PEC) X 15.0% Piping $1,088,000 (PEC) X 3.0% Insulation $726,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Painting $363,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Demolition $10,885,000 (PEC) X 30.00% Relocation $3,628,000 (PEC) X 10.00% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $43,902,000

Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $81,185,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $5,683,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $4,059,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $8,119,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $1,624,000 (DC) X 2.0% Performance test $100,000 Engineering estimate Contingencies $16,237,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $35,822,000

Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFDC) $13,005,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 3 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (AFDC) $130,012,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance materials and labor $2,436,000 (DC) X 3.0% Operating labor $100,000 1 FTE and 100000 $/year Estimated level Total fixed annual costs $2,536,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary power $175,000 386 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level ID fan power $610,000 1,342 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimated level Service water $15,000 100 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Estimated level Total variable annual costs $800,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,336,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $12,273,000 (TCI) X 9.44% CRF at 7% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $12,273,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $15,609,000

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix D

080828 D-1 

# Appendix D NPS Particulate Speciation for the WESPUnit 1 Baseline (Consent Decree)Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input3,707mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.0200.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB70.837.1 18.5 0.6 18.517.8 1 0.71033.827.0 SO4 36.8 SOA4Weighted Extinction11.117.86.981.027.0 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 1047.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 70.837.118.5 0.6 18.517.8 1 0.71033.827.0 SO4 36.8 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Coarse 26.2% Coarse 18.5Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 17.8Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 0.7CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 27.0CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 6.8100.0% 70.8Unit 1Unit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)18.517.80.727.06.8CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%)(um)(lb/hr)1092%100%10-66.0677%84%6-2.59.72.553%58%2.5-1.258.91.25 31%34%1.25-1.02.4125%27%1.0-6254.40.625 14%15%0.625-05.6CALPUFFFilterableFilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr)Coef. (g/sec)810-616%6.00.60.764.25 6-2.526%9.70.61.22 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.2524%8.911.12 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-17%2.410.300.813 1.6-2512%4.410.560.6250.625-015%5.610.62100.09 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100%37.14.67Unit 1Unit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 1Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range6.09.78.92.44.45.610-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0Unit 2 Baseline (Consent Decree)Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input3,688mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.0200.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB70.536.9 18.4 0.6 18.417.8 1 0.71033.626.9 SO4 36.7 SOA4Weighted Extinction11.117.86.880.626.9 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 1047.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 70.536.918.4 0.6 18.417.8 1 0.71033.626.9 SO4 36.7 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Coarse 26.2% Coarse 18.4Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 17.8Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 0.7CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 26.9CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 6.7100.0% 70.5Unit 2Unit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)18.417.80.726.96.7CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%)(um)(lb/hr)1092%100%10-66.0677%84%6-2.59.62.553%58%2.5-1.258.81.25 31%34%1.25-1.02.4125%27%1.0-6254.40.625 14%15%0.625-05.6CALPUFFFilterableFilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr)Coef. (g/sec)810-616%6.00.60.764.25 6-2.526%9.60.61.21 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.2524%8.811.11 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-17%2.410.300.813 1.6-2512%4.410.560.6250.625-015%5.610.62100.09 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100%36.94.65Unit 2Unit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 2Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range6.09.68.82.44.45.610-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0Unit 3 Baseline (Consent Decree)Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input5,758mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.0200.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB110.057.6 28.8 0.6 28.827.7 1 1.11052.441.9 SO4 310.5 SOA4Weighted Extinction17.327.710.7125.841.9 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 1047.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 110.057.628.8 0.6 28.827.7 1 1.11052.441.9 SO4 310.5 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Coarse 26.2% Coarse 28.8Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 27.7Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 1.1CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 41.9CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 10.5100.0% 110.0Unit 3Unit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)28.827.71.141.910.5CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%)(um)(lb/hr)1092%100%10-69.4677%84%6-2.515.02.553%58%2.5-1.25 13.81.25 31%34%1.25-1.03.8125%27%1.0-6256.90.625 14%15%0.625-08.8CALPUFFFilterableFilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr)Coef. (g/sec)810-616%9.40.61.184.25 6-2.526%15.00.61.89 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.2524%13.811.74 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-17%3.810.470.813 1.6-2512%6.910.870.6250.625-015%8.810.97100.13 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100%57.67.26Unit 3Unit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 3Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range9.415.013.83.86.98.810-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0Unit 4 Baseline (Consent Decree)Controlled PM10 Speciation from AP-42 Tables 1.1-5 & 1.1-6Dry Bottom Boiler burning Pulverized Coal using FGD+FF for Emissions controlassumes heating value of9,692Btu/lb and a sulfur content of0.77% and an ash content of21.29% and a heat input5,649mmBtu/hr and f(RH) =1Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.0420 0.0220 0.0110 0.6 0.0110 0.0106 1 0.00041 100.0200.016SO4 3*f(RH)0.004SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValues from Table 1.1-6.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/ton) (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) Coef. (lb/ton) (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/ton) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.8130.4260.213 0.60.2130.205 1 0.0079 10 0.388 0.310 SO4 3*f(RH) 0.078 SOA4Controlled PM10 EmissionsBoiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Total) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 26.2% 0.6 26.2% 25.2% 1 1.0% 10 47.7% 38.1% SO4 3*f(RH) 9.5% SOA4If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB107.956.5 28.2 0.6 28.227.2 1 1.01051.441.1 SO4 310.3 SOA4Weighted Extinction16.927.210.5123.441.1 2.0If you are given Total PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB0.020.010 0.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Controlled PM10 Emissions(Boldvalues from Table 1.1-5 and from Table 6 of EPA’s January 2002 DRAFT “Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon.”)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Filterable) (% of Filterable) 1 (% of Filterable) Coef. (% of Total) (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef. (% of Condensible) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 100% 52.3% 50.0% 0.6 50.0% 48.2% 1 1.9% 1047.7%80.0%SO4 320.0%SOA4(% of Fine) Coef. (% of Fine) Coef.96.3% 13.7%10If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/hr:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr) Coef. (lb/hr)(lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/hr) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 107.956.528.2 0.6 28.227.2 1 1.01051.441.1 SO4 310.3 SOA4If you are given Filterable PM10 emissions in lb/mmBtu:Controlled PM10 Emissions(BoldValue isInputby user.)Boiler Total PM10 Filterable Coarse Ext. Fine Fine Soil Ext. Fine EC Ext. Condensible CPM IOR Particle CPM OR ParticleType (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Coef. (lb/mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef. (lb/mmBtu) Type Ext.Coef.PC-DB 0.020.0100.01 0.6 0.010.00 1 0.0002 100.010.01 SO4 30.00 SOA4Coarse 26.2% Coarse 28.2Fine Soil 25.2% Fine Soil 27.2Fine EC 1.0% Fine EC 1.0CPM IOR 38.1% CPM IOR 41.1CPM OR 9.5% CPM OR 10.3100.0% 107.9Unit 4Unit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Speciation Profile26.2%25.2%1.0%38.1%9.5%CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORUnit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF PM10 Emissions (lb/hr)28.227.21.041.110.3CoarseFine SoilFine ECCPM IORCPM ORPC with FGD + Fabric Filterfrom AP-42 Table 1.1-6(User inputsfilterableemission rate in lb/hr)Particle Cumulative Mass Fraction of PM10 Particle EmissionsSize < Stated Size < Stated Size Size Range by size(um)FF(%)(um)(lb/hr)1092%100%10-69.2677%84%6-2.514.72.553%58%2.5-1.25 13.51.25 31%34%1.25-1.03.7125%27%1.0-6256.80.625 14%15%0.625-08.6CALPUFFFilterableFilterableParticle Particle Size Fraction Emissions Extinction EmissionsSize (um) Range (um) (% of Total) (lb/hr)Coef. (g/sec)810-616%9.20.61.164.25 6-2.526%14.70.61.86 42% Coarse >/= 2.5 micron1.88 2.5-1.2524%13.511.70 58% Fine Soil </= 2.5 micron1.251.25-17%3.710.460.813 1.6-2512%6.810.850.6250.625-015%8.610.95100.13 3.7% of Fine is ECTotals 100%56.57.12Unit 4Unit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Fraction of Filterable PM1016%26%24%7%12%15%10-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-11.6-250.625-0Unit 4Dry-Bottom PC Boiler w FGD + FF Filterable PM10 Emissions (lb/hr) in Each Size Range9.214.713.53.76.88.610-66-2.52.5-1.251.25-1.01.0-6250.625-0

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix E

080828 E-1 

# Appendix E Stack Outlet Conditions for Visibility ModelingPNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-2SJGS Unit 1, Heat Input (HHV) =3,707 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,406,021 74 145.00 -0.20 0.43 1,592.0 0.24 877.8 0.050 185.4 0.013 50.0 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,323,494 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP1,323,494 70121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.010 37.1 0.007 27.0 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 1Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7PNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-3SJGS Unit 2, Heat Input (HHV) =3,688 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,444,718 77 148.00 -0.16 0.45 1,649.3 0.23 844.0 0.050 184.4 0.013 49.7 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.010 36.9 0.007 26.9 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 2Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7PNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-4SJGS Unit 3, Heat Input (HHV) =5,758 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,075,452 56 143.00 -0.22 0.42 2,405.5 0.28 1,591.1 0.050 287.9 0.013 77.7 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.010 57.6 0.007 41.9 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 3Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7PNM San Juan Generating StationAppendix E080828E-5SJGS Unit 4, Heat Input (HHV) =5,649 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,093,240 57 137.00 -0.21 0.42 2,399.6 0.29 1,662.4 0.050 282.5 0.013 76.2 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.010 56.5 0.007 41.1 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 4Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7

## PNM San Juan Generating Station Appendix F

080828 F-1 

# Appendix F Visibility Modeling Result Tables

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F1 of F21 

# Appendix F Visibility Modeling Result Tables

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F2 of F21 Table 1 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F3 of F21 Table 2 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F4 of F21 Table 3 WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.63 1.61 1.45 1.56 1.63 Bandelier 1.01 1.50 1.12 1.21 1.50 Black Canyon 0.92 1.12 1.04 1.03 1.12 Canyonlands 2.17 1.69 1.60 1.82 2.17 Capitol Reef 1.71 0.79 1.02 1.17 1.71 Grand Canyon 0.95 0.74 0.54 0.74 0.95 Great Sand Dunes 0.61 0.69 0.62 0.64 0.69 La Garita 0.83 0.90 0.85 0.86 0.90 Maroon Bells 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.52 0.54 Mesa Verde 2.71 3.18 2.92 2.94 3.18 Pecos 1.01 1.07 0.97 1.02 1.07 Petrified Forest 0.79 0.58 0.51 0.63 0.79 San Pedro 1.30 1.87 1.49 1.55 1.87 West Elk 0.78 0.88 0.79 0.82 0.88 Weminuche 1.10 1.39 1.30 1.26 1.39 Wheeler Peak 0.73 0.83 0.84 0.80 0.84 Overall 1.16 3.18PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F5 of F21Table 4SJGS Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches1.921.691.630.230.060.29 201,624,454 871,698,413 346,195,205Bandelier1.861.561.500.310.060.36 150,397,394 998,490,909 279,251,381Black Canyon1.401.151.120.260.030.28 181,066,667 1,961,321,429 357,204,947Canyonlands2.592.262.170.330.100.42 142,067,692 572,052,083 240,116,390Capitol Reef1.971.811.710.160.100.26 286,782,609 554,717,172 388,803,846Grand Canyon1.140.970.950.170.020.19 273,207,101 2,288,208,333 523,777,202Great Sand Dunes1.000.710.690.290.020.31 160,878,049 2,745,850,000 329,280,130La Garita1.300.940.900.360.040.40 128,255,556 1,277,139,535 250,841,191Maroon Bells0.780.560.540.220.020.24 211,798,165 2,496,227,273 421,204,167Mesa Verde4.853.803.181.060.621.68 43,682,119 88,862,460 60,351,642Pecos1.401.091.070.310.030.33 150,888,889 2,112,192,308 304,484,940Petrified Forest1.130.820.790.310.020.34 148,463,023 2,288,208,333 301,758,209San Pedro2.372.011.870.360.140.50 128,255,556 386,739,437 201,372,510West Elk1.150.910.880.240.030.27 194,000,000 1,615,205,882 371,650,735Weminuche1.851.481.390.370.090.46 124,452,830 631,229,885 220,718,341Wheeler Peak1.050.890.840.160.050.21 290,389,937 1,056,096,154 479,094,787Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$46,172Consent Decree to WESP$54,917Pre-Consent Decree to WESP$101,089

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F6 of F21 Table 5 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F7 of F21 Table 6 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F8 of F21 Table 7 WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.66 0.52 0.49 0.56 0.66 Bandelier 0.23 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.38 Black Canyon 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 Canyonlands 0.97 0.63 0.55 0.71 0.97 Capitol Reef 0.55 0.17 0.22 0.32 0.55 Grand Canyon 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.26 Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Maroon Bells 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 Mesa Verde 1.33 1.31 1.16 1.27 1.33 Pecos 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.26 Petrified Forest 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.18 San Pedro 0.42 0.56 0.47 0.48 0.56 West Elk 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 Weminuche 0.28 0.41 0.31 0.33 0.41 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.19 Overall 0.35 1.33PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F9 of F21Table 8Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches0.820.690.660.130.030.16 80,207,692 408,793,103 140,138,365Bandelier0.540.400.380.140.020.16 74,478,571 697,352,941 141,923,567Black Canyon0.380.290.280.090.010.10 115,855,556 846,785,714 214,250,000Canyonlands1.101.000.970.100.030.13 104,270,000 359,242,424 167,533,835Capitol Reef0.760.570.550.190.020.21 54,878,947 623,947,368 106,612,440Grand Canyon0.310.270.260.040.010.05 260,675,000 1,077,727,273 436,901,961Great Sand Dunes0.200.140.140.060.000.06 173,783,333 2,963,750,000 348,156,250La Garita0.290.210.200.080.010.09 130,337,500 1,317,222,222 250,359,551Maroon Bells0.180.140.130.040.010.05 260,675,000 1,693,571,429 474,085,106Mesa Verde1.791.401.330.390.070.46 26,735,897 174,338,235 48,650,655Pecos0.350.270.260.080.010.09 130,337,500 1,481,875,000 253,204,545Petrified Forest0.250.190.180.060.010.07 173,783,333 1,317,222,222 322,927,536San Pedro0.730.590.560.140.030.17 74,478,571 348,676,471 128,057,471West Elk0.280.220.210.060.010.07 173,783,333 1,317,222,222 322,927,536Weminuche0.540.430.410.110.020.13 94,790,909 623,947,368 172,728,682Wheeler Peak0.260.200.190.060.010.07 173,783,333 1,481,875,000 327,676,471Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$10,427Consent Decree to WESP$11,855Pre-Consent Decree to WESP$22,282

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F10 of F21 Table 9 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F11 of F21 Table 10 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F12 of F21 Table 11 WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.66 0.51 0.49 0.55 0.66 Bandelier 0.22 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.38 Black Canyon 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Canyonlands 0.96 0.62 0.55 0.71 0.96 Capitol Reef 0.55 0.17 0.22 0.31 0.55 Grand Canyon 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.26 Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Maroon Bells 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 Mesa Verde 1.33 1.31 1.15 1.26 1.33 Pecos 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.26 Petrified Forest 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.18 San Pedro 0.42 0.55 0.47 0.48 0.55 West Elk 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 Weminuche 0.27 0.41 0.31 0.33 0.41 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.19 Overall 0.35 1.33PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F13 of F21Table 12Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches0.830.690.660.140.030.17 76,885,714 371,718,750 131,738,372Bandelier0.540.400.380.140.020.16 76,885,714 626,052,632 142,509,434Black Canyon0.390.290.270.100.020.12 107,640,000 743,437,500 195,336,207Canyonlands1.070.990.960.080.030.11 134,550,000 440,555,556 211,766,355Capitol Reef0.780.570.550.210.020.23 51,257,143 540,681,818 97,668,103Grand Canyon0.310.270.260.040.010.05 269,100,000 991,250,000 435,750,000Great Sand Dunes0.210.140.140.070.000.07 153,771,429 2,973,750,000 306,202,703La Garita0.290.210.200.080.010.09 134,550,000 1,982,500,000 263,476,744Maroon Bells0.180.140.130.040.010.05 269,100,000 1,486,875,000 472,062,500Mesa Verde1.821.401.330.420.070.49 25,628,571 172,391,304 46,337,423Pecos0.360.270.260.090.010.10 119,600,000 1,321,666,667 228,878,788Petrified Forest0.250.190.180.060.010.07 179,400,000 1,189,500,000 323,700,000San Pedro0.730.580.550.150.030.18 71,760,000 440,555,556 128,016,949West Elk0.290.220.210.070.010.08 153,771,429 1,189,500,000 283,237,500Weminuche0.560.420.410.140.010.15 76,885,714 1,081,363,636 150,059,603Wheeler Peak0.260.200.190.060.010.07 179,400,000 1,321,666,667 328,391,304Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$10,764Consent Decree to WESP$11,895Pre-Consent Decree to WESP$22,659

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F14 of F21 Table 13 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F15 of F21 Table 14 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F16 of F21 Table 15 WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.88 0.62 0.62 0.70 0.88 Bandelier 0.37 0.52 0.59 0.49 0.59 Black Canyon 0.41 0.40 0.45 0.42 0.45 Canyonlands 1.12 0.82 0.74 0.89 1.12 Capitol Reef 0.84 0.24 0.33 0.47 0.84 Grand Canyon 0.34 0.23 0.18 0.25 0.34 Great Sand Dunes 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.31 Maroon Bells 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 Mesa Verde 1.39 1.70 1.57 1.55 1.70 Pecos 0.33 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.40 Petrified Forest 0.28 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.28 San Pedro 0.67 0.77 0.68 0.71 0.77 West Elk 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.33 Weminuche 0.42 0.59 0.47 0.49 0.59 Wheeler Peak 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.30 Overall 0.49 1.70PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F17 of F21Table 16Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches1.040.890.880.150.020.17 83,026,667 1,037,200,000 169,769,697Bandelier0.810.610.590.200.030.23 62,270,000 622,320,000 124,497,778Black Canyon0.590.460.450.130.020.15 95,800,000 1,037,200,000 193,186,207Canyonlands1.441.151.120.290.030.32 42,944,828 518,600,000 87,537,500Capitol Reef1.100.860.840.240.020.26 51,891,667 777,900,000 107,738,462Grand Canyon0.480.350.340.130.010.14 95,800,000 1,196,769,231 195,888,112Great Sand Dunes0.330.240.230.090.010.10 138,377,778 1,414,363,636 277,346,535La Garita0.440.330.310.110.020.13 113,218,182 818,842,105 217,147,287Maroon Bells0.250.200.190.050.010.06 249,080,000 1,555,800,000 466,866,667Mesa Verde2.181.901.700.280.210.49 44,478,571 75,892,683 57,756,701Pecos0.580.420.400.160.020.18 77,837,500 676,434,783 153,071,038Petrified Forest0.430.290.280.140.010.15 88,957,143 2,222,571,429 190,557,823San Pedro1.030.810.770.220.040.26 56,609,091 398,923,077 108,154,440West Elk0.420.350.330.070.020.09 177,914,286 972,375,000 325,720,930Weminuche0.820.640.590.180.050.23 69,188,889 324,125,000 122,859,649Wheeler Peak0.390.310.300.080.010.09 155,675,000 1,944,750,000 318,318,182Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$12,454Consent Decree to WESP$15,558Pre-Consent Decree to WESP$28,012

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F18 of F21 Table 17 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F19 of F21 Table 18 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

## PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix F



# Page F20 of F21 Table 19 WESP Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.87 0.61 0.59 0.69 0.87 Bandelier 0.36 0.51 0.57 0.48 0.57 Black Canyon 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.41 0.43 Canyonlands 1.10 0.82 0.73 0.89 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.84 0.24 0.32 0.47 0.84 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.30 Maroon Bells 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 Mesa Verde 1.40 1.68 1.56 1.55 1.68 Pecos 0.32 0.34 0.39 0.35 0.39 Petrified Forest 0.28 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.28 San Pedro 0.66 0.76 0.64 0.69 0.76 West Elk 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Weminuche 0.41 0.59 0.46 0.49 0.59 Wheeler Peak 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.30 Overall 0.48 1.68PNM San Juan Generating Station - Appendix FPage F21 of F21Table 20Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (foreach Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree WESPPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto WESPPre-ConsentDecree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toWESPPre-ConsentDecree to WESPArches1.050.880.870.170.010.18 73,688,235 1,114,928,571 152,913,043Bandelier0.810.600.570.210.030.24 59,652,381 578,111,111 118,717,300Black Canyon0.590.440.430.150.010.16 83,513,333 1,419,000,000 174,757,764Canyonlands1.471.141.100.330.040.37 37,960,606 433,583,333 76,874,317Capitol Reef1.110.860.840.250.020.27 50,108,000 743,285,714 103,822,878Grand Canyon0.480.360.350.120.010.13 104,391,667 1,560,900,000 216,430,769Great Sand Dunes0.340.230.230.110.000.11 113,881,818 3,902,250,000 246,807,018La Garita0.450.320.300.130.020.15 96,361,538 867,166,667 190,108,108Maroon Bells0.250.200.190.050.010.06 250,540,000 1,951,125,000 485,103,448Mesa Verde2.181.891.680.290.210.50 43,196,552 75,405,797 56,611,670Pecos0.590.410.390.180.030.21 69,594,444 624,360,000 137,248,780Petrified Forest0.440.290.280.150.010.16 83,513,333 1,300,750,000 173,679,012San Pedro1.040.800.760.240.040.28 52,195,833 380,707,317 100,128,114West Elk0.430.330.320.100.010.11 125,270,000 1,560,900,000 255,781,818Weminuche0.810.630.590.180.040.22 69,594,444 354,750,000 125,607,143Wheeler Peak0.410.300.300.110.000.11 113,881,818 3,902,250,000 246,807,018Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree$12,527Consent Decree to WESP$15,609Pre-Consent Decree to WESP$28,136PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 45 1.63 62.82 32.85 1.87 0.48 0.54 1.45 100 BAND 47 1.01 27.51 70.57 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.67 100 BLCA 24 0.92 25.38 72.64 0.90 0.23 0.16 0.69 100 CANY 63 2.17 66.43 31.20 1.05 0.27 0.22 0.83 100 CARE 27 1.71 50.35 46.55 1.36 0.35 0.34 1.05 100 GRCA 12 0.95 35.80 62.76 0.64 0.16 0.13 0.51 100 GRSA 13 0.61 31.43 67.21 0.62 0.16 0.09 0.48 100 LAGA 19 0.83 58.25 38.59 1.43 0.37 0.25 1.11 100 MABE 9 0.53 63.52 33.00 1.56 0.40 0.29 1.24 100 MEVE 146 2.71 71.64 15.63 5.41 1.38 1.80 4.14 100 PECO 34 1.01 38.97 59.21 0.82 0.21 0.16 0.64 100 PEFO 14 0.79 25.59 72.59 0.81 0.21 0.17 0.63 100 SAPE 88 1.30 34.19 61.37 1.96 0.50 0.49 1.50 100 WEEL 18 0.78 36.47 62.42 0.48 0.12 0.13 0.37 100 WEMI 49 1.10 24.27 71.74 1.72 0.44 0.51 1.32 100 WHPE 25 0.73 49.56 48.24 1.01 0.26 0.14 0.80 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 29 1.61 46.70 51.30 0.88 0.22 0.21 0.69 100 BAND 55 1.50 40.32 57.22 1.09 0.28 0.24 0.85 100 BLCA 27 1.12 27.57 70.45 0.88 0.22 0.19 0.70 100 CANY 52 1.69 48.49 49.10 1.06 0.27 0.24 0.84 100 CARE 17 0.79 28.97 70.10 0.41 0.10 0.10 0.32 100 GRCA 9 0.74 43.17 55.84 0.44 0.11 0.08 0.36 100 GRSA 15 0.69 26.74 72.12 0.51 0.13 0.09 0.41 100 LAGA 35 0.90 19.19 78.22 1.18 0.30 0.20 0.91 100 MABE 11 0.54 24.53 71.85 1.68 0.43 0.18 1.34 100 MEVE 151 3.18 27.60 70.85 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 PECO 34 1.07 40.71 58.27 0.46 0.12 0.09 0.36 100 PEFO 9 0.58 27.22 71.61 0.52 0.13 0.09 0.42 100 SAPE 97 1.87 30.41 65.41 1.85 0.47 0.45 1.41 100 WEEL 23 0.88 22.74 75.15 0.92 0.23 0.24 0.71 100 WEMI 74 1.39 51.69 43.31 2.16 0.55 0.65 1.65 100 WHPE 18 0.83 41.56 54.84 1.62 0.41 0.29 1.26 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 26 1.45 29.24 69.35 0.62 0.16 0.15 0.49 100 BAND 50 1.12 77.83 18.71 1.52 0.39 0.37 1.18 100 BLCA 21 1.04 26.30 72.43 0.57 0.14 0.11 0.45 100 CANY 46 1.60 67.06 29.60 1.46 0.37 0.34 1.16 100 CARE 22 1.02 50.54 47.97 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.53 100 GRCA 9 0.54 95.23 1.26 1.56 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 13 0.62 25.64 73.23 0.52 0.13 0.06 0.41 100 LAGA 21 0.85 19.56 77.45 1.40 0.36 0.12 1.11 100 MABE 7 0.50 24.53 73.55 0.84 0.21 0.19 0.66 100 MEVE 145 2.92 78.37 3.17 7.90 2.01 2.49 6.04 100 PECO 44 0.97 28.35 69.19 1.11 0.28 0.22 0.85 100 PEFO 8 0.51 73.07 24.23 1.21 0.31 0.21 0.97 100 SAPE 93 1.49 30.00 65.46 1.96 0.50 0.58 1.50 100 WEEL 20 0.79 23.85 73.36 1.22 0.31 0.31 0.95 100 WEMI 59 1.30 34.09 64.30 0.69 0.18 0.20 0.53 100 WHPE 26 0.84 91.75 5.74 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.88 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.66 21.99 75.92 0.92 0.24 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 1 0.23 41.99 55.90 0.94 0.25 0.20 0.72 100 BLCA 2 0.28 21.30 77.10 0.70 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 CANY 20 0.97 35.55 62.86 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 CARE 10 0.55 25.06 73.87 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.36 100 GRCA 3 0.26 29.07 69.74 0.53 0.14 0.11 0.42 100 GRSA 0 0.13 30.98 64.24 2.19 0.57 0.36 1.67 100 LAGA 0 0.19 27.29 71.34 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.48 100 MABE 0 0.13 16.66 80.54 1.25 0.33 0.28 0.95 100 MEVE 32 1.33 29.21 67.58 1.37 0.36 0.43 1.04 100 PECO 1 0.22 37.84 60.38 0.80 0.21 0.16 0.62 100 PEFO 2 0.18 23.42 74.91 0.75 0.20 0.16 0.58 100 SAPE 7 0.42 24.48 73.27 0.99 0.26 0.24 0.75 100 WEEL 0 0.21 31.38 66.78 0.83 0.22 0.15 0.64 100 WEMI 2 0.28 25.04 68.96 2.64 0.69 0.68 2.00 100 WHPE 2 0.18 26.68 72.08 0.57 0.15 0.09 0.44 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 32.86 65.72 0.62 0.16 0.15 0.49 100 BAND 4 0.38 29.10 69.40 0.66 0.17 0.15 0.51 100 BLCA 1 0.28 22.79 75.67 0.69 0.18 0.14 0.54 100 CANY 12 0.63 20.90 77.17 0.84 0.22 0.21 0.65 100 CARE 2 0.17 30.05 68.83 0.49 0.13 0.10 0.39 100 GRCA 1 0.16 42.66 56.37 0.43 0.11 0.08 0.35 100 GRSA 0 0.14 25.84 73.05 0.50 0.13 0.08 0.40 100 LAGA 0 0.17 32.85 63.61 1.54 0.39 0.42 1.19 100 MABE 0 0.11 23.93 72.54 1.64 0.43 0.17 1.30 100 MEVE 43 1.31 51.89 41.79 2.69 0.70 0.90 2.03 100 PECO 2 0.24 39.78 59.21 0.45 0.12 0.09 0.35 100 PEFO 0 0.12 26.98 71.85 0.52 0.14 0.09 0.42 100 SAPE 9 0.56 23.72 73.92 1.04 0.27 0.25 0.80 100 WEEL 0 0.19 21.65 76.06 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.76 100 WEMI 3 0.41 21.96 76.61 0.63 0.17 0.13 0.50 100 WHPE 0 0.16 30.26 68.80 0.42 0.11 0.08 0.33 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.49 49.52 49.25 0.55 0.14 0.12 0.43 100 BAND 3 0.35 20.72 76.99 1.01 0.26 0.25 0.76 100 BLCA 0 0.27 23.68 75.05 0.56 0.15 0.13 0.44 100 CANY 11 0.55 42.01 55.79 0.97 0.25 0.23 0.76 100 CARE 2 0.22 28.24 69.26 1.09 0.29 0.28 0.84 100 GRCA 0 0.12 51.18 46.39 1.08 0.28 0.22 0.85 100 GRSA 1 0.14 24.39 73.84 0.80 0.21 0.15 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.20 33.19 65.12 0.75 0.20 0.18 0.57 100 MABE 0 0.10 30.29 67.35 1.10 0.29 0.13 0.84 100 MEVE 43 1.16 34.79 62.53 1.14 0.30 0.37 0.87 100 PECO 1 0.26 23.34 74.67 0.90 0.23 0.17 0.68 100 PEFO 0 0.11 29.95 68.31 0.78 0.21 0.12 0.63 100 SAPE 7 0.47 23.38 73.47 1.36 0.36 0.39 1.04 100 WEEL 0 0.20 34.71 64.16 0.50 0.13 0.11 0.39 100 WEMI 3 0.31 28.56 69.85 0.70 0.18 0.15 0.55 100 WHPE 0 0.19 19.02 78.46 1.12 0.29 0.24 0.86 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 13 0.66 21.98 75.94 0.91 0.24 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 1 0.22 42.00 55.91 0.93 0.25 0.20 0.72 100 BLCA 2 0.27 21.31 77.10 0.69 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 CANY 20 0.96 35.51 62.91 0.69 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 CARE 10 0.55 25.06 73.87 0.46 0.12 0.12 0.37 100 GRCA 3 0.26 29.07 69.74 0.52 0.14 0.11 0.42 100 GRSA 0 0.13 90.48 7.15 1.04 0.28 0.24 0.81 100 LAGA 0 0.19 27.29 71.34 0.61 0.16 0.11 0.48 100 MABE 0 0.13 16.68 80.54 1.22 0.33 0.28 0.95 100 MEVE 32 1.33 29.12 67.71 1.34 0.36 0.43 1.04 100 PECO 1 0.21 37.85 60.38 0.79 0.21 0.16 0.62 100 PEFO 2 0.18 23.43 74.91 0.73 0.20 0.16 0.58 100 SAPE 7 0.42 24.49 73.28 0.97 0.26 0.24 0.75 100 WEEL 0 0.21 31.39 66.78 0.81 0.22 0.15 0.64 100 WEMI 2 0.27 25.06 68.98 2.59 0.69 0.68 2.00 100 WHPE 2 0.18 26.69 72.08 0.56 0.15 0.09 0.44 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.51 32.86 65.72 0.61 0.16 0.15 0.49 100 BAND 4 0.38 29.10 69.41 0.65 0.17 0.15 0.51 100 BLCA 1 0.27 22.80 75.66 0.68 0.18 0.14 0.54 100 CANY 12 0.62 20.91 77.17 0.83 0.22 0.21 0.65 100 CARE 2 0.17 30.06 68.84 0.48 0.13 0.10 0.39 100 GRCA 1 0.16 42.67 56.37 0.42 0.11 0.08 0.35 100 GRSA 0 0.14 25.84 73.05 0.50 0.13 0.08 0.40 100 LAGA 0 0.20 23.14 74.92 0.84 0.22 0.23 0.65 100 MABE 0 0.11 23.95 72.54 1.61 0.43 0.17 1.30 100 MEVE 43 1.31 51.80 41.94 2.63 0.71 0.90 2.03 100 PECO 2 0.24 39.79 59.21 0.44 0.12 0.09 0.36 100 PEFO 0 0.12 26.99 71.85 0.51 0.14 0.09 0.42 100 SAPE 9 0.55 23.73 73.93 1.02 0.27 0.25 0.80 100 WEEL 0 0.19 21.66 76.07 0.98 0.26 0.26 0.76 100 WEMI 3 0.41 21.97 76.62 0.62 0.17 0.13 0.50 100 WHPE 0 0.16 30.27 68.80 0.41 0.11 0.08 0.33 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 7 0.49 49.51 49.26 0.54 0.14 0.12 0.43 100 BAND 3 0.35 20.73 77.00 0.99 0.26 0.25 0.77 100 BLCA 0 0.27 23.69 75.06 0.55 0.15 0.13 0.44 100 CANY 10 0.55 42.00 55.81 0.95 0.25 0.23 0.76 100 CARE 2 0.22 28.25 69.27 1.07 0.29 0.28 0.84 100 GRCA 0 0.12 51.19 46.39 1.06 0.28 0.22 0.85 100 GRSA 1 0.14 24.40 73.84 0.78 0.21 0.15 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.20 33.20 65.12 0.73 0.20 0.18 0.57 100 MABE 0 0.10 30.31 67.35 1.08 0.29 0.13 0.84 100 MEVE 43 1.15 34.74 62.60 1.12 0.30 0.36 0.87 100 PECO 1 0.26 23.35 74.68 0.88 0.24 0.17 0.68 100 PEFO 0 0.10 29.96 68.32 0.77 0.21 0.12 0.63 100 SAPE 7 0.47 23.36 73.52 1.34 0.36 0.39 1.03 100 WEEL 0 0.20 34.72 64.16 0.49 0.13 0.11 0.39 100 WEMI 3 0.31 28.58 69.84 0.69 0.19 0.15 0.55 100 WHPE 0 0.19 19.03 78.47 1.10 0.29 0.24 0.87 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.88 32.73 66.01 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.45 100 BAND 3 0.37 81.21 15.56 1.44 0.35 0.32 1.12 100 BLCA 4 0.41 22.23 75.47 1.03 0.25 0.24 0.79 100 CANY 25 1.12 30.80 68.15 0.47 0.11 0.10 0.37 100 CARE 12 0.84 24.95 73.98 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.37 100 GRCA 5 0.34 25.77 73.13 0.48 0.12 0.11 0.38 100 GRSA 0 0.20 90.27 7.37 1.05 0.26 0.24 0.82 100 LAGA 1 0.28 27.05 71.55 0.63 0.16 0.11 0.50 100 MABE 0 0.19 31.00 67.14 0.84 0.21 0.15 0.66 100 MEVE 57 1.39 64.22 27.86 3.38 0.83 1.10 2.60 100 PECO 2 0.33 40.97 57.12 0.87 0.21 0.16 0.67 100 PEFO 2 0.28 86.23 12.11 0.74 0.18 0.15 0.59 100 SAPE 15 0.67 24.67 73.00 1.02 0.25 0.27 0.79 100 WEEL 4 0.29 31.39 66.47 0.97 0.24 0.17 0.76 100 WEMI 5 0.42 22.20 75.31 1.09 0.27 0.28 0.84 100 WHPE 2 0.27 25.88 72.91 0.55 0.14 0.09 0.43 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.62 28.98 69.76 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.44 100 BAND 10 0.52 50.03 45.88 1.85 0.46 0.34 1.44 100 BLCA 4 0.40 26.53 72.28 0.54 0.13 0.10 0.42 100 CANY 17 0.82 28.88 69.68 0.64 0.16 0.14 0.50 100 CARE 5 0.24 28.14 70.97 0.39 0.10 0.09 0.31 100 GRCA 2 0.23 41.56 57.49 0.42 0.10 0.08 0.35 100 GRSA 0 0.23 26.25 72.64 0.50 0.12 0.09 0.40 100 LAGA 1 0.31 19.05 78.41 1.16 0.29 0.20 0.89 100 MABE 0 0.18 26.46 72.13 0.63 0.15 0.12 0.50 100 MEVE 72 1.70 39.82 50.06 4.30 1.06 1.46 3.30 100 PECO 4 0.34 39.02 60.01 0.43 0.11 0.08 0.34 100 PEFO 3 0.18 27.04 71.81 0.52 0.13 0.09 0.42 100 SAPE 30 0.77 24.64 72.70 1.17 0.29 0.30 0.91 100 WEEL 4 0.31 24.93 73.89 0.53 0.13 0.09 0.42 100 WEMI 12 0.59 33.30 58.88 3.35 0.82 1.07 2.58 100 WHPE 0 0.30 43.48 55.67 0.38 0.09 0.08 0.30 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.62 24.83 71.54 1.57 0.39 0.46 1.21 100 BAND 8 0.59 20.02 77.64 1.03 0.25 0.27 0.79 100 BLCA 7 0.45 31.56 67.22 0.54 0.13 0.12 0.43 100 CANY 13 0.74 45.26 52.57 0.95 0.23 0.22 0.76 100 CARE 3 0.33 29.34 68.04 1.15 0.28 0.30 0.89 100 GRCA 0 0.18 51.56 46.01 1.08 0.27 0.22 0.86 100 GRSA 1 0.20 20.44 77.08 1.11 0.27 0.24 0.86 100 LAGA 3 0.31 35.26 63.25 0.67 0.17 0.12 0.54 100 MABE 0 0.17 20.01 78.27 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 MEVE 55 1.57 37.08 55.36 3.22 0.79 1.07 2.47 100 PECO 5 0.40 31.09 66.50 1.06 0.26 0.27 0.82 100 PEFO 1 0.16 72.09 25.25 1.19 0.29 0.21 0.96 100 SAPE 16 0.68 22.31 74.18 1.52 0.38 0.44 1.17 100 WEEL 1 0.33 20.44 77.87 0.74 0.18 0.19 0.58 100 WEMI 5 0.47 19.12 77.02 1.74 0.43 0.33 1.37 100 WHPE 2 0.27 91.52 6.01 1.13 0.28 0.19 0.88 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 17 0.87 32.51 66.24 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.44 100 BAND 3 0.36 81.19 15.57 1.44 0.36 0.33 1.11 100 BLCA 3 0.40 22.20 75.50 1.03 0.26 0.23 0.78 100 CANY 25 1.10 30.87 68.08 0.47 0.12 0.10 0.37 100 CARE 12 0.84 24.97 73.95 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.37 100 GRCA 5 0.35 26.06 72.84 0.48 0.12 0.11 0.38 100 GRSA 0 0.19 90.27 7.36 1.05 0.26 0.24 0.81 100 LAGA 1 0.28 34.69 64.13 0.53 0.13 0.10 0.42 100 MABE 0 0.19 30.86 67.31 0.83 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MEVE 56 1.40 63.25 28.94 3.34 0.83 1.08 2.55 100 PECO 2 0.32 40.94 57.14 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.67 100 PEFO 2 0.28 86.24 12.10 0.74 0.19 0.15 0.58 100 SAPE 14 0.66 24.58 73.10 1.02 0.26 0.27 0.78 100 WEEL 4 0.29 31.17 66.73 0.96 0.24 0.16 0.74 100 WEMI 5 0.41 29.56 68.46 0.85 0.21 0.28 0.65 100 WHPE 2 0.27 26.07 72.71 0.55 0.14 0.09 0.43 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 11 0.61 29.00 69.74 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.44 100 BAND 10 0.51 50.09 45.81 1.86 0.46 0.34 1.43 100 BLCA 4 0.40 17.31 80.97 0.75 0.19 0.21 0.58 100 CANY 16 0.82 28.80 69.77 0.64 0.16 0.14 0.50 100 CARE 5 0.24 28.13 70.98 0.39 0.10 0.09 0.31 100 GRCA 2 0.23 41.47 57.57 0.42 0.11 0.08 0.35 100 GRSA 0 0.23 24.30 73.50 1.00 0.25 0.19 0.77 100 LAGA 1 0.30 19.03 78.42 1.17 0.29 0.20 0.89 100 MABE 0 0.18 26.45 72.15 0.63 0.16 0.12 0.49 100 MEVE 72 1.68 24.68 72.78 1.11 0.28 0.31 0.85 100 PECO 4 0.34 28.38 69.85 0.81 0.20 0.12 0.63 100 PEFO 2 0.17 27.05 71.79 0.52 0.13 0.09 0.42 100 SAPE 29 0.76 24.57 72.78 1.16 0.29 0.30 0.90 100 WEEL 4 0.32 21.79 75.83 1.04 0.26 0.29 0.79 100 WEMI 11 0.59 33.16 59.04 3.35 0.84 1.07 2.55 100 WHPE 0 0.30 43.32 55.83 0.38 0.09 0.08 0.30 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

WESP Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 dv 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total ARCH 9 0.59 24.69 71.73 1.56 0.39 0.45 1.19 100 BAND 8 0.57 19.99 77.67 1.03 0.26 0.27 0.79 100 BLCA 6 0.43 31.77 67.01 0.54 0.14 0.12 0.43 100 CANY 13 0.73 45.13 52.70 0.96 0.24 0.22 0.76 100 CARE 3 0.32 29.23 68.16 1.14 0.29 0.30 0.88 100 GRCA 0 0.17 51.66 45.91 1.08 0.27 0.22 0.86 100 GRSA 1 0.19 20.43 77.08 1.11 0.28 0.24 0.86 100 LAGA 1 0.30 17.42 79.84 1.27 0.32 0.11 1.04 100 MABE 0 0.17 21.31 77.54 0.50 0.13 0.13 0.39 100 MEVE 55 1.56 37.16 55.25 3.24 0.81 1.07 2.47 100 PECO 5 0.39 50.97 46.29 1.23 0.31 0.22 0.97 100 PEFO 1 0.16 72.11 25.23 1.20 0.30 0.21 0.96 100 SAPE 16 0.64 22.14 74.38 1.51 0.38 0.44 1.15 100 WEEL 1 0.32 21.56 77.25 0.52 0.13 0.13 0.41 100 WEMI 4 0.46 19.09 77.05 1.74 0.43 0.33 1.36 100 WHPE 2 0.26 40.37 58.46 0.54 0.13 0.08 0.42 100

## 03/16/09 1 of 22 

# PNM San Juan Generating Station Review of Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Scenarios and Sorbent Injection for SO 3 

# Removal March 16, 2009

Introduction On December 29, 2009, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) requested additional information regarding acid mist (SO 3 

# ) emissions from Public Service of New Mexico (PNM) for the San Juan Ge nerating Station (SJGS) BART analysis. After follow up discussions with the NMED in a conference call held on January 14, 2009, it is PNM’s understanding that NMED requests the following information:

• A BART visibility modeling analysis for the SCR and Hybrid SNCR/SCR systems that shows the effect of inherent removal of SO 3 

# generated from those technologies (i.e., SO 3 

# generated from the conversion of SO 2 

# to SO 3 

# across the SCR catalyst) at the Class I areas. The inherent removal of SO 3 

# is based on the existing air polluti on control devices.

• A BART analysis (engineering and vi sibility modeling) for the SCR and Hybrid SNCR/SCR systems that shows the combined effect of inherent
removal of SO 3 

# generated from those technol ogies and the removal of SO 3 

# by
the installation of sorbent injection control technology.

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of engineering information which pertains to each of the above scenarios and the resulting class I visibility impacts
associated with each scenario.

Review of SO 3 

# Control Technology References Provided by NMED As part of NMED’s review of th e PNM BART analyses, NMED reviewed technical papers discussing SO 3 

# control for coal-fired power plants. These references formed part of the basis for NMED’s request for additional information on SO 3 

# at SJGS. The following references were reviewed:

• Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants (EPRI)

• A System Approach to SO 3 

# Mitigation (B&W)

• Emissions of Sulfur Trioxide from Co al-Fired Power Plants (Babcock Power)

• SO 3 

# Impacts on Plant O&M: Part 1 (Power Magazine)

PNM has reviewed these references a nd has the following general comments.

## 03/16/09 2 of 22 

# Amount of SO 3 

# Oxidation

. SO 3 

# conversion in the SCR catalyst was estimated at 1.0 percent for 3 layers. This equates to catalyst conversion of 0.33 percen t per layer. A more aggressive conversion rate of 0.1 percent was not possible due to the high ash content of the SJGS coal.

SO 3 

# Removal in Air Heater
Removal of SO 3 

# in the air heater as estimated by each reference is dependent on operating the regenerative air heater at a co ld-end metal temperature that is below the acid dewpoint temperature. Condensation of H 2 

# SO 4 

# aerosols will occur at this low temperature. The operation of the air heater below the acid dewpoint temperature should be avoided at SJGS to prevent corrosion i ssues from the acid condensation on the air heater surfaces and to prevent the forma tion of ammonium sulfates and ammonium bisulfates (with ammonia slip from SCR) that plugs the air heater. Therefore, the expected 40 per cent removal of SO 3 

# in the air heater as indicat ed in these references is not a desired or plausible method of operation at SJGS.

SO 3 

# Removal in PJFF
The amount of SO 3 

# removed in the PJFF is depende nt on the alkalinity of the fly
ash. This is because SO 3 

# is adsorbed onto fly ash particles collected in the PJFF, and neutralized by the alkaline constituents in the fly ash. Finally, it is removed in the PJFF with the collected fly ash. SO 3 

# in the flue gas stream is in a vapor form and will pass through the PJFF. For high alkaline (20 to 30 percent by weight) fly ash, a high removal
of SO 3 

# is expected. However, for low alkalin e fly ash such as SJGS (8 percent by weight), removal of SO 3 

# in the PJFF will be similar to that for bituminous coal, which is a maximum of 40 percent by weight. B&W had predicted an inherent SO 3 

# removal of 50 percent for the PJFF at SJGS.

SO 3 

# Removal in FGD
Removal of SO 3 

# in the FGD system is limited by the size of the H 2 

# SO 4 

# particles in the FGD. At SJGS, only the larger particles will be captured, while sub-micron particles will escape the FGD. All the re ferences list an average SO 3 

# removal of 50 percent by the FGD system. B&W had predicted an inherent SO 3 

# removal of 40 percent for the FGD at
SJGS.

Part 1 - Engineering Impact Analysis As requested by NMED, analyses were performed to determine the amount of
SO 3 

# emissions that could be inherently rem oved through the use of existing equipment or

## 03/16/09 3 of 22 

# air pollution controls at the SJGS or through the installation of additional technologies. The following sections briefly discuss the av ailable and technically feasible options, control effectiveness, an d cost of those options.

Available and Technically Feasible SO 3 

# Control Technologies

1. Inherent Removal Inherent removal is defined as the capture of SO 3 

# from flue gas by the existing pollution control equipment installed for SO 2 

# and PM reduction. For SJGS, the existing pollution control equipment is the wet lime stone SO2 scrubbing system and the PJFF (baghouse). The co-benefit removal of SO 3 

# was calculated for the additional SO 3 

# generated from the oxidation of SO 2 

# by the SCR catalyst. The SO 3 

# emission rates for the existing pollution control equipments was calculated using the National Park Service (NPS) formulas which accounted for inherent removal of the SO 3 

# generated in the boiler by the consent decree equipments.

2. Sorbent Injection SO 3 

# Removal Sorbent injection removes SO 3 

# in the flue gas by reaction of the SO 3 

# with an alkaline sorbent material to form a partic ulate that is subsequently removed in a particulate control device. The alkaline mate rial injected can be a magnesium-, sodium-, and calcium-based sorbent. The injection po ints for the reagents may vary. For this analysis, hydrated lime was selected. For SJGS, hydrated lime is considered to be equivalent to other sorbents for removal pe rformance. Attachment 1 shows the design concept definition of the sorbent injection system.

3. Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) A WESP is typically installed downstream of a wet FGD and collects particles based on the same principle as a dry ESP; negatively charge d particles are collected on positively charged collecting surfaces. However, a WESP uses a wet collecting surface
that is flushed with water. While the WE SP is primarily a particulate matter collection device, the nature and use of WESP allows sulfuric acid mist (SO 3 

# ) to condense and be collected as particulate or absorbed into the water stream along the charged collection
surfaces. This co-benefit removal drove the use of a WESP for acid mist collection as one of the earliest applications of the ESP technology. The BART modeling analysis submitted on August 29, 2008 included WESP as
an additional PM control device. The anal ysis included the co-b enefit removal of SO 3 

# by the WESP. Therefore, the WESP will not be considered again in this analysis.

## 03/16/09 4 of 22 

# Control Effectiveness
To calculate the inherent control of SO 3 

# produced by the SCR catalyst, B&V utilized the performance information provi ded for the consent decree by B&W. This
information is shown in Attachment 2 and is based on mass balances that were provided as part of the contracts and performance guara ntees from B&W. These data indicate an expected 50 percent removal in the PJFF and 40 percent removal in the FGD system. It
should be noted that an error exists in th e original reports w ith regard to the SO 2 

# stack
outlet emission rates from the Unit 1 & 2 and Units 3 & 4. The SO 2 

# stack outlet emission rates from the Unit 1 & 2 and Units 3 & 4 should reflect 550 lb/hr and 860 lb/hr, respectively. This data, cont ained in Attachment 2, has been corrected for this submittal
to reflect the correct SO 2 

# stack outlet emission rates. For the sorbent injection cas es, an emission rate of 0.004 lb/MBtu was used. This
emission rate was determined to be the lowest achieved emission level. This emission
level is converted to a mass emission rate usi ng the unit heat input rates established in the
stack outlet conditions in Attachment 3. As stated above, four cases were investigated to determine the engineering impact
of SO 3 

# control at San Juan Generating Station. The following is a description of each scenario (with summary of SO 3 

# emission rates in Table 1) that was evaluated:

1. Control of SO 3 

# Produced by the SCR through Inherent Controls
Inherent removal of SO 3 

# generated from the oxidation of SO 2 

# by the SCR catalyst by the existing pollution control equipment was calculated. The SO 3 

# emission rate for the existing pollution control equipment was cal culated using the National Park Service (NPS) formulas, which accounted fo r inherent removal of the SO 3 

# generated in the boiler.

2. Control of SO 3 

# Produced by the SNCR/SCR Hybrid through Inherent Controls
Inherent removal of SO 3 

# generated from the oxidation of SO 2 

# by the SNCR/SCR Hybrid catalyst by the existing pollution c ontrol equipment was calculated. The SO 3 

# emission rate for the existing pollution c ontrol equipment was calculated using the National Park Service (NPS) formulas, which accounted for inherent removal of the SO 3 

# generated in the boiler.

3. Control of SO 3 

# Emissions from SCR through Sorbent Injection In this scenario, in addition to inherent removal of SO 3 

# by the existing pollution control equipment, sorbent injection is also added to further remove SO 3 

# from both the boiler and SCR catalyst.

## 03/16/09 5 of 22 

# 4. Control of SO 3 

# Emissions from SNCR/SCR Hybr id through Sorbent Injection In this scenario, in addition to inherent removal of SO 3 

# by the existing pollution control equipment, sorbent injection is also added to remove SO 3 

# from both the boiler and SNCR/SCR Hybrid catalyst.

## 03/16/09 6 of 22 

# Table 1 Summary of SO 3 

# Emission Rates

Unit Existing
Pollution Control

Equipment SO 3 

# Outlet (lb/hr) Additional SO 3 

# from Catalyst

Conversion (lb/hr) Stack SO 3 

# Outlet (lb/hr) (a)



# Inherent Controls on SCR
SJGS 1 40.50 73.66 62.60
SJGS 2 40.30 73.66 62.29
SJGS 3 62.90 114.42 97.22
SJGS 4 61.70 112.25 95.37
Inherent Controls on SNCR/SCR Hybrid
SJGS 1 40.50 73.66 62.60
SJGS 2 40.30 73.66 62.29
SJGS 3 62.90 114.42 97.22
SJGS 4 61.70 112.25 95.37
Control of SO 3 

# from SCR Catalyst Conversion Using Sorbent Injection
SJGS 1 40.50 73.66 16.09
SJGS 2 40.30 73.66 16.01
SJGS 3 62.90 114.42 24.99
SJGS 4 61.70 112.25 24.52
Control of SO 3 

# from SNCR/SCR Hybrid Cataly st Conversion Using Sorbent Injection
SJGS 1 40.50 73.66 16.09
SJGS 2 40.30 73.66 16.01
SJGS 3 62.90 114.42 24.99
SJGS 4 61.70 112.25 24.52

(a) 

# Stack SO 3 

# outlet emission rate considers additional control of this pollutant through inherent control or i nherent control and sorbent injection.

## 03/16/09 7 of 22 

# Cost Effectiveness Attachment 4 shows the detailed cost estimate development for the sorbent injection system. Table 1 in Attachment 5 shows the cost effectiveness of SO 3 

# controls for the SCR and SCR/SNCR Hybrid. The cost effectiveness values shown in the table are in dollars per ton of SO 3 

# removed.

Part 2 – Visibility Analysis Subsequent to the June 6, 2007 submittal, PNM further investigated additional
refinements to the BART CALPUFF air di spersion modeling analyses which included nitrate repartitioning and mo re realistic ammonia background concentrations based on monitored values at several western Class I areas. These additional modeling options are
considered more realistic and therefore will again form the basis of this analysis. To date, PNM has previously submitted five BART modeling analyses in addition
to the SO 3 

# analysis being submitted coincident as part of this analysis. A summary of each analysis is provided below:

June 6, 2007 Modeling analyses were performed to pr ovide SJGS plant-wi de regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analyses were based on a constant 1 ppb background ammonia concentration a nd no nitrate repa rtitioning. The NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

November 6, 2007 Modeling analysis were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. The analyses were ba sed on refinements which included using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations. Again, the NO x 

# control technologies analyzed were the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid.

March 31, 2008 Two main modeling analyses were perfor med to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) im pacts at 16 Class I areas for the SCR NO x 

# control technology only. One of the analyses, believed to be the more representative of ammonia chemistry of the area, was based on the November 6,

## 03/16/09 8 of 22 

# 2007 refinements which included using th e nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia c oncentrations. The other analyses included nitrate repartitioning and a c onstant background ammonia concentration as requested by the NMED.

May 30, 2008 Two modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impact s at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology only. Similar to the March 31, 2008 analyses, one of the analyses was based on the November 6, 2007 refinements that included using the nitrate repartitioning me thodology and monthly vari able background ammonia concentrations. The other analyses incl uded nitrate repartitioning and a constant background ammonia concentration. It s hould be noted that all vendors of SNCR (including Fuel Tech and Nalco Mobotec) have been modeled together as one technology called SNCR. This is the same approach that is used for modeling SCR control technology, where all vendors are modeled generically as SCR.

August 29, 2008 Three modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impact s at 16 Class I areas for the ROFA with Rotamix, Rotamix, and ROFA NO x 

# and WESP PM control technologies (the NO x 

# and PM analyses were submitted separately). Similar to the May 30, 2008 analyses, these analyses were also based on the November 6, 2007 refinements that included using the nitrate repar titioning methodology and monthly variable background ammonia concentrations.

March 16, 2009 Four modeling analyses were performed to provide SJGS plant-wide and unit specific regional haze (visibility) impacts at 16 Class I areas. These include the following:

• SCR technology with inherent SO 3 

# removal of the SO 3 

# formed from the catalyst oxidation of SO 2 

# to SO 3


# .

• SCR/SNCR hybrid technol ogy with inherent SO 3 

# removal of the SO 3 

# formed from the catalyst oxidation of SO 2 

# to SO 3


# .

• SCR technology with inherent SO 3 

# removal of the SO 3 

# formed from the catalyst oxidation of SO 2 

# to SO 3 

# and sorbent injection.

## 03/16/09 9 of 22 

# • SCR/SNCR hybrid technol ogy with inherent SO 3 

# removal of the SO 3 

# formed from the catalyst oxidation of SO 2 

# to SO 3 

# and sorbent injection. Similar to the August 29, 2008 analyses, th ese analyses were also based on the November 6, 2007 refinements which incl uded using the nitrate repartitioning methodology and monthly variable bac kground ammonia concentrations.

Visibility Summary Based on the refined methodology consis ting of representative background
ammonia concentrations and ni trate repartitioning, revised CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed for four cases; SCR (inherent control), SCR/SNCR Hybrid (inherent control), SCR (inherent and sorbent contro l), SCR/SNCR Hybrid (inherent and sorbent control) technology scenar ios. The modeling summarized in th is report is for the SJGS on a plant-wide basis and for each of the four SJ GS units on an individual unit basis. It is important to note that all other modeling optio ns as described in the BART application were unchanged. For simplicity, the following results discuss the differences between the
consent decree scenario and the co ntrol technology scenarios.
The stack outlet conditions for the cont rol technology scenario s are included in Attachment 3. These tables reflect the information from the previous submittal and have
not been modified to illustra te the changing stack outlet SO 3 

# emissions indicated in Table
1 above. Attachment 6 includes both the fac ility and a unit specific summary of the 98th percentile visibility impact fo r the modeled scenarios, the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold, and the contribution of each pollu tant associated with the 98th percentile visibility impact for each Class I area. Additionally, a minor discrepancy was discovered in the previously submitted visibility modeling results for the SCR NO x 

# control technology s cenario. Specifically,
the NO x 

# stack outlet emission rate was correctly reflected in the stack outlet summary tables (based on 0.07 lb/MBtu) but the in itial modeling reflected an incorrect NO x 

# stack
outlet emission rate for each unit based on 0.06 lb/MBtu. This discrepancy was corrected, and the results reflected within the information contained in Tables 2 and 3 of this submittal. Two important points must be clar ified with regard to this issue. First, as discussed in previous submittals, the NO x 

# emission rate of 0.07 lb/MBtu is the appropriate emission rate for retrofitted SCR technologies at SJGS as reviewed in the BART analyses and not the 0.06 lb/MBtu NO x 

# emission level. Secondly, as can be seen from the resulting visibility impacts fo r the SCR control scenarios for the NO x 

# emission rate of 0.07 lb/MBtu (Tables 2 & 3 below), the maximum visibility modeling results (over the period 2001 to 2003) are mostly unchange d for each Class I ar ea if compared to previously submitted results for the same scenario. Thus, as described in previous

## 03/16/09 10 of 22 

# submittals and reiterated later in this document, the visibility degradation by sulfur emissions is more pronounced than from emissions of NO x 

# .

SJGS Facility Visibility Summary with SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid Utilizing Inherent Controls on the SO 3 

# Generated from the Catalyst The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the
same level of inherent control for all f our units for each technology scenario, are
illustrated in Tables 1-4 and 21-24 of Attachment 6. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (decivi ew) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates a mini mal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario. It should be noted that there was one instance in which the result exceeded the 0.5 dv threshold by 0.04 dv for the Capital Reef Class I area which is not
located in New Mexico. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 4 and 24 of Attachment 6 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improvement for each unit (on a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the si xteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS’s baseline case, as well as the base line case for the individual unit analyses described later. Additionally, the cost-eff ectiveness for the potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/decivi ew ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the visibility improvement cost effectiveness summary in Tables 4 and 24 of Attachment 6 for each control technology:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to additional NO x 

# control technology alternative scenarios including inherent removal of SO 3


# .

• Pre-consent decree to additional NO x 

# control technology alternative scenarios including inherent removal of SO 3


# .

These maximum visibility improvements be tween the consent decree and the two
NO x 

# control technology scenarios (SCR and SCR/SNCR Hybrid) with inherent SO 3 

# removal considered range from showing no im provement (i.e., visibility degradation at

## 03/16/09 11 of 22 

# Mesa Verde) at all to 0.54 dv of expected visibility improvement above the consent decree scenario. The visibility improvements for each of theses options are summarized
below:

• Facility improvements with SCR and inherent SO 3 

# removal range from no improvement to 0.54 dv.

• Facility improvements with Hybrid and inherent SO 3 

# removal range from no improvement to 0.23 dv.

The results indicate that adding additional NO x 

# control technology beyond the consent decree and including consideration of inherent SO 3 

# removal through existing control technologies only results in one class I area visi bility improvement greater than 0.5 dv and visibility degrada tion at Mesa Verde. Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART a pplication document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visi bility improvement. The resulting cost for
installation of either S CR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid NO x 

# control technology for all four units ranges from $1.2 billion/dv to $180 million/dv (e xcluding the scenarios where there was visibility degradation). The visibility im provements for each of the control technology options with inherent cont rol are summarized below:

• SCR range from $487 million/dv to $180 million/dv.

• SCR/SNCR Hybrid range from $1.2 billion/dv to $365 million/dv.

## 03/16/09 12 of 22 

# Unit Specific Visibility Summary with SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid Utilizing Inherent Controls on the SO 3 

# Generated from the Catalyst The results of the refined visibility modeling for Unit 1, Un it 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4 for the two control technologies utilizing inherent cont rol assumptions are illustrated in Tables 5-20 and 25-40 of Attachment 6, respectively. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts of individual units at Class I areas outside of New Mexico represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the 16 Class I areas. In addition, this analysis indicates a minimal improvement in visibility impact (less than 0.5 dv) at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the ba seline (consent decree) scenario. The maximum visibility (deciview) improve ment seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period are illustrated for these two technologies in Tables 8, 12, 16, 20, and 28, 32, 36, 40 of Att achment 6. Again, the expected degree of visibility improvement fo r each control scenario for each unit was determined by the
difference between the consent decree’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas and the specific NO x 

# control technology (with
inherent SO 3 

# removal considered) scenario’s maxi mum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I area s. Furthermore, the same methodology previously described for the SJGS’s cost-eff ectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each
unit. These maximum visibility improvements be tween the consent decree and the NO x 

# control scenario for each unit are similar to that of the combined SJGS. The visibility improvements for each scenario are summarized below.

SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.04 dv to 0.42 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.04 dv to 0.41 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.08 dv to 0.44 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.08 dv to 0.44 dv

SCR/SNCR Hybrid w ith Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.01 dv to 0.21 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.01 dv to 0.20 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.04 dv to 0.23 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.03 dv to 0.22 dv

## 03/16/09 13 of 22 

# The results again indicate that adding additional NO x 

# control technology beyond the consent decree consisting of either SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybr id and considering
inherent removal of SO 3 

# does not yield visibility improve ment greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. Based on the visibility im provement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART applicati on document, the costeffectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv),
was determined for each unit for each Class I ar ea. The resulting cost for installation of additional control technology for each unit is summarized below.

SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

• Unit 1 cost range is $489 million/dv to $49 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $509 million/dv to $53 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $338 million/dv to $65 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $341 million/dv to $60 million/dv.

SCR/SNCR Hybrid w ith Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

• Unit 1 cost range is $1.2 billion/dv to $78 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $1.2 billion/dv to $83 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $732 million/dv to $111 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $802 million/dv to $111 million/dv.

SJGS Facility Visibility Summary with SCR Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same sorbent control technology and resulting stack emission rate for all four units, are
illustrated in Tables 41-44 of Attachment 6. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates an improvement in vi sibility at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario or above any of the previously considered SCR control technology scenarios. The highest visibility improvement was at
Mesa Verde at 1.34 dv. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 44 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improveme nt for each unit (on a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum vi sibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control

## 03/16/09 14 of 22 

# technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS’s baseline case, as
well as the baseline case for th e individual unit analyses desc ribed later. Additionally,
the cost-effectiveness for th e potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used as the basis and the costs of the sorbent injection technology was added (refer to Part 1 above) to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/deciview ($/dv). Three major scenarios ar e shown in the visibil ity improvement cost effectiveness summary in Table 44 for this control technology:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to SCR NO x 

# control technology with so rbent/inherent controls.

• Pre-consent decree to SCR NO x 

# control technology with sorbent/inherent
controls.

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and this control technology scenarios range from 0.28 dv to 1.34 dv of expected visibility improvement above the consent decree scenar io. The results i ndicate that adding
additional SO 3 

# control in the form of sorbent injection to the NO x 

# control technology can yield visibility improvement greater th an 0.5 dv at several Class I areas. Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated as noted above, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determ ined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visibility improvement. The resu lting cost for installation of SCR NO x 

# control technology and sorbent injection for all f our units ranges from $374 million/dv to $78
million/dv.

Unit Specific Visibility Summary with SCR Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection The results of the refined visibility m odeling for Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4
are illustrated in Tables 45- 60 of Attachment 6. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde, represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the
16 Class I areas. The maximum visibility (deciview) improve ment seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 48, 52, 56, and 60. Again, the expected degree of visibility impr ovement for each control scenario for each unit was determined by the difference between the consent decree’s maximum visibility

## 03/16/09 15 of 22 

# improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas and the specific control technology scenario’s maximum visibility im provement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class areas. Furthermore, the sa me methodology previously described for the SJGS’s cost-effectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each unit. These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the SCR
and Sorbent/Inherent control scenario for each unit are summarized below.

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.06 dv to 0.67 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.06 dv to 0.68 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.11 dv to 0.89 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.11 dv to 0.90 dv

Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated as noted above, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determ ined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visibility improvement. The resulting co st for installation of additional control technology consisting of SCR and sorbent inje ction for each unit is summarized below.

• Unit 1 cost range is $355 million/dv to $33 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $377 million/dv to $34 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $280 million/dv to $34 million/dv.

• Unit 4 cost range is $271 million/dv to $32 million/dv.

## 03/16/09 16 of 22 

# SJGS Facility Visibility Summary with SCR/SCNR Hybrid, I nherent Controls, and Sorbent Injection The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same sorbent control technology and resulting stack emission rate for all four units, are
illustrated in Tables 61-64 of Attachment 6. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates an improvement in vi sibility at each of the 16 Class I areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario or above any of the previously considered SCR/SNCR Hybrid control techno logy scenarios. The highest visibility improvement was at Mesa Verde at 0.96 dv. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 64 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improveme nt for each unit (on a plant-wide basis) was determined by the difference in the maximum vi sibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS’s baseline case, as
well as the baseline case for th e individual unit analyses desc ribed later. Additionally,
the cost-effectiveness for th e potential BART control technologies from the BART application were used as the basis and the costs of the sorbent injection technology was added (refer to Part 1 above) to calculate visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/deciview ($/dv). Three major scenarios ar e shown in the visibil ity improvement cost effectiveness summary in Table 64 for this control technology:

• Pre-consent decree to consent decree.

• Consent decree to SCR NO x 

# control technology with so rbent/inherent controls.

• Pre-consent decree to SCR NO x 

# control technology with sorbent/inherent
controls.

These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and this control technology scenarios range from 0.15 dv to 0.96 dv of expected visibility improvement above the consent decree scenar io. The results i ndicate that adding
additional SO 3 

# control in the form of sorbent injection to the NO x 

# control technology can yield visibility improvement greater th an 0.5 dv at several Class I areas. Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated as noted above, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determ ined for SJGS over the aforementioned range

## 03/16/09 17 of 22 

# of visibility improvement. The resu lting cost for installation of SCR NO x 

# control technology and sorbent injection for all f our units ranges from $592 million/dv to $94
million/dv.

Unit Specific Visibility Summary with SCR/SCNR Hybrid, Inher ent Controls, and Sorbent Injection The results of the refined visibility m odeling for Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4
are illustrated in Tables 65- 80 of Attachment 6. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period. Similar to results seen for the SJGS facility, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde, represent the maximum visibility impact at any of the
16 Class I areas. The maximum visibility (deciview) improve ment seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Tables 68, 72, 76, and 80. Again, the expected degree of visibility impr ovement for each control scenario for each unit was determined by the difference between the consent decree’s maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas and the specific control technology scenario’s maximum visibility im provement for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class areas. Furthermore, the sa me methodology previously described for the SJGS’s cost-effectiveness in ($/dv) was used here for each unit. These maximum visibility improvements between the consent decree and the SCR
and Sorbent/Inherent control scenario for each unit are summarized below.

• Unit 1 improvements range from 0.03 dv to 0.41 dv.

• Unit 2 improvements range from 0.03 dv to 0.41 dv

• Unit 3 improvements range from 0.06 dv to 0.59 dv

• Unit 4 improvements range from 0.06 dv to 0.60 dv

Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated as noted above, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determ ined for SJGS over the aforementioned range of visibility improvement. The resulting co st for installation of additional control technology consisting of SCR and sorbent inje ction for each unit is summarized below.

• Unit 1 cost range is $570 million/dv to $43 million/dv.

• Unit 2 cost range is $567 million/dv to $44 million/dv.

• Unit 3 cost range is $434 million/dv to $47 million/dv.

## 03/16/09 18 of 22 

# • Unit 4 cost range is $458 million/dv to $45 million/dv.

Additional Considerations As discussed in previous submittals, the visi bility results imply that visibility is influenced more by the SJGS’s sulfur emissions (both primary SO 2 

# and additional SO 3 

# from the catalysts on the NO x 

# control devices) than by the reduction of NO x 

# by itself. To illustrate this, Tables 2 and 3 compare the results of SJGS’s S CR and SCR/SNCR Hybrid control technology scenario to the results of the SCR and SCR/SNCR Hybrid utilizing
sorbent/inherent controls for the class I areas. The result s of this comparison indicate that the by adding sorbent injecti on and including considerati on for additional inherent
controls to reduce SO 3 

# emissions, the visibility improvements realized are approximately twice (or more) what they were with SCR with inherent control of the SO 3 

# formed from the SCR catalyst or SCR/SNCR Hybrid with inherent control of the SO 3 

# formed from the SCR catalyst alone. Thus, the visibility results realized by including the sorb ent injection and inherent
removal of SO 3 

# emissions, which for the most part ha ve been created due to the oxidation
of SO 2 

# to SO 3 

# across the catalyst of the SCR, furt her substantiates that the visibility issues in the area are caused by sulfur emissions and not by emissions of NO x 

# from SJGS.
Part 1 of this document indicated the low co st of the sorbent injection technology which
are a fraction of th e costs of the NO x 

# control equipment. While this analysis reviews sorbent injection technology a nd it’s potentia l for visibility improvement beyond the SCR and SCR/SNCR Hybrid NO x 

# control equipment by itself, it must be clearly noted that
NO x 

# control equipment have minimal visibili ty improvement by them selves. Therefore, the minimal visibility improvements discusse d in detail in previous submittals and
reiterated in this document for the NO x 

# control equipment do not merit the large capital expenditure required for installation of e ither SCR or SCR/SN CR Hybrid control technology.

## 03/16/09 19 of 22 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) 

### Visibility Improvements (dv)

(98th Percentile, see Note 1) 

### Maximum Visibility Results

Class 1 Area Consent Decree SCR SCR w/sorbent Consent Decree to SCR Consent Decree to SCR w/sorbent 

### Arches 1.69 1.72 1.10 NI 0.59 

### Bandelier 1.56 1.33 0.80 0.23 0.75 

### Black Canyon 1.15 0.93 0.63 0.22 0.52 

### Canyonlands 2.26 2.40 1.59 NI 0.67 

### Capitol Reef 1.81 1.43 1.08 0.37 0.73 

### Grand Canyon 0.97 0.74 0.53 0.23 0.44 

### Great Sand Dunes 0.71 0.58 0.40 0.13 0.31 

### La Garita 0.94 0.72 0.45 0.22 0.49 

### Maroon Bells 0.56 0.43 0.28 0.13 0.28 

### Mesa Verde 3.80 6.00 2.46 NI 1.34 

### Pecos 1.09 1.00 0.66 0.09 0.43 

### Petrified Forest 0.82 0.74 0.48 0.08 0.34 

### San Pedro 2.01 2.07 1.13 NI 0.88 

### West Elk 0.91 0.68 0.43 0.24 0.49 

### Weminuche 1.48 1.64 0.90 NI 0.59 

### Wheeler Peak 0.89 0.71 0.50 0.19 0.40

Notes: 1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data. 2. NI = No Improvement 

### Table 2 SJGS Facility Visibility Improvement Comparison Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

## 03/16/09 20 of 22 Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) 

### Visibility Improvements (dv)

(98th Percentile, see Note 1) 

### Maximum Visibility Results

Class 1 Area Consent Decree Hybrid Hybrid w/sorbent Consent Decree to Hybrid Consent Decree to hybrid w/sorbent 

### Arches 1.69 1.75 1.41 NI 0.28 

### Bandelier 1.56 1.52 1.11 0.04 0.45 

### Black Canyon 1.15 1.06 0.87 0.09 0.28 

### Canyonlands 2.26 2.41 1.95 NI 0.31 

### Capitol Reef 1.81 1.67 1.43 0.14 0.38 

### Grand Canyon 0.97 0.87 0.72 0.10 0.25 

### Great Sand Dunes 0.71 0.72 0.55 NI 0.16 

### La Garita 0.94 0.85 0.63 0.09 0.32 

### Maroon Bells 0.56 0.55 0.41 0.01 0.15 

### Mesa Verde 3.80 5.55 2.83 NI 0.96 

### Pecos 1.09 1.01 0.82 0.08 0.28 

### Petrified Forest 0.82 0.79 0.65 0.03 0.17 

### San Pedro 2.01 2.14 1.47 NI 0.55 

### West Elk 0.91 0.80 0.61 0.11 0.31 

### Weminuche 1.48 1.72 1.13 NI 0.36 

### Wheeler Peak 0.89 0.84 0.63 0.05 0.27

Notes: 1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data. 2. NI = No Improvement 

### Table 3 SJGS Facility Visibility Improvement Comparison Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

## 03/16/09 21 of 22 

# In addition to the prohibitive cost asso ciated with SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid control technology, th ere are other important reasons that LNB, OFA and NN should be considered BART for the SJGS units. First, the LNB, OFA and NN systems just installed
to meet the consent decree are state-of-the-a rt combustion controls. State-of-the-art combustion controls comprising of LNB, OF A and NN technologies were used to form the basis for the BART presumptive limits for NO x 

# in the BART guidelines. Second,
installation of SCR or SCR/ SNCR Hybrid control techno logy requires ammonia to
reduce NO x 

# emissions. Specifically, in a SCR system , ammonia is injected into the flue gas stream just upstream of a catalytic reacto r. The ammonia molecules in the presence of the catalyst dissociate NO x 

# into nitrogen and water. Any unreacted ammonia passes through the reactor and out the stack as am monia emissions or ammonia slip. This additional ammonia would then be available to add to the ammonia background concentration, chemically react to form n itrates and sulfates, and potentially further increase the visibility impacts at the Class I areas. The additional ammonia slip was not considered in this analysis. Finally, sulfur emissions (i.e., SO 2 

# , H 2 

# S, TRS, H 2 

# SO 4 

# , and/or
SO 3 

# ) are not subject to BART requirements because New Mexico participates in the WRAP emissions trading program. Therefore, LNB, OFA and NN should be considered
BART for NO x 

# control on the SJGS units.

Conclusion As noted in this document, PNM’s further investigation of sorbent injection control technology to control the additional SO 3 

# emissions from the SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid NO x 

# control technologies does yield an improvement in visibility at local Class I areas. However, the addition of this technology is solely to mitigate SO 3 

# emissions
created from the oxidation of SO 2 

# across the catalyst of the SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid
NO x 

# control technologies. These technologies by themselves have been shown to have minimal improvement in visibility (less than 0.5 dv) at each of th e 16 Class I areas when compared to the baseline (consent decree) scenario. The conclusion of this study re-iterate and support the over all findings of the previous reports that installati on of SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid NO x 

# control technologies at the SJGS provide minimal visibility improvements by themselves and would require significant capital expenditure and modifications that will impact many areas of the plant including boiler draf t systems, air heater performance, SO 3 

# emissions, and ash handling. The results from the analyses further substant iate that the addition of SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid NO x 

# control technologies does not yield a benefit nor meet the intended goal of BART. Specifically, these analyses indicate:

## 03/16/09 22 of 22 

# • The addition of SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid technology with inhe rent removal on a plant-wide basis shows only one instance of an improvement greater than 0.5 dv (Capital Reef Class I area at 0.54 dv). A ll other Class I areas show less than a 0.5 dv improvement for all Class I areas includ ing the four Class I areas located in New Mexico. In fact, the plant wide anal yses with inherent removal have shown continued visibility degradation at Mesa Verde. Individual unit analyses have shown visibility improvements less than 0.5 dv at all Class I areas.

• Any visibility improvement illustrated at a class I areas greater than 0.5 dv due to
the installation of sorbent injection should not be cons idered a solution. Instead,
it should be realized that the considerati on of sorbent injection is to mitigate the secondary pollutant affect of the SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid technology.

• Both the total annual costs evaluated and the cost-effectiveness ($/dv) are prohibitive given the minimal improvements realized.

Therefore, as previously noted, given th e overall cost of the SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid technology and minimal visibility improvements for these technologies by themselves, the recommended BART control fo r SJGS is LNB, OFA, and a NN for NO x 

# control and PJFF for PM control.

# Attachment 1

# Design Concept Definition

Site Name San Juan Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3, 4 Client Name PNM Process Technology SO 3 Sorbent Injection

Process Description Injection of alkaline sorbent downstream of air heater into ductw ork leading into PJFF to neutralize SO 3 in flue gas.

Pollutant SO 3 (Unit 1) SO 3 (Unit 2) SO 3 (Unit 3) SO 3 (Unit 4)
Emissions lb/MBtu 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 lb/h 40.5 40.3 62.9 61.7 Controlled Emissions lb/MBtu 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 lb/h 16 16 25 25 Inlet Flow Basis, acfm 1,518,669 1,517,269 2,267,380 2,224,459 Pressure Drop Added, in. wg None Coal Source and Type New Mexico, Subbituminous Capacity Factor 85.0%

Consumables Sorbent (Hydrated Lime), lb/h 233 233 344 344 Energy, kW 160 160 160 160
Maintenance 3% of direct material cost. Byproduct Description No impact on ash sales. Other None.

Location of Major Process Equipment One complete system train per unit. Air blowe r skid and sorbent storage tank at grade with truck unloading station. A secondary short term st orage silo to be located close to injection location. Injection lances location at air heater outlet to be determined by modeling results. Inlet/Outlet Connections and Interconnecting Ducts No ductw ork connections. Injectors added into existing ductw ork.
Reagent Storage Long term (7 days) and short term (8 hours) sorbent storage silo for each system train. Truck unloading syste m included with each system train. Control System Modifications Sorbent injection PLC based cont rol system interfa ced into existing plant control system.

Fan Modifications None.
Power Supply/Aux Power Modificati ons Minimum impact/modifications.

Enclosures Requirements En closure for air blowe r.
Demolition or Relocation Requirements Demolition of ductwor k wa lls required for installation of injection lances.
Major Constructability Issues None expected.
Significant Issues or Challenges Additional loading in particulate collection device. Howe ver, the level of additional loading is very minimal. Planned outage required for retrofit project. Other Assumptions:

• No major impact in plant availability.

• The site has sufficient area available to accommodate construction activities including, but not limited to, offices, laydown, and staging.

• Positive impacts on fly ash quality since lime content in creases the quality of pozzol anic and cementious properties.

State of Availability Available.
State of Applicability Applicable.

Technical Feasibility Technically feasible.

# Attachment 2PublicServiceCompanyofNewMexicoNovember 21, 2006San Juan Generating Station – Units 1 & 24.0 DESIGN CRITERIAProposal No.: P-007590Section 4Contract No.: 0635-169E (#1); 0635-169F (#2)Page 7 of 8B&W PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIALBabcock & WilcoxCopyright © 2006 Babcock & Wilcox Companya McDermott CompanyAll right reserved4.4 PNM SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2 FLUE GAS MASS BALANCEBoiler Heat Input3,461 mmBTU/hrFuelFuel Sulfur0.76 wt. %HHV9,502 BTU/lbAsh21.78 wt. %DescriptionUnits1234PowderedActivatedCarbon (4lbs/MMACF)Ash Solids FromExisting AshConveyingSystemAsh SolidsFrom PJFF AshHandlingSystemAsh Solids toDisposalTotal Mass Flowlb/hr35039,66839,668 79,686Bulk Densitylb/ft326.5454545Volumetric Flowft3/hr13 882 882 1,771Description Units A B C D EFlue Gas fromAir HeatersFlue Gas toBaghouse (PJFF)Flue Gas fromBaghouse(PJFF)Flue Gas FromBooster FansFlue Gas fromAbsorber Cellsto StackTotal Mass Flow (w/ solids)lb/hr 3,875,397 3,875,747 3,874,104 3,874,104 4,067,320Temperature°F279279279296123Flue Gas Pressure (expected)in.wg. -1.2-4.3-14.38.52.9Molecular Weight (wet)lb/lbmol 29.3529.3529.3429.3428.53Volumetric Flow (w/o Solids)ACFM 1,444,500 1,458,200 1,519,500 1,450,100 1,227,500CO2lb/hr 723,540 723,540 723,540 723,540 727,351H2Olb/hr 211,104 211,104 211,662 211,662 390,874SO2lb/hr 5,4815,4815,4815,481550N2lb/hr 2,693,225 2,693,225 2,722,242 2,722,242 2,735,391O2lb/hr 202,200 202,200 210,983 210,983 213,611HCllb/hr1291291291290Ash + PAClb/hr 39,66840,018424223HFlb/hr00000SO3lb/hr5050252515Operating Conditions:Design CoalNotes:1. Reference Schematic, Flue Gas Mass Balance Diagram, in Section 10.0 for stream cross references.2. Performance Conditions - 99% eff., 0% Bypass, 35% Open Absorber Tray Area, 2,700 ppm DBA, 4 lbs PAC/mmACF, 50% ESP Ash Carry Over,20% Excess Air, 10% Air Heater Leakage, and 1% PJFF Leakage; Note: the above does not include margins required for boosterfan sizing.Public Service Company of New MexicoSan Juan Environmental ProjectDesign CriteriaProject No.: 11922-010Revision: 1Date: April 3, 20078\\Snl1b\data2\SanJuan\11922 B&W CLIENT ENVIR MODS\6.0 Evaluation Reports\6.02 Design Criteria\SJGS Environmental Project DesignCriteria_Rev 0_04-03-07 sof.doc3.4Design Flue Gas Mass Balance3.4.1Units 3 and 4Boiler Heat Input5,485.2 mmBTU/hrFuelFuel Sulfur0.76 % (wt.)HHV9,502 BTU/lbDescriptionUnits1234PowderedActivated Carbon(4 lbs/MMACF)Ash Solids FromExisting AshConveyingSystemAsh Solids FromPJFF AshHandling SystemAsh Solids toDisposalTotal Mass Flowlb/hr55662,90862,908 126,372Specific Gravity (For Hoppers/Silos) lb/ft326.5404040Volumetric Flowft3/hr21157315733159DescriptionUnitsABCDEFlue Gas fromAir HeatersFlue Gas toBaghouseFlue Gas fromBaghouseFlue Gas FromBooster FansFlue Gas fromAbsorber Cellsto StackTotal Mass Flow (w/ Solids)lb/hr 6,131,463 6,132,027 6,129,275 6,129,275 6,437,701Temperature°F279279279299123Flue Gas Pressurein.wg. -1.2-5.9-15.912.54.2Molecular Weight (wet)lb/lbmol 29.3829.3829.3729.3728.56Volumetric Flow (w/o Solids)ACFM 2,282,999 2,315,893 2,413,338 2,274,692 1,933,399CO2lb/hr 1,146,630 1,146,630 1,146,630 1,146,630 1,152,614H2Olb/hr 324,454 324,454 325,230 325,230 612,754SO2lb/hr 8,6008,6008,6008,600860N2lb/hr 4,268,137 4,268,137 4,314,129 4,314,129 4,333,939O2lb/hr 320,453 320,453 334,372 334,372 338,248HCllb/hr2102102102100Ash + PAClb/hr 62,90863,464666637HFlb/hr0.00.0000SO3lb/hr7979393923Operating ConditionsDesign CoalNotes:1. Reference Schematic, Flue Gas Mass Balance Diagram, in Section 10.0 for stream cross references.2. Performance Conditions - 99% eff., 0% Bypass, 35% Open Absorber Tray Area, 2700ppm DBA, 4 lbs PAC/mmACF, 50% ESP Ash CarryOver, 20% Excess Air, 10% Air Heater Leakage, and 1% PJFF Leakage.3.4.2Units 1 & 2 later.

# Attachment 3SJGS Unit 1, Heat Input (HHV) =3,707 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,406,021 74 145.00 -0.20 0.43 1,592.0 0.24 877.8 0.050 185.4 0.013 50.0 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,323,494 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)1,325,998 70121.42 0.01 0.07 259.5 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.031 114.2 2 6.42. SNCR/SCR Hybrid1,324,112 70121.42 0.01 0.18 667.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.031 114.2 5 15.93. ROFA and Rotamix1,323,851 70121.42 0.01 0.20 741.4 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.94. ACT HERT SNCR1,323,851 70121.42 0.01 0.20 741.4 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.94. Rotamix1,323,904 70121.42 0.01 0.23 852.6 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.95. FuelTech SNCR1,323,904 70121.42 0.01 0.24 889.7 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.96. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)1,323,494 70121.42 0.01 0.26 963.8 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP1,323,494 70121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.010 37.1 0.007 27.0 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 1Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Black & VeatchPrint Date: 11/6/2008, 11:22 AMSJGS Unit 2, Heat Input (HHV) =3,688 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 1,444,718 77 148.00 -0.16 0.45 1,649.3 0.23 844.0 0.050 184.4 0.013 49.7 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)1,319,201 70121.42 0.01 0.07 258.2 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.031 113.6 2 6.42. SNCR/SCR Hybrid1,317,328 70121.42 0.01 0.18 663.8 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.031 113.6 5 15.93. ROFA and Rotamix1,317,067 70121.42 0.01 0.20 737.6 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.94. ACT HERT SNCR1,317,067 70121.42 0.01 0.20 737.6 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.94. Rotamix1,317,120 70121.42 0.01 0.23 848.2 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.95. FuelTech SNCR1,317,120 70121.42 0.01 0.24 885.1 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.96. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)1,316,710 70121.42 0.01 0.26 958.9 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP1,316,710 70121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.010 36.9 0.007 26.9 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 2Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Black & VeatchPrint Date: 11/6/2008, 11:22 AMSJGS Unit 3, Heat Input (HHV) =5,758 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,075,452 56 143.00 -0.22 0.42 2,405.5 0.28 1,591.1 0.050 287.9 0.013 77.7 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)2,059,643 56121.42 0.01 0.07 403.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.031 177.3 2 9.92. SNCR/SCR Hybrid2,056,712 56121.42 0.01 0.18 1,036.4 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.031 177.3 5 24.83. ROFA and Rotamix2,056,299 56121.42 0.01 0.20 1,151.6 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.84. ACT HERT SNCR2,056,299 56121.42 0.01 0.20 1,151.6 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.84. Rotamix2,056,389 56121.42 0.01 0.23 1,324.3 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.85. FuelTech SNCR2,056,389 56121.42 0.01 0.24 1,381.9 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.86. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)2,055,753 56121.42 0.01 0.26 1,497.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP2,055,753 56121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.010 57.6 0.007 41.9 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 3Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Black & VeatchPrint Date: 11/6/2008, 11:22 AMSJGS Unit 4, Heat Input (HHV) =5,649 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Pre-Consent Decree Operation 2,093,240 57 137.00 -0.21 0.42 2,399.6 0.29 1,662.4 0.050 282.5 0.013 76.2 NA NAVisibility Modeling Baseline CasePost-Consent Decree Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 NA NAWith additional NOxControl Technologies1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)2,020,653 55121.42 0.01 0.07 395.4 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.031 174.0 2 9.72. SNCR/SCR Hybrid2,017,796 55121.42 0.01 0.18 1,016.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.031 174.0 5 24.33. ROFA and Rotamix2,017,383 55121.42 0.01 0.20 1,129.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.34. ACT HERT SNCR2,017,383 55121.42 0.01 0.20 1,129.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.34. Rotamix2,017,473 55121.42 0.01 0.23 1,299.3 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.35. FuelTech SNCR2,017,473 55121.42 0.01 0.24 1,355.8 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.36. Rotating Overfire Air (ROFA)2,016,837 55121.42 0.01 0.26 1,468.7 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 NA NAWith additional PM Control Technologies1. WESP2,016,837 55121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.010 56.5 0.007 41.1 NA NANotes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Pre-consent decree operation emission level (lb/MBtu) are based on annual averages from year 2001 to 2003.5. Post-consent decree upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.6. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.7. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.8. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).9. SO3emissions for the pre- and post-consent decree cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.10. SO3emissions for the additional NOxcontrol technologies with catalyst accounts for an additional 1.0% SO2to SO3conversion (based on design basis economizer outlet SO2levels) and 0% SO3removal in PJFF.11. Pre-CD flue gas flow, temperature, pressure properties were referenced from PM test reports for year 2001 to 2003.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 4Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 7Black & VeatchPrint Date: 11/6/2008, 11:22 AM

# Attachment 4

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Sorbent Injection - SJGS Unit 1 (SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid) Date: 2/25/2009

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Long-term storage silo (with truck unloading sys.) $891,000 B&V cost estimate Short-term storage silo $590,000 B&V cost estimate Air blowers $806,000 B&V cost estimate Rotary feeders $92,000 B&V cost estimate Injection system $372,000 B&V cost estimate Ductwork modifications, supports, platforms $72,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $115,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $115,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $3,053,000 Gross Receipt Tax $188,904 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $152,650 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $3,395,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $340,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $849,000 (PEC) X 25.0% Electrical $340,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $68,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Insulation $34,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $68,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Relocation $34,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $1,733,000

Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $75,000 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $5,203,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $364,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $260,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $520,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $156,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,041,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $2,441,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $283,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $7,927,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $156,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $281,000

Variable annual costs - Case 4/5 Sorbent (hydrated lime) $347,000 856 lb/hr and 109 $/ton stoic. ratio = 10 Auxiliary power $73,000 160 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $420,000 Total direct annual costs (DAC45) $701,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $772,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $772,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC45) + (IDAC) for Case 4/5 $1,473,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Sorbent Injection - SJGS Unit 2 (SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid) Date: 2/25/2009

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Long-term storage silo (with truck unloading sys.) $891,000 B&V cost estimate Short-term storage silo $590,000 B&V cost estimate Air blowers $806,000 B&V cost estimate Rotary feeders $92,000 B&V cost estimate Injection system $372,000 B&V cost estimate Ductwork modifications, supports, platforms $72,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $115,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $115,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $3,053,000 Gross Receipt Tax $188,904 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $152,650 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $3,395,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $340,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $849,000 (PEC) X 25.0% Electrical $340,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $68,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Insulation $34,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $68,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Relocation $34,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $1,733,000

Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $75,000 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $5,203,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $364,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $260,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $520,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $156,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,041,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $2,441,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $283,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $7,927,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $156,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $281,000

Variable annual costs - Case 4/5 Sorbent (hydrated lime) $347,000 856 lb/hr and 109 $/ton stoic. ratio = 10 Auxiliary power $73,000 160 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $420,000 Total direct annual costs (DAC45) $701,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $772,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $772,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC45) + (IDAC) for Case 4/5 $1,473,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Sorbent Injection - SJGS Unit 3 (SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid) Date: 2/25/2009

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Long-term storage silo (with truck unloading sys.) $1,386,000 B&V cost estimate Short-term storage silo $918,000 B&V cost estimate Air blowers $1,254,000 B&V cost estimate Rotary feeders $143,000 B&V cost estimate Injection system $578,000 B&V cost estimate Ductwork modifications, supports, platforms $112,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $179,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $179,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $4,749,000 Gross Receipt Tax $293,844 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $237,450 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $5,280,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $528,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $1,320,000 (PEC) X 25.0% Electrical $528,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $106,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Insulation $53,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $106,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Relocation $53,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $2,694,000

Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $75,000 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $8,049,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $563,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $402,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $805,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $241,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,610,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $3,721,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $436,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $12,206,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $241,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $366,000

Variable annual costs - Case 4/5 Sorbent (hydrated lime) $540,000 1,330 lb/hr and 109 $/ton stoic. ratio = 10 Auxiliary power $73,000 160 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $613,000 Total direct annual costs (DAC45) $979,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,189,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,189,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC45) + (IDAC) for Case 4/5 $2,168,000

### PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Sorbent Injection - SJGS Unit 4 (SCR or SCR/SNCR Hybrid) Date: 2/25/2009

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs Purchased equipment costs Long-term storage silo (with truck unloading sys.) $1,386,000 B&V cost estimate Short-term storage silo $918,000 B&V cost estimate Air blowers $1,254,000 B&V cost estimate Rotary feeders $143,000 B&V cost estimate Injection system $578,000 B&V cost estimate Ductwork modifications, supports, platforms $112,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $179,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $179,000 B&V cost estimate Subtotal capital cost (CC) $4,749,000 Gross Receipt Tax $293,844 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $237,450 (CC) X 5.0% Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $5,280,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $528,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $1,320,000 (PEC) X 25.0% Electrical $528,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $106,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Insulation $53,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $106,000 (PEC) X 2.0% Relocation $53,000 (PEC) X 1.0% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $2,694,000

Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $75,000 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $8,049,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $563,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $402,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $805,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $241,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $1,610,000 (DC) X 20.0% Total indirect costs (IC) $3,721,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $436,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $12,206,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $241,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $366,000

Variable annual costs - Case 4/5 Sorbent (hydrated lime) $540,000 1,330 lb/hr and 109 $/ton stoic. ratio = 10 Auxiliary power $73,000 160 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $613,000 Total direct annual costs (DAC45) $979,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $1,189,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,189,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC45) + (IDAC) for Case 4/5 $2,168,000

# Attachment 5PNM BART SO3 Technology Control Strategy ReviewLast Updated: 2/25/2009Total TotalExpected Expected Expected Capital AnnualizedEmission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost Energy Non-AirRate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness Impacts ImpactsAll Feasible Technologies (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)SJGS Unit 1Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 62.6 233 -82 156,805 20,525 -249,458 1,496 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 62.6 233 -82 104,436 16,207 -196,978 706 1,762SCR with Sorbent Injection 16.1 60 91 164,732 21,998 242,060 1,569 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid with Sorbent Injection 16.1 60 91 112,363 17,680 194,546 779 1,762SJGS Unit 2Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 62.3 232 -82 169,251 21,891 -267,391 1,492 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 62.3 232 -82 108,628 16,670 -203,619 346 1,762SCR with Sorbent Injection 16.0 60 90 177,178 23,364 258,361 1,565 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid with Sorbent Injection 16.0 60 90 116,555 18,143 200,627 419 1,762SJGS Unit 3Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 97.2 362 -128 215,568 28,359 -221,948 2,194 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 97.2 362 -128 168,507 25,606 -200,402 507 2,658SCR with Sorbent Injection 25.0 93 141 227,774 30,527 216,290 2,267 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid with Sorbent Injection 25.0 93 141 180,713 27,774 196,785 580 2,658SJGS Unit 4Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 95.4 355 -125 199,558 26,592 -212,136 2,215 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 95.4 355 -125 161,572 24,849 -198,232 507 2,658SCR with Sorbent Injection 24.5 91 138 211,764 28,760 207,772 2,288 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid with Sorbent Injection 24.5 91 138 173,778 27,017 195,180 580 2,658Notes:1. All costs are in 2007$.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on 85 percent unit capacity factor (referer to Appendix A Design Basis).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were based on the consent decree upgrades control effectiveness.4. TCI and TAC are referenced from Appendix C Cost Analysis Summary.5. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is defined as ratio of TAC over Expected Emission Reduction (ton/yr).6. Expected emission reduction is based on annual emission reduction from consent decree upgrade emission levels.7. Incremental cost effectiveness are based on increments in expected emission reduction (ton/yr)Table 1Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Results of SO3 Control Technologies for SJGS

# Attachment 6

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 1 of 148 

# SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 2 of 148 Table 1 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 3 of 148 Table 2 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 4 of 148 Table 3 SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Reduction Visibility Mode ling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.34 1.22 1.18 1.25 1.34 Bandelier 0.71 1.07 0.98 0.92 1.07 Black Canyon 0.67 0.69 0.77 0.71 0.77 Canyonlands 1.97 1.36 1.49 1.61 1.97 Capitol Reef 1.27 0.67 0.86 0.93 1.27 Grand Canyon 0.60 0.54 0.48 0.54 0.60 Great Sand Dunes 0.49 0.48 0.40 0.46 0.49 La Garita 0.49 0.56 0.56 0.54 0.56 Maroon Bells 0.34 0.36 0.30 0.33 0.36 Mesa Verde 4.00 3.79 4.27 4.02 4.27 Pecos 0.69 0.79 0.84 0.77 0.84 Petrified Forest 0.58 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.58 San Pedro 1.34 1.57 1.46 1.46 1.57 West Elk 0.53 0.57 0.48 0.53 0.57 Weminuche 0.80 1.22 0.94 0.99 1.22 Wheeler Peak 0.60 0.55 0.59 0.58 0.60 Overall 1.01 4.273/16/09Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 5 of 148Table 4Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with InherentSO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches1.92 1.69 1.34 0.23 0.35 0.58 224,751,092 275,827,195 255,730,241Bandelier1.86 1.56 1.07 0.31 0.48 0.79 167,648,208 202,006,224 188,637,516Black Canyon1.40 1.15 0.77 0.26 0.38 0.63 201,835,294 259,645,333 236,246,032Canyonlands2.59 2.26 1.97 0.33 0.30 0.62 158,363,077 328,942,568 239,669,887Capitol Reef1.97 1.81 1.27 0.16 0.54 0.70 319,677,019 180,309,259 212,318,117Grand Canyon1.14 0.97 0.60 0.17 0.37 0.54 304,544,379 266,030,055 278,196,262Great Sand Dunes1.00 0.71 0.49 0.29 0.23 0.51 179,331,010 432,742,222 290,693,359La Garita1.30 0.94 0.56 0.36 0.38 0.74 142,966,667 257,584,656 201,673,442Maroon Bells0.78 0.56 0.36 0.22 0.20 0.42 236,091,743 486,835,000 356,064,593Mesa Verde4.85 3.80 4.27 1.06 NI 0.59 48,692,526 NA 253,984,642Pecos1.40 1.09 0.84 0.31 0.26 0.56 168,196,078 380,339,844 264,830,961Petrified Forest1.13 0.82 0.58 0.31 0.24 0.55 165,491,961 404,012,448 269,628,623San Pedro2.37 2.01 1.57 0.36 0.45 0.81 142,966,667 218,311,659 184,658,809West Elk1.15 0.91 0.57 0.24 0.35 0.58 216,252,101 281,407,514 254,854,452Weminuche1.85 1.48 1.22 0.37 0.26 0.63 138,727,763 370,216,730 234,755,521Wheeler Peak1.05 0.89 0.60 0.16 0.29 0.45 323,698,113 334,594,502 330,744,444Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$51,468Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$97,367Pre-Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$148,835

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 6 of 148 Table 5 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 7 of 148 Table 6 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 8 of 148 Table 7 SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.37 0.29 0.34 0.33 0.37 Bandelier 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.23 Black Canyon 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.17 Canyonlands 0.58 0.34 0.37 0.43 0.58 Capitol Reef 0.28 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.28 Grand Canyon 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 La Garita 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 Maroon Bells 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 Mesa Verde 1.02 1.03 1.14 1.06 1.14 Pecos 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.18 Petrified Forest 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 San Pedro 0.31 0.39 0.32 0.34 0.39 West Elk 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Weminuche 0.17 0.28 0.21 0.22 0.28 Wheeler Peak 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 Overall 0.24 1.143/16/09Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 9 of 148Table 8Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Basedon Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with InherentSO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches0.82 0.69 0.37 0.13 0.33 0.46 91,146,154 63,153,846 71,151,648Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.31 84,635,714 122,904,192 105,452,769Black Canyon0.38 0.29 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.21 131,655,556 165,524,194 151,280,374Canyonlands1.10 1.00 0.58 0.10 0.42 0.52 118,490,000 48,752,969 62,138,196Capitol Reef0.76 0.57 0.28 0.19 0.29 0.48 62,363,158 69,812,925 66,888,430Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.14 0.04 0.13 0.17 296,225,000 155,492,424 188,220,930Great Sand Dunes0.20 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.10 197,483,333 488,690,476 317,392,157La Garita0.29 0.21 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.17 148,112,500 223,097,826 188,220,930Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.11 296,225,000 293,214,286 294,309,091Mesa Verde1.79 1.40 1.14 0.39 0.26 0.65 30,382,051 79,863,813 50,037,094Pecos0.35 0.27 0.18 0.08 0.09 0.17 148,112,500 235,919,540 193,856,287Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.14 197,483,333 266,558,442 236,306,569San Pedro0.73 0.59 0.39 0.14 0.20 0.34 84,635,714 103,140,704 95,498,525West Elk0.28 0.22 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.17 197,483,333 186,590,909 190,435,294Weminuche0.54 0.43 0.28 0.11 0.15 0.26 107,718,182 135,032,895 123,564,885Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.13 197,483,333 306,343,284 254,913,386Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$11,849Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$20,525Pre-Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$32,374

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 10 of 148 Table 9 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 11 of 148 Table 10 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 12 of 148 Table 11 SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.36 0.28 0.34 0.33 0.36 Bandelier 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.23 Black Canyon 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.17 Canyonlands 0.58 0.34 0.37 0.43 0.58 Capitol Reef 0.28 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.28 Grand Canyon 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 La Garita 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 Maroon Bells 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 Mesa Verde 1.02 1.03 1.14 1.06 1.14 Pecos 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.18 Petrified Forest 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 San Pedro 0.31 0.39 0.32 0.34 0.39 West Elk 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Weminuche 0.17 0.28 0.21 0.22 0.28 Wheeler Peak 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 Overall 0.24 1.143/16/09Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 13 of 148Table 12Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with InherentSO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches0.83 0.69 0.36 0.14 0.33 0.47 86,728,571 66,944,954 72,875,803Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.31 86,728,571 130,303,571 110,496,753Black Canyon0.39 0.29 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.23 121,420,000 175,128,000 151,257,778Canyonlands1.07 0.99 0.58 0.08 0.41 0.49 151,775,000 52,876,812 68,892,713Capitol Reef0.78 0.57 0.28 0.21 0.30 0.51 57,819,048 74,206,780 67,392,079Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.14 0.04 0.13 0.17 303,550,000 165,840,909 197,866,279Great Sand Dunes0.21 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.11 173,457,143 509,093,023 301,176,991La Garita0.29 0.21 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.17 151,775,000 235,387,097 196,722,543Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.11 303,550,000 312,728,571 309,390,909Mesa Verde1.82 1.40 1.14 0.42 0.26 0.68 28,909,524 83,553,435 49,901,760Pecos0.36 0.27 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.18 134,911,111 248,761,364 191,196,629Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.14 202,366,667 280,653,846 246,615,942San Pedro0.73 0.58 0.39 0.15 0.19 0.34 80,946,667 114,612,565 99,803,519West Elk0.29 0.22 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.18 173,457,143 197,216,216 188,027,624Weminuche0.56 0.42 0.28 0.14 0.14 0.28 86,728,571 153,083,916 120,257,951Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.13 202,366,667 321,926,471 265,882,813Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$12,142Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$21,891Pre-Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$34,033

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 14 of 148 Table 13 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 15 of 148 Table 14 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 16 of 148 Table 15 SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.55 0.40 0.39 0.45 0.55 Bandelier 0.23 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.36 Black Canyon 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.24 0.27 Canyonlands 0.71 0.49 0.52 0.57 0.71 Capitol Reef 0.42 0.21 0.26 0.30 0.42 Grand Canyon 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.19 Great Sand Dunes 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.16 La Garita 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Maroon Bells 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.38 1.65 1.51 1.65 Pecos 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.29 Petrified Forest 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.18 San Pedro 0.51 0.54 0.49 0.51 0.54 West Elk 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.18 Weminuche 0.28 0.41 0.33 0.34 0.41 Wheeler Peak 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.35 1.653/16/09Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 17 of 148Table 16Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with InherentSO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches1.04 0.89 0.55 0.15 0.34 0.49 91,293,333 84,151,335 86,351,129Bandelier0.81 0.61 0.36 0.20 0.25 0.45 68,470,000 111,649,606 92,627,753Black Canyon0.59 0.46 0.27 0.13 0.19 0.32 105,338,462 152,467,742 133,079,114Canyonlands1.44 1.15 0.71 0.29 0.44 0.73 47,220,690 64,746,575 57,765,110Capitol Reef1.10 0.86 0.42 0.24 0.44 0.68 57,058,333 64,746,575 62,025,074Grand Canyon0.48 0.35 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.29 105,338,462 173,981,595 143,525,597Great Sand Dunes0.33 0.24 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.17 152,155,556 337,607,143 241,683,908La Garita0.44 0.33 0.19 0.11 0.15 0.26 124,490,909 195,579,310 164,913,725Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.14 273,880,000 322,261,364 304,731,884Mesa Verde2.18 1.90 1.65 0.28 0.25 0.53 48,907,143 114,350,806 79,645,833Pecos0.58 0.42 0.29 0.16 0.14 0.30 85,587,500 210,066,667 142,552,542Petrified Forest0.43 0.29 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.25 97,814,286 267,537,736 170,947,154San Pedro1.03 0.81 0.54 0.22 0.27 0.49 62,245,455 105,033,333 85,822,449West Elk0.42 0.35 0.18 0.07 0.17 0.24 195,628,571 167,804,734 175,953,975Weminuche0.82 0.64 0.41 0.18 0.24 0.42 76,077,778 120,676,596 101,332,530Wheeler Peak0.39 0.31 0.20 0.08 0.11 0.19 171,175,000 257,809,091 221,331,579Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,694Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$28,359Pre-Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$42,053

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 18 of 148 Table 17 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 19 of 148 Table 18 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

# 3/16/09 Attachment 6 – Resu lts Tables Page 20 of 148 Table 19 SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.54 0.39 0.37 0.43 0.54 Bandelier 0.23 0.34 0.35 0.31 0.35 Black Canyon 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.24 0.27 Canyonlands 0.72 0.48 0.52 0.57 0.72 Capitol Reef 0.42 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.42 Grand Canyon 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.18 Great Sand Dunes 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.15 La Garita 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Maroon Bells 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 Mesa Verde 1.47 1.37 1.61 1.48 1.61 Pecos 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.28 Petrified Forest 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 San Pedro 0.50 0.54 0.48 0.50 0.54 West Elk 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.18 Weminuche 0.27 0.39 0.32 0.33 0.39 Wheeler Peak 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.34 1.61Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 21 of 148Table 20Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with InherentSO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches1.05 0.88 0.54 0.17 0.34 0.51 81,076,471 78,674,556 79,478,346Bandelier0.81 0.60 0.35 0.21 0.25 0.46 65,633,333 106,368,000 87,771,739Black Canyon0.59 0.44 0.27 0.15 0.17 0.32 91,886,667 158,285,714 126,965,409Canyonlands1.47 1.14 0.72 0.33 0.42 0.75 41,766,667 63,923,077 54,121,984Capitol Reef1.11 0.86 0.42 0.25 0.44 0.69 55,132,000 60,027,088 58,261,183Grand Canyon0.48 0.36 0.18 0.12 0.18 0.30 114,858,333 151,090,909 136,402,027Great Sand Dunes0.34 0.23 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.19 125,300,000 340,923,077 214,760,638La Garita0.45 0.32 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.27 106,023,077 192,695,652 150,652,985Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.14 275,660,000 292,219,780 286,347,518Mesa Verde2.18 1.89 1.61 0.29 0.28 0.57 47,527,586 96,347,826 71,333,922Pecos0.59 0.41 0.28 0.18 0.13 0.31 76,572,222 202,992,366 129,823,151Petrified Forest0.44 0.29 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.26 91,886,667 243,963,303 155,888,031San Pedro1.04 0.80 0.54 0.24 0.27 0.51 57,429,167 100,347,170 79,950,495West Elk0.43 0.33 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.25 137,830,000 172,675,325 158,956,693Weminuche0.81 0.63 0.39 0.18 0.24 0.42 76,572,222 112,202,532 96,822,542Wheeler Peak0.41 0.30 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.22 125,300,000 253,257,143 187,790,698Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,783Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$26,592Pre-Consent Decree to SCR (w/o inj.)$40,375

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 22 of 148 

# SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 23 of 148 Table 21 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 24 of 148 Table 22 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 25 of 148 Table 23 SCR/SNCR Hybrid w/ Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility Mode ling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.58 1.43 1.33 1.44 1.58 Bandelier 0.91 1.33 1.13 1.12 1.33 Black Canyon 0.84 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.94 Canyonlands 2.17 1.57 1.67 1.80 2.17 Capitol Reef 1.64 0.67 0.96 1.09 1.64 Grand Canyon 0.80 0.67 0.58 0.68 0.80 Great Sand Dunes 0.62 0.64 0.50 0.59 0.64 La Garita 0.70 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.78 Maroon Bells 0.47 0.48 0.41 0.45 0.48 Mesa Verde 4.08 3.88 4.42 4.13 4.42
Pecos 0.84 0.86 0.90 0.87 0.90 Petrified Forest 0.73 0.50 0.52 0.58 0.73 San Pedro 1.42 1.80 1.57 1.60 1.80 West Elk 0.68 0.73 0.67 0.70 0.73 Weminuche 1.01 1.33 1.14 1.16 1.33 Wheeler Peak 0.70 0.69 0.72 0.70 0.72 Overall 1.16 4.42Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 26 of 148Table 24Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybridwith Inherent SO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches1.92 1.69 1.58 0.23 0.11 0.34 224,751,092 737,451,327 259,146,199Bandelier1.86 1.56 1.33 0.31 0.23 0.54 167,648,208 365,491,228 165,659,813Black Canyon1.40 1.15 0.94 0.26 0.21 0.46 201,835,294 398,717,703 191,008,621Canyonlands2.59 2.26 2.17 0.33 0.09 0.42 158,363,077 877,178,947 211,019,048Capitol Reef1.97 1.81 1.64 0.16 0.17 0.33 319,677,019 498,994,012 270,207,317Grand Canyon1.14 0.97 0.80 0.17 0.17 0.34 304,544,379 490,188,235 261,439,528Great Sand Dunes1.00 0.71 0.64 0.29 0.07 0.36 179,331,010 1,173,690,141 247,564,246La Garita1.30 0.94 0.78 0.36 0.17 0.53 142,966,667 498,994,012 168,174,573Maroon Bells0.78 0.56 0.48 0.22 0.08 0.30 236,091,743 1,016,243,902 295,426,667Mesa Verde4.85 3.80 4.42 1.06 NI 0.43 48,692,526 NA 204,683,603Pecos1.40 1.09 0.90 0.31 0.19 0.50 168,196,078 440,910,053 179,046,465Petrified Forest1.13 0.82 0.73 0.31 0.09 0.40 165,491,961 925,911,111 221,017,456San Pedro2.37 2.01 1.80 0.36 0.21 0.57 142,966,667 391,230,047 154,673,647West Elk1.15 0.91 0.73 0.24 0.18 0.42 216,252,101 462,955,556 212,028,708Weminuche1.85 1.48 1.33 0.37 0.16 0.53 138,727,763 537,625,806 168,494,297Wheeler Peak1.05 0.89 0.72 0.16 0.17 0.33 323,698,113 481,687,861 266,951,807Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$51,468Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$83,332Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$88,628

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 27 of 148 Table 25 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 28 of 148 Table 26 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 29 of 148 Table 27 SCR/SNCR Hybrid w ith Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility M odeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.53 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.53 Bandelier 0.19 0.33 0.28 0.26 0.33 Black Canyon 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 Canyonlands 0.79 0.47 0.46 0.58 0.79 Capitol Reef 0.41 0.14 0.23 0.26 0.41 Grand Canyon 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.20 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.13 La Garita 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Maroon Bells 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 Mesa Verde 1.25 1.25 1.29 1.26 1.29
Pecos 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.22 Petrified Forest 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.16 San Pedro 0.33 0.47 0.41 0.40 0.47 West Elk 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 Weminuche 0.24 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.35 Wheeler Peak 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.16 Overall 0.30 1.29Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 30 of 148Table 28Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybridwith Inherent SO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches0.82 0.69 0.53 0.13 0.16 0.29 91,146,154 102,575,949 61,211,806Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.33 0.14 0.08 0.22 84,635,714 216,093,333 81,995,349Black Canyon0.38 0.29 0.22 0.09 0.07 0.16 131,655,556 222,013,699 108,153,374Canyonlands1.10 1.00 0.79 0.10 0.21 0.31 118,490,000 78,294,686 57,423,453Capitol Reef0.76 0.57 0.41 0.19 0.16 0.35 62,363,158 101,930,818 50,512,894Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.11 296,225,000 228,267,606 158,819,820Great Sand Dunes0.20 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.07 197,483,333 1,246,692,308 241,493,151La Garita0.29 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.13 148,112,500 330,755,102 136,658,915Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.08 296,225,000 415,564,103 223,151,899Mesa Verde1.79 1.40 1.29 0.39 0.11 0.50 30,382,051 146,009,009 35,187,625Pecos0.35 0.27 0.22 0.08 0.05 0.13 148,112,500 337,645,833 137,726,563Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.09 197,483,333 522,806,452 193,725,275San Pedro0.73 0.59 0.47 0.14 0.12 0.26 84,635,714 130,701,613 66,776,515West Elk0.28 0.22 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.11 197,483,333 305,792,453 156,008,850Weminuche0.54 0.43 0.35 0.11 0.08 0.19 107,718,182 210,480,519 94,272,727Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.10 197,483,333 415,564,103 178,070,707Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$11,849Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$16,207Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$17,629

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 31 of 148 Table 29 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 32 of 148 Table 30 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 33 of 148 Table 31 SCR/SNCR Hybrid w ith Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility M odeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.53 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.53 Bandelier 0.19 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.32 Black Canyon 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22 Canyonlands 0.79 0.47 0.46 0.57 0.79 Capitol Reef 0.41 0.14 0.23 0.26 0.41 Grand Canyon 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.20 Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.13 La Garita 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Maroon Bells 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 Mesa Verde 1.25 1.25 1.28 1.26 1.28
Pecos 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.22 Petrified Forest 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.16 San Pedro 0.33 0.46 0.41 0.40 0.46 West Elk 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 Weminuche 0.24 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.35 Wheeler Peak 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.16 Overall 0.30 1.28Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 34 of 148Table 32Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybridwith Inherent SO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches0.83 0.69 0.53 0.14 0.16 0.30 86,728,571 104,187,500 60,160,000Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.32 0.14 0.08 0.22 86,728,571 216,493,506 83,170,507Black Canyon0.39 0.29 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.17 121,420,000 225,270,270 103,724,138Canyonlands1.07 0.99 0.79 0.08 0.20 0.28 151,775,000 82,935,323 64,227,758Capitol Reef0.78 0.57 0.41 0.21 0.16 0.37 57,819,048 103,540,373 48,646,900Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.11 303,550,000 231,527,778 161,142,857Great Sand Dunes0.21 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.01 0.08 173,457,143 1,190,714,286 214,857,143La Garita0.29 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.13 151,775,000 333,400,000 138,830,769Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.08 303,550,000 427,435,897 228,455,696Mesa Verde1.82 1.40 1.28 0.42 0.12 0.54 28,909,524 143,706,897 33,671,642Pecos0.36 0.27 0.22 0.09 0.05 0.14 134,911,111 340,204,082 129,841,727Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.09 202,366,667 537,741,935 198,329,670San Pedro0.73 0.58 0.46 0.15 0.12 0.27 80,946,667 143,706,897 67,849,624West Elk0.29 0.22 0.17 0.07 0.05 0.12 173,457,143 308,703,704 145,548,387Weminuche0.56 0.42 0.35 0.14 0.07 0.21 86,728,571 241,594,203 86,354,067Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.10 202,366,667 416,750,000 180,480,000Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$12,142Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$16,670Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$18,048

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 35 of 148 Table 33 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 36 of 148 Table 34 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 37 of 148 Table 35 SCR/SNCR Hybrid w ith Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility M odeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.75 0.52 0.54 0.60 0.75 Bandelier 0.32 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.46 Black Canyon 0.33 0.32 0.37 0.34 0.37 Canyonlands 0.96 0.66 0.67 0.76 0.96 Capitol Reef 0.63 0.21 0.31 0.38 0.63 Grand Canyon 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.26 Great Sand Dunes 0.20 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.21
La Garita 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26
Maroon Bells 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.15 Mesa Verde 1.60 1.67 1.81 1.69 1.81
Pecos 0.27 0.30 0.36 0.31 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.26 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.26 San Pedro 0.55 0.66 0.59 0.60 0.66
West Elk 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.26
Weminuche 0.35 0.52 0.40 0.43 0.52
Wheeler Peak 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.24 Overall 0.44 1.81Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 38 of 148Table 36Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybridwith Inherent SO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches1.04 0.89 0.75 0.15 0.14 0.29 91,293,333 177,819,444 91,312,925Bandelier0.81 0.61 0.46 0.20 0.15 0.35 68,470,000 174,190,476 77,365,994Black Canyon0.59 0.46 0.37 0.13 0.09 0.22 105,338,462 272,404,255 119,848,214Canyonlands1.44 1.15 0.96 0.29 0.19 0.48 47,220,690 136,202,128 56,163,180Capitol Reef1.10 0.86 0.63 0.24 0.23 0.47 57,058,333 110,848,485 56,997,877Grand Canyon0.48 0.35 0.26 0.13 0.09 0.22 105,338,462 275,333,333 120,385,650Great Sand Dunes0.33 0.24 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.13 152,155,556 731,600,000 214,768,000La Garita0.44 0.33 0.26 0.11 0.07 0.18 124,490,909 346,027,027 145,902,174Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.10 273,880,000 544,808,511 276,762,887Mesa Verde2.18 1.90 1.81 0.28 0.09 0.37 48,907,143 272,404,255 71,780,749Pecos0.58 0.42 0.36 0.16 0.06 0.22 85,587,500 449,228,070 123,714,286Petrified Forest0.43 0.29 0.26 0.14 0.04 0.18 97,814,286 731,600,000 153,405,714San Pedro1.03 0.81 0.66 0.22 0.15 0.37 62,245,455 173,013,514 72,951,087West Elk0.42 0.35 0.26 0.07 0.10 0.17 195,628,571 269,536,842 162,703,030Weminuche0.82 0.64 0.52 0.18 0.12 0.30 76,077,778 211,619,835 89,189,369Wheeler Peak0.39 0.31 0.24 0.08 0.07 0.15 171,175,000 360,647,887 177,788,079Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,694Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$25,606Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$26,846

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 39 of 148 Table 37 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 40 of 148 Table 38 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 41 of 148 Table 39 SCR/SNCR Hybrid w ith Inherent SO 3 

# Removal Visibility M odeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.74 0.52 0.51 0.59 0.74 Bandelier 0.31 0.45 0.46 0.40 0.46 Black Canyon 0.33 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.36 Canyonlands 0.97 0.65 0.66 0.76 0.97 Capitol Reef 0.64 0.21 0.31 0.38 0.64 Grand Canyon 0.25 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.25 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.20
La Garita 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.25
Maroon Bells 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.15 Mesa Verde 1.58 1.66 1.79 1.67 1.79
Pecos 0.27 0.30 0.36 0.31 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.25 San Pedro 0.54 0.66 0.58 0.59 0.66
West Elk 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25
Weminuche 0.35 0.51 0.40 0.42 0.51
Wheeler Peak 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Overall 0.43 1.79Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 42 of 148Table 40Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybridwith Inherent SO3RemovalPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches1.05 0.88 0.74 0.17 0.14 0.31 81,076,471 172,562,500 83,136,943Bandelier0.81 0.60 0.46 0.21 0.15 0.36 65,633,333 171,372,414 73,535,211Black Canyon0.59 0.44 0.36 0.15 0.08 0.23 91,886,667 306,777,778 113,008,658Canyonlands1.47 1.14 0.97 0.33 0.17 0.50 41,766,667 145,315,789 52,105,788Capitol Reef1.11 0.86 0.64 0.25 0.22 0.47 55,132,000 110,933,036 55,073,840Grand Canyon0.48 0.36 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.23 114,858,333 232,233,645 115,000,000Great Sand Dunes0.34 0.23 0.20 0.11 0.03 0.14 125,300,000 801,580,645 185,141,844La Garita0.45 0.32 0.25 0.13 0.07 0.20 106,023,077 354,985,714 130,525,000Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.10 275,660,000 487,235,294 258,465,347Mesa Verde2.18 1.89 1.79 0.29 0.10 0.39 47,527,586 241,252,427 66,424,936Pecos0.59 0.41 0.36 0.18 0.05 0.23 76,572,222 487,235,294 113,008,658Petrified Forest0.44 0.29 0.25 0.15 0.04 0.19 91,886,667 621,225,000 137,394,737San Pedro1.04 0.80 0.66 0.24 0.15 0.39 57,429,167 171,372,414 67,805,195West Elk0.43 0.33 0.25 0.10 0.08 0.18 137,830,000 310,612,500 145,027,778Weminuche0.81 0.63 0.51 0.18 0.12 0.30 76,572,222 205,363,636 86,727,575Wheeler Peak0.41 0.30 0.23 0.11 0.07 0.18 125,300,000 370,880,597 147,485,876Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,783Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$24,849Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/o inj.)$26,105

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 43 of 148 

# SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 44 of 148 Table 41 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 45 of 148 Table 42 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 46 of 148 Table 43
SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection Visi bility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.10 0.86 0.93 0.96 1.10 Bandelier 0.59 0.80 0.77 0.72 0.80 Black Canyon 0.54 0.55 0.63 0.57 0.63 Canyonlands 1.59 1.19 1.17 1.32 1.59 Capitol Reef 1.08 0.58 0.69 0.78 1.08 Grand Canyon 0.53 0.46 0.39 0.46 0.53
Great Sand Dunes 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.40
La Garita 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.43 0.45
Maroon Bells 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.26 0.28 Mesa Verde 2.28 2.46 2.39 2.37 2.46
Pecos 0.57 0.56 0.66 0.60 0.66 Petrified Forest 0.48 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.48 San Pedro 1.04 1.13 1.09 1.09 1.13
West Elk 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.43 Weminuche 0.57 0.90 0.65 0.70 0.90
Wheeler Peak 0.50 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.50 Overall 0.75 2.46Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 47 of 148Table 44Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with Inherent SO3Removal and SorbentInjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches1.92 1.69 1.10 0.23 0.59 0.82 224,751,092 176,176,768 189,692,588Bandelier1.86 1.56 0.80 0.31 0.75 1.06 167,648,208 139,160,904 147,419,263Black Canyon1.40 1.15 0.63 0.26 0.52 0.78 201,835,294 201,248,077 201,441,290Canyonlands2.59 2.26 1.59 0.33 0.67 1.00 158,363,077 155,496,285 156,429,860Capitol Reef1.97 1.81 1.08 0.16 0.73 0.89 319,677,019 142,963,115 174,823,068Grand Canyon1.14 0.97 0.53 0.17 0.44 0.61 304,544,379 238,924,658 257,194,399Great Sand Dunes1.00 0.71 0.40 0.29 0.31 0.60 179,331,010 336,491,961 261,065,217La Garita1.30 0.94 0.45 0.36 0.49 0.85 142,966,667 213,569,388 183,667,059Maroon Bells0.78 0.56 0.28 0.22 0.28 0.50 236,091,743 373,746,429 313,487,952Mesa Verde4.85 3.80 2.46 1.06 1.34 2.40 48,692,526 78,154,593 65,157,346Pecos1.40 1.09 0.66 0.31 0.43 0.74 168,196,078 241,683,603 211,254,398Petrified Forest1.13 0.82 0.48 0.31 0.34 0.65 165,491,961 306,888,563 239,443,252San Pedro2.37 2.01 1.13 0.36 0.88 1.24 142,966,667 118,515,289 125,596,943West Elk1.15 0.91 0.43 0.24 0.49 0.72 216,252,101 215,771,134 215,929,461Weminuche1.85 1.48 0.90 0.37 0.59 0.96 138,727,763 178,581,911 163,131,661Wheeler Peak1.05 0.89 0.50 0.16 0.40 0.56 323,698,113 262,937,186 280,281,867Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$51,468Consent Decree to SCR (w/ inj.)$104,649Pre-Consent Decree to SCR (w/ inj.)$156,117

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 48 of 148 Table 45 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 49 of 148 Table 46 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 50 of 148 Table 47 SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection Vi sibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.28 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.28 Bandelier 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.19 Black Canyon 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 Canyonlands 0.48 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.48 Capitol Reef 0.24 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.24 Grand Canyon 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.11 Great Sand Dunes 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 La Garita 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 Maroon Bells 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Mesa Verde 0.68 0.73 0.61 0.67 0.73
Pecos 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.15 Petrified Forest 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 San Pedro 0.22 0.30 0.23 0.25 0.30 West Elk 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Weminuche 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.15 0.21 Wheeler Peak 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 Overall 0.18 0.73Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 51 of 148Table 48Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Basedon Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with Inherent SO3Removal and SorbentInjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches0.82 0.69 0.28 0.13 0.41 0.54 91,146,154 53,523,114 62,563,771Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.19 0.14 0.21 0.35 84,635,714 102,794,393 95,612,994Black Canyon0.38 0.29 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.25 131,655,556 134,957,055 133,782,609Canyonlands1.10 1.00 0.48 0.10 0.52 0.62 118,490,000 42,141,762 54,416,399Capitol Reef0.76 0.57 0.24 0.19 0.33 0.52 62,363,158 66,459,215 64,965,451Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.20 296,225,000 141,012,821 172,688,776Great Sand Dunes0.20 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.12 197,483,333 354,806,452 277,434,426La Garita0.29 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.20 148,112,500 188,017,094 171,812,183Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.13 296,225,000 255,790,698 268,626,984Mesa Verde1.79 1.40 0.73 0.39 0.67 1.06 30,382,051 32,637,982 31,811,090Pecos0.35 0.27 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.20 148,112,500 184,857,143 170,085,427Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.16 197,483,333 229,145,833 216,967,949San Pedro0.73 0.59 0.30 0.14 0.29 0.43 84,635,714 74,823,129 77,988,479West Elk0.28 0.22 0.09 0.06 0.13 0.19 197,483,333 171,859,375 180,037,234Weminuche0.54 0.43 0.21 0.11 0.22 0.33 107,718,182 99,990,909 102,566,667Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.16 197,483,333 229,145,833 216,967,949Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$11,849Consent Decree to SCR (w/ inj.)$21,998Pre-Consent Decree toSCR (w/ inj.)$33,847

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 52 of 148 Table 49 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 53 of 148 Table 50 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 54 of 148 Table 51
SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection Vi sibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.28 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.28 Bandelier 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.19 Black Canyon 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 Canyonlands 0.48 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.48 Capitol Reef 0.24 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.24 Grand Canyon 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.11
Great Sand Dunes 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 La Garita 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09
Maroon Bells 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Mesa Verde 0.67 0.72 0.61 0.67 0.72
Pecos 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.15 Petrified Forest 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09
San Pedro 0.22 0.30 0.23 0.25 0.30 West Elk 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Weminuche 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.15 0.21 Wheeler Peak 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 Overall 0.17 0.72Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 55 of 148Table 52Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with Inherent SO3Removal and SorbentInjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches0.83 0.69 0.28 0.14 0.41 0.55 86,728,571 56,571,429 64,206,148Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.19 0.14 0.22 0.36 86,728,571 108,669,767 100,016,901Black Canyon0.39 0.29 0.13 0.10 0.16 0.26 121,420,000 142,463,415 134,492,424Canyonlands1.07 0.99 0.48 0.08 0.51 0.59 151,775,000 45,455,253 59,774,411Capitol Reef0.78 0.57 0.24 0.21 0.33 0.54 57,819,048 70,373,494 65,509,225Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.20 303,550,000 148,815,287 180,233,503Great Sand Dunes0.21 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.13 173,457,143 376,838,710 268,984,848La Garita0.29 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.20 151,775,000 199,692,308 180,233,503Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.13 303,550,000 271,674,419 281,793,651Mesa Verde1.82 1.40 0.72 0.42 0.68 1.10 28,909,524 34,460,177 32,336,976Pecos0.36 0.27 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.21 134,911,111 194,700,000 169,076,190Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.16 202,366,667 240,865,979 226,152,866San Pedro0.73 0.58 0.30 0.15 0.29 0.44 80,946,667 81,978,947 81,622,989West Elk0.29 0.22 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.20 173,457,143 181,116,279 178,422,111Weminuche0.56 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.35 86,728,571 110,729,858 101,156,695Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.16 202,366,667 240,865,979 226,152,866Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$12,142Consent Decree to SCR (w/ inj.)$23,364Pre-Consent Decree toSCR (w/ inj.)$35,506

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 56 of 148 Table 53 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 57 of 148 Table 54 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 58 of 148 Table 55
SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection Vi sibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.43 0.28 0.29 0.33 0.43 Bandelier 0.19 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.26 Black Canyon 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Canyonlands 0.59 0.37 0.40 0.45 0.59 Capitol Reef 0.35 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.35 Grand Canyon 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.17
Great Sand Dunes 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.13 La Garita 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 Maroon Bells 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.09 Mesa Verde 0.87 1.01 0.94 0.94 1.01
Pecos 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.20 0.23 Petrified Forest 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15
San Pedro 0.36 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.38
West Elk 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14
Weminuche 0.20 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.27
Wheeler Peak 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 Overall 0.25 1.01Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 59 of 148Table 56Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with Inherent SO3Removal and SorbentInjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent Decree Consent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches1.04 0.89 0.43 0.15 0.46 0.61 91,293,333 66,363,043 72,493,443Bandelier0.81 0.61 0.26 0.20 0.35 0.55 68,470,000 87,220,000 80,401,818Black Canyon0.59 0.46 0.20 0.13 0.26 0.39 105,338,462 119,246,094 114,562,176Canyonlands1.44 1.15 0.59 0.29 0.56 0.85 47,220,690 54,512,500 52,024,706Capitol Reef1.10 0.86 0.35 0.24 0.51 0.75 57,058,333 59,506,823 58,726,428Grand Canyon0.48 0.35 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.32 105,338,462 165,010,811 140,384,127Great Sand Dunes0.33 0.24 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.20 152,155,556 267,780,702 216,769,608La Garita0.44 0.33 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.30 124,490,909 159,827,225 146,913,621Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.16 273,880,000 280,064,220 278,119,497Mesa Verde2.18 1.90 1.01 0.28 0.89 1.17 48,907,143 34,454,853 37,925,386Pecos0.58 0.42 0.23 0.16 0.19 0.35 85,587,500 161,518,519 126,707,736Petrified Forest0.43 0.29 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.28 97,814,286 221,210,145 159,068,345San Pedro1.03 0.81 0.38 0.22 0.43 0.65 62,245,455 70,993,023 68,032,308West Elk0.42 0.35 0.14 0.07 0.21 0.28 195,628,571 142,649,533 155,707,746Weminuche0.82 0.64 0.27 0.18 0.37 0.55 76,077,778 82,283,019 80,255,898Wheeler Peak0.39 0.31 0.16 0.08 0.15 0.23 171,175,000 209,089,041 195,668,142Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,694Consent Decree to SCR (w/ inj.)$30,527Pre-Consent Decree toSCR (w/ inj.)$44,221

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 60 of 148 Table 57 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 61 of 148 Table 58 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 62 of 148 Table 59
SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection Vi sibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.42 0.27 0.29 0.33 0.42
Bandelier 0.18 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.26 Black Canyon 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Canyonlands 0.60 0.37 0.39 0.45 0.60 Capitol Reef 0.35 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.35 Grand Canyon 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.16
Great Sand Dunes 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12
La Garita 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 Maroon Bells 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.09 Mesa Verde 0.86 0.99 0.92 0.93 0.99
Pecos 0.18 0.17 0.23 0.19 0.23 Petrified Forest 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15
San Pedro 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.38
West Elk 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Weminuche 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.22 0.26
Wheeler Peak 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 Overall 0.25 0.99Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 63 of 148Table 60Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR with Inherent SO3Removal and SorbentInjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toSCRPre-Consent Decreeto SCRPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree to SCRPre-Consent Decree toSCRArches1.05 0.88 0.42 0.17 0.46 0.63 81,076,471 62,657,952 67,635,930Bandelier0.81 0.60 0.26 0.21 0.34 0.55 65,633,333 83,848,397 76,931,284Black Canyon0.59 0.44 0.20 0.15 0.24 0.39 91,886,667 118,353,909 108,251,908Canyonlands1.47 1.14 0.60 0.33 0.54 0.87 41,766,667 53,358,071 48,956,272Capitol Reef1.11 0.86 0.35 0.25 0.51 0.76 55,132,000 56,502,947 56,051,383Grand Canyon0.48 0.36 0.16 0.12 0.20 0.32 114,858,333 145,252,525 133,783,019Great Sand Dunes0.34 0.23 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.22 125,300,000 271,320,755 196,958,333La Garita0.45 0.32 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.31 106,023,077 156,304,348 135,487,261Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.16 275,660,000 259,099,099 264,242,236Mesa Verde2.18 1.89 0.99 0.29 0.90 1.19 47,527,586 32,098,214 35,870,995Pecos0.59 0.41 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.36 76,572,222 156,304,348 116,876,374Petrified Forest0.44 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.29 91,886,667 205,428,571 146,700,000San Pedro1.04 0.80 0.38 0.24 0.42 0.66 57,429,167 67,830,189 64,070,783West Elk0.43 0.33 0.13 0.10 0.20 0.30 137,830,000 145,989,848 143,242,424Weminuche0.81 0.63 0.26 0.18 0.37 0.55 76,572,222 78,152,174 77,633,212Wheeler Peak0.41 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.25 125,300,000 205,428,571 170,172,000Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,783Consent Decree to SCR (w/ inj.)$28,760Pre-Consent Decree toSCR (w/ inj.)$42,543

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 64 of 148 

# SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 65 of 148 Table 61 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 66 of 148 Table 62 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 67 of 148 Table 63 SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inherent SO3 Removal and Sorbent Injection Visi bility Modeling Results - Facility Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.41 1.25 1.11 1.26 1.41 Bandelier 0.80 1.11 0.94 0.95 1.11
Black Canyon 0.73 0.80 0.87 0.80 0.87 Canyonlands 1.95 1.38 1.39 1.57 1.95 Capitol Reef 1.43 0.58 0.83 0.95 1.43
Grand Canyon 0.72 0.56 0.50 0.59 0.72
Great Sand Dunes 0.49 0.55 0.43 0.49 0.55
La Garita 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.63
Maroon Bells 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.41
Mesa Verde 2.41 2.65 2.83 2.63 2.83
Pecos 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.78 0.82
Petrified Forest 0.65 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.65
San Pedro 1.16 1.47 1.28 1.30 1.47
West Elk 0.61 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.61 Weminuche 0.82 1.13 0.94 0.96 1.13
Wheeler Peak 0.57 0.63 0.63 0.61 0.63 Overall 0.94 2.83Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 68 of 148Table 64Facility Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybrid withInherent SO3Removal andSorbent InjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches1.92 1.69 1.41 0.23 0.28 0.51 224,751,092 323,621,429 188,428,291Bandelier1.86 1.56 1.11 0.31 0.45 0.76 167,648,208 202,263,393 127,033,113Black Canyon1.40 1.15 0.87 0.26 0.28 0.53 201,835,294 325,949,640 179,943,715Canyonlands2.59 2.26 1.95 0.33 0.31 0.64 158,363,077 292,303,226 151,039,370Capitol Reef1.97 1.81 1.43 0.16 0.38 0.54 319,677,019 238,457,895 177,282,810Grand Canyon1.14 0.97 0.72 0.17 0.25 0.42 304,544,379 356,748,031 226,737,589Great Sand Dunes1.00 0.71 0.55 0.29 0.16 0.45 179,331,010 569,899,371 215,044,843La Garita1.30 0.94 0.63 0.36 0.32 0.68 142,966,667 287,663,492 142,088,889Maroon Bells0.78 0.56 0.41 0.22 0.15 0.37 236,091,743 592,248,366 258,517,520Mesa Verde4.85 3.80 2.83 1.06 0.96 2.02 48,692,526 94,095,535 47,480,198Pecos1.40 1.09 0.82 0.31 0.28 0.58 168,196,078 327,126,354 164,511,149Petrified Forest1.13 0.82 0.65 0.31 0.17 0.48 165,491,961 529,906,433 198,983,402San Pedro2.37 2.01 1.47 0.36 0.55 0.91 142,966,667 166,264,220 105,977,901West Elk1.15 0.91 0.61 0.24 0.31 0.55 216,252,101 294,201,299 175,659,341Weminuche1.85 1.48 1.13 0.37 0.36 0.73 138,727,763 254,533,708 131,925,722Wheeler Peak1.05 0.89 0.63 0.16 0.27 0.43 323,698,113 338,111,940 224,613,583Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$51,468Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$90,614Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$95,910

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 69 of 148 Table 65 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.82 0.68 0.60 0.70 0.82 Bandelier 0.31 0.49 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.38 Canyonlands 1.10 0.84 0.71 0.88 1.10 Capitol Reef 0.76 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.76 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.23 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 La Garita 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.51 1.79 1.67 1.66 1.79 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.35 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.61 0.73 0.63 0.66 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.28 Weminuche 0.37 0.54 0.45 0.45 0.54 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.79

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 70 of 148 Table 66 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.24 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.40 Black Canyon 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 Canyonlands 1.00 0.65 0.57 0.74 1.00 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.27 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.59 0.50 0.51 0.59 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.36 0.43 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 71 of 148 Table 67 SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inhe rent SO3 Removal and Sorbent Injecti on Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 1 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.44 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.44
Bandelier 0.16 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.26
Black Canyon 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 Canyonlands 0.71 0.40 0.40 0.51 0.71 Capitol Reef 0.36 0.12 0.20 0.22 0.36
Grand Canyon 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.17 Great Sand Dunes 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11
La Garita 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14
Maroon Bells 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08
Mesa Verde 0.95 0.99 0.87 0.93 0.99
Pecos 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.19
Petrified Forest 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.14
San Pedro 0.28 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.38
West Elk 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 Weminuche 0.19 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.29
Wheeler Peak 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.15 Overall 0.25 0.99Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 72 of 148Table 68Unit 1 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybrid withInherent SO3Removal andSorbent InjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches0.82 0.69 0.44 0.13 0.25 0.38 91,146,154 71,869,919 50,803,191Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.28 84,635,714 126,285,714 68,221,429Black Canyon0.38 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.20 131,655,556 162,201,835 95,989,950Canyonlands1.10 1.00 0.71 0.10 0.29 0.39 118,490,000 61,176,471 49,105,398Capitol Reef0.76 0.57 0.36 0.19 0.21 0.40 62,363,158 85,000,000 47,994,975Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.17 0.04 0.10 0.14 296,225,000 184,166,667 140,455,882Great Sand Dunes0.20 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.03 0.09 197,483,333 570,322,581 209,912,088La Garita0.29 0.21 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.15 148,112,500 245,555,556 125,671,053Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.10 296,225,000 310,175,439 196,927,835Mesa Verde1.79 1.40 0.99 0.39 0.41 0.80 30,382,051 43,439,803 23,967,378Pecos0.35 0.27 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.16 148,112,500 218,271,605 118,645,963Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.11 197,483,333 368,333,333 176,870,370San Pedro0.73 0.59 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.35 84,635,714 85,000,000 54,890,805West Elk0.28 0.22 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.14 197,483,333 221,000,000 136,442,857Weminuche0.54 0.43 0.29 0.11 0.15 0.26 107,718,182 121,931,034 74,909,804Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.12 197,483,333 321,454,545 166,104,348Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$11,849Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$17,680Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$19,102

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 73 of 148 Table 69 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.68 0.83 Bandelier 0.32 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.54 Black Canyon 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.39 Canyonlands 1.07 0.83 0.72 0.87 1.07 Capitol Reef 0.78 0.23 0.31 0.44 0.78 Grand Canyon 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.31 Great Sand Dunes 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.21 La Garita 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 Maroon Bells 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 Mesa Verde 1.49 1.82 1.66 1.66 1.82 Pecos 0.29 0.31 0.36 0.32 0.36 Petrified Forest 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.25 San Pedro 0.63 0.73 0.64 0.67 0.73 West Elk 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.29 Weminuche 0.38 0.56 0.44 0.46 0.56 Wheeler Peak 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 Overall 0.47 1.82

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 74 of 148 Table 70 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.69 0.54 0.52 0.58 0.69 Bandelier 0.23 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 Black Canyon 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.99 0.65 0.57 0.74 0.99 Capitol Reef 0.57 0.18 0.23 0.33 0.57 Grand Canyon 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.27 Great Sand Dunes 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 La Garita 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 Maroon Bells 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 Mesa Verde 1.35 1.40 1.26 1.34 1.40 Pecos 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.27 Petrified Forest 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.19 San Pedro 0.44 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.58 West Elk 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.22 Weminuche 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.42 Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.20 Overall 0.37 1.40

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 75 of 148 Table 71 SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inhe rent SO3 Removal and Sorbent Injecti on Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 2 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.44 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.44
Bandelier 0.16 0.26 0.22 0.21 0.26
Black Canyon 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 Canyonlands 0.71 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.71 Capitol Reef 0.36 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.36
Grand Canyon 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.17 Great Sand Dunes 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11
La Garita 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14
Maroon Bells 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08
Mesa Verde 0.94 0.99 0.86 0.93 0.99
Pecos 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.19
Petrified Forest 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.14
San Pedro 0.27 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.38
West Elk 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 Weminuche 0.19 0.28 0.21 0.23 0.28
Wheeler Peak 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.14 Overall 0.25 0.99Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 76 of 148Table 72Unit 2 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybrid withInherent SO3Removal andSorbent InjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches0.83 0.69 0.44 0.14 0.25 0.39 86,728,571 73,157,258 50,311,856Bandelier0.54 0.40 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.28 86,728,571 128,673,759 69,469,751Black Canyon0.39 0.29 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.21 121,420,000 164,936,364 92,957,143Canyonlands1.07 0.99 0.71 0.08 0.28 0.36 151,775,000 64,109,541 53,776,860Capitol Reef0.78 0.57 0.36 0.21 0.21 0.42 57,819,048 86,395,238 46,478,571Grand Canyon0.31 0.27 0.17 0.04 0.10 0.14 303,550,000 187,041,237 142,489,051Great Sand Dunes0.21 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.10 173,457,143 566,968,750 191,382,353La Garita0.29 0.21 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.15 151,775,000 248,534,247 127,588,235Maroon Bells0.18 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.10 303,550,000 318,298,246 201,247,423Mesa Verde1.82 1.40 0.99 0.42 0.41 0.83 28,909,524 44,036,408 23,462,740Pecos0.36 0.27 0.19 0.09 0.08 0.17 134,911,111 221,256,098 113,494,186Petrified Forest0.25 0.19 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.11 202,366,667 377,979,167 180,750,000San Pedro0.73 0.58 0.38 0.15 0.20 0.35 80,946,667 90,715,000 55,774,286West Elk0.29 0.22 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.15 173,457,143 226,787,500 130,140,000Weminuche0.56 0.42 0.28 0.14 0.14 0.28 86,728,571 133,404,412 70,728,261Wheeler Peak0.26 0.20 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.12 202,366,667 323,982,143 168,284,483Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$12,142Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$18,143Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$19,521

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 77 of 148 Table 73 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.04 0.81 0.72 0.86 1.04 Bandelier 0.53 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.44 1.04 0.96 1.15 1.44 Capitol Reef 1.10 0.38 0.52 0.67 1.10 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.33 0.26 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.33 La Garita 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.44 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.92 2.18 2.14 2.08 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.53 0.58 Petrified Forest 0.43 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.43 San Pedro 0.88 1.03 0.88 0.93 1.03 West Elk 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.42 Weminuche 0.59 0.82 0.65 0.69 0.82 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.39 Overall 0.66 2.18

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 78 of 148 Table 74 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.89 0.65 0.66 0.73 0.89 Bandelier 0.39 0.57 0.61 0.52 0.61 Black Canyon 0.44 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46 Canyonlands 1.15 0.85 0.79 0.93 1.15 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.35 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.35 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 La Garita 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.56 1.90 1.74 1.73 1.90 Pecos 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.38 0.42 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.74 0.81 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.35 Weminuche 0.44 0.64 0.50 0.53 0.64 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 Overall 0.52 1.90

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 79 of 148 Table 75 SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inhe rent SO3 Removal and Sorbent Injecti on Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 3 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.67 0.42 0.41 0.50 0.67 Bandelier 0.26 0.39 0.38 0.34 0.39 Black Canyon 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.30 Canyonlands 0.85 0.56 0.56 0.66 0.85 Capitol Reef 0.56 0.19 0.27 0.34 0.56 Grand Canyon 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.23 Great Sand Dunes 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.16 0.18
La Garita 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.22
Maroon Bells 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13
Mesa Verde 1.13 1.31 1.19 1.21 1.31 Pecos 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.26 0.29 Petrified Forest 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.22 San Pedro 0.46 0.56 0.47 0.50 0.56
West Elk 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Weminuche 0.29 0.41 0.30 0.33 0.41 Wheeler Peak 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.22 Overall 0.35 1.31Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 80 of 148Table 76Unit 3 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybrid withInherent SO3Removal andSorbent InjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches1.04 0.89 0.67 0.15 0.23 0.38 91,293,333 123,440,000 77,370,667Bandelier0.81 0.61 0.39 0.20 0.22 0.42 68,470,000 128,583,333 69,745,192Black Canyon0.59 0.46 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.29 105,338,462 178,038,462 101,447,552Canyonlands1.44 1.15 0.85 0.29 0.30 0.59 47,220,690 93,201,342 49,343,537Capitol Reef1.10 0.86 0.56 0.24 0.30 0.54 57,058,333 91,663,366 53,432,781Grand Canyon0.48 0.35 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.26 105,338,462 222,192,000 113,780,392Great Sand Dunes0.33 0.24 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.15 152,155,556 433,968,750 188,402,597La Garita0.44 0.33 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.22 124,490,909 245,787,611 130,107,623Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.12 273,880,000 375,324,324 233,983,871Mesa Verde2.18 1.90 1.31 0.28 0.59 0.87 48,907,143 46,757,576 33,196,796Pecos0.58 0.42 0.29 0.16 0.13 0.29 85,587,500 218,692,913 101,094,077Petrified Forest0.43 0.29 0.22 0.14 0.07 0.21 97,814,286 402,521,739 138,822,967San Pedro1.03 0.81 0.56 0.22 0.25 0.47 62,245,455 111,542,169 61,863,539West Elk0.42 0.35 0.21 0.07 0.14 0.21 195,628,571 202,729,927 140,164,251Weminuche0.82 0.64 0.41 0.18 0.23 0.41 76,077,778 119,715,517 70,422,330Wheeler Peak0.39 0.31 0.22 0.08 0.09 0.17 171,175,000 295,468,085 166,747,126Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,694Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$27,774Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$29,014

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 81 of 148 Table 77 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.05 0.84 0.74 0.88 1.05 Bandelier 0.54 0.81 0.71 0.69 0.81 Black Canyon 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.57 0.59 Canyonlands 1.47 1.06 0.97 1.17 1.47 Capitol Reef 1.11 0.38 0.53 0.67 1.11 Grand Canyon 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.36 0.48 Great Sand Dunes 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.30 0.34 La Garita 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.45 Maroon Bells 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 Mesa Verde 1.94 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.18 Pecos 0.48 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59 Petrified Forest 0.44 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 San Pedro 0.89 1.04 0.88 0.94 1.04 West Elk 0.38 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.43 Weminuche 0.59 0.81 0.65 0.68 0.81 Wheeler Peak 0.37 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 Overall 0.67 2.18

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 82 of 148 Table 78 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibi lity Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 0.88 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.88 Bandelier 0.38 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.60 Black Canyon 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 Canyonlands 1.14 0.85 0.78 0.92 1.14 Capitol Reef 0.86 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.86 Grand Canyon 0.36 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.36 Great Sand Dunes 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23 La Garita 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 Maroon Bells 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 Mesa Verde 1.55 1.89 1.73 1.72 1.89 Pecos 0.34 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.41 Petrified Forest 0.29 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.29 San Pedro 0.69 0.80 0.69 0.73 0.80 West Elk 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 Weminuche 0.43 0.63 0.49 0.52 0.63 Wheeler Peak 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.30 Overall 0.51 1.89

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 83 of 148 Table 79 SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inhe rent SO3 Removal and Sorbent Injecti on Visibility Modeling Results - Unit 4 Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 0.65 0.41 0.39 0.48 0.65 Bandelier 0.26 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.39
Black Canyon 0.27 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.29 Canyonlands 0.87 0.57 0.56 0.66 0.87 Capitol Reef 0.56 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.56
Grand Canyon 0.22 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.22 Great Sand Dunes 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.17
La Garita 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21
Maroon Bells 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12
Mesa Verde 1.15 1.29 1.19 1.21 1.29
Pecos 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.25 0.29
Petrified Forest 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.22
San Pedro 0.46 0.55 0.46 0.49 0.55
West Elk 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.21 Weminuche 0.29 0.40 0.30 0.33 0.40
Wheeler Peak 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.21 Overall 0.35 1.29Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 84 of 148Table 80Unit 4 Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for EachClass 1 Area (Based on MaximumVisibility Modeling Results)Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)Visibility Improvements (dv)Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1)Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area)(see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-Consent Decree Consent DecreeSCR/SNCR Hybrid withInherent SO3Removal andSorbent InjectionPre-Consent Decreeto Consent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decreeto HybridPre-Consent Decree toConsent DecreeConsent Decree toHybridPre-Consent Decree toHybridArches1.05 0.88 0.65 0.17 0.23 0.40 81,076,471 117,978,166 70,859,649Bandelier0.81 0.60 0.39 0.21 0.21 0.42 65,633,333 126,840,376 66,839,243Black Canyon0.59 0.44 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.30 91,886,667 185,047,945 95,516,892Canyonlands1.47 1.14 0.87 0.33 0.27 0.60 41,766,667 98,963,370 46,887,231Capitol Reef1.11 0.86 0.56 0.25 0.30 0.55 55,132,000 90,661,074 51,593,066Grand Canyon0.48 0.36 0.22 0.12 0.14 0.26 114,858,333 197,204,380 110,011,673Great Sand Dunes0.34 0.23 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.17 125,300,000 457,915,254 167,295,858La Garita0.45 0.32 0.21 0.13 0.11 0.24 106,023,077 241,223,214 116,830,579Maroon Bells0.25 0.20 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.13 275,660,000 346,371,795 220,882,813Mesa Verde2.18 1.89 1.29 0.29 0.60 0.89 47,527,586 45,254,606 31,874,859Pecos0.59 0.41 0.29 0.18 0.12 0.30 76,572,222 225,141,667 94,243,333Petrified Forest0.44 0.29 0.22 0.15 0.07 0.22 91,886,667 370,095,890 126,784,753San Pedro1.04 0.80 0.55 0.24 0.25 0.49 57,429,167 109,825,203 58,174,897West Elk0.43 0.33 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.22 137,830,000 221,450,820 127,355,856Weminuche0.81 0.63 0.40 0.18 0.23 0.41 76,572,222 116,452,586 68,623,786Wheeler Peak0.41 0.30 0.21 0.11 0.09 0.20 125,300,000 300,188,889 141,365,000Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree (w/o inj.)$13,783Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$27,017Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid (w/ inj.)$28,273

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 85 of 148 

# SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 86 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 44 1.34 87.25 8.71 1.78 0.46 0.38 1.43 100 BAND 35 0.71 80.24 14.79 2.21 0.57 0.47 1.72 100 BLCA 13 0.67 67.24 25.30 3.27 0.83 0.84 2.52 100 CANY 62 1.97 91.64 3.63 2.08 0.53 0.47 1.65 100 CARE 24 1.27 63.27 34.81 0.85 0.22 0.16 0.70 100 GRCA 10 0.60 71.25 25.30 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 7 0.49 91.64 3.83 1.99 0.51 0.49 1.55 100 LAGA 7 0.49 64.49 28.07 3.30 0.84 0.74 2.56 100 MABE 3 0.34 91.75 3.23 2.25 0.57 0.43 1.77 100 MEVE 148 4.00 89.25 3.00 3.34 0.85 0.97 2.59 100 PECO 20 0.69 78.05 11.62 4.58 1.17 1.04 3.54 100 PEFO 12 0.58 90.36 2.79 3.00 0.77 0.75 2.33 100 SAPE 70 1.34 88.33 5.22 2.79 0.71 0.81 2.15 100 WEEL 9 0.53 88.57 6.41 2.23 0.57 0.45 1.77 100 WEMI 32 0.80 77.42 13.95 3.77 0.96 1.01 2.90 100 WHPE 12 0.60 78.13 17.69 1.91 0.49 0.26 1.52 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 87 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.22 68.23 25.02 2.95 0.75 0.76 2.28 100 BAND 45 1.07 88.82 1.10 4.55 1.16 0.81 3.57 100 BLCA 20 0.69 65.37 29.66 2.20 0.56 0.47 1.75 100 CANY 47 1.36 78.66 16.78 2.00 0.51 0.45 1.59 100 CARE 10 0.67 95.29 0.26 1.99 0.51 0.40 1.56 100 GRCA 9 0.54 75.44 21.36 1.41 0.36 0.27 1.15 100 GRSA 5 0.48 63.22 33.72 1.37 0.35 0.25 1.09 100 LAGA 11 0.56 62.68 31.49 2.52 0.64 0.72 1.95 100 MABE 2 0.36 65.50 30.30 1.88 0.48 0.37 1.47 100 MEVE 163 3.79 87.23 1.39 4.95 1.26 1.35 3.82 100 PECO 22 0.79 66.67 26.22 3.19 0.81 0.65 2.47 100 PEFO 6 0.47 95.46 0.68 1.73 0.44 0.31 1.38 100 SAPE 80 1.57 76.66 14.82 3.70 0.95 0.99 2.88 100 WEEL 10 0.57 63.24 32.22 2.01 0.51 0.45 1.57 100 WEMI 54 1.22 92.00 3.67 1.95 0.50 0.34 1.54 100 WHPE 12 0.55 70.33 26.52 1.41 0.36 0.26 1.12 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 88 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 24 1.18 89.12 7.97 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 BAND 43 0.98 85.23 7.65 3.23 0.82 0.55 2.51 100 BLCA 11 0.77 72.96 23.66 1.49 0.38 0.33 1.18 100 CANY 40 1.49 89.19 4.26 2.81 0.72 0.86 2.17 100 CARE 17 0.86 68.68 26.03 2.30 0.59 0.63 1.78 100 GRCA 7 0.48 83.45 13.09 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.23 100 GRSA 6 0.40 80.79 14.99 1.88 0.48 0.39 1.47 100 LAGA 9 0.56 78.13 17.98 1.74 0.44 0.31 1.39 100 MABE 2 0.30 72.60 21.46 2.76 0.70 0.33 2.15 100 MEVE 154 4.27 84.80 6.04 3.95 1.01 1.15 3.04 100 PECO 31 0.84 86.93 9.62 1.56 0.40 0.26 1.23 100 PEFO 7 0.48 90.40 5.25 1.94 0.50 0.34 1.57 100 SAPE 84 1.46 78.87 14.05 3.10 0.79 0.79 2.41 100 WEEL 7 0.48 64.39 28.67 3.03 0.77 0.76 2.37 100 WEMI 43 0.94 75.39 11.29 5.69 1.45 1.66 4.51 100 WHPE 10 0.59 78.71 18.41 1.31 0.34 0.20 1.04 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 89 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.37 61.96 32.33 2.51 0.64 0.59 1.97 100 BAND 0 0.15 61.60 33.19 2.29 0.58 0.55 1.78 100 BLCA 0 0.14 73.87 20.42 2.58 0.66 0.45 2.03 100 CANY 9 0.58 72.47 24.36 1.40 0.36 0.30 1.12 100 CARE 5 0.28 65.23 31.53 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.12 100 GRCA 1 0.14 68.57 28.09 1.47 0.38 0.30 1.19 100 GRSA 0 0.10 75.06 14.75 4.65 1.19 0.75 3.61 100 LAGA 0 0.11 73.77 23.11 1.39 0.36 0.26 1.11 100 MABE 0 0.07 62.19 32.36 2.42 0.62 0.52 1.88 100 MEVE 25 1.02 64.06 29.53 2.72 0.70 0.87 2.11 100 PECO 0 0.15 76.29 13.68 4.44 1.14 1.00 3.45 100 PEFO 1 0.11 90.31 2.92 2.96 0.76 0.74 2.31 100 SAPE 1 0.31 89.63 5.07 2.31 0.59 0.59 1.81 100 WEEL 0 0.11 88.38 6.63 2.21 0.57 0.45 1.76 100 WEMI 0 0.17 78.16 7.38 6.29 1.61 1.70 4.86 100 WHPE 0 0.13 86.05 8.45 2.45 0.63 0.51 1.91 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 90 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.29 91.93 0.23 3.45 0.88 0.81 2.69 100 BAND 2 0.23 65.79 26.29 3.49 0.89 0.83 2.71 100 BLCA 0 0.15 66.52 29.74 1.68 0.43 0.29 1.33 100 CANY 4 0.34 66.55 25.94 3.24 0.83 0.93 2.51 100 CARE 0 0.13 95.27 0.28 1.98 0.51 0.40 1.56 100 GRCA 0 0.11 75.19 21.66 1.39 0.36 0.26 1.14 100 GRSA 0 0.09 63.20 33.74 1.37 0.35 0.24 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.11 69.83 27.24 1.30 0.33 0.26 1.04 100 MABE 0 0.07 67.60 24.10 3.83 0.98 0.40 3.10 100 MEVE 37 1.03 79.00 10.77 4.45 1.14 1.19 3.45 100 PECO 0 0.17 90.98 2.36 3.04 0.78 0.45 2.39 100 PEFO 0 0.10 95.44 0.70 1.72 0.44 0.31 1.38 100 SAPE 5 0.39 80.36 14.22 2.40 0.61 0.55 1.86 100 WEEL 0 0.11 67.27 22.92 4.26 1.09 1.16 3.30 100 WEMI 0 0.28 68.80 27.74 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 WHPE 0 0.11 69.61 27.31 1.38 0.35 0.25 1.10 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 91 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.34 74.64 22.63 1.20 0.31 0.27 0.95 100 BAND 0 0.20 83.18 9.90 3.14 0.80 0.54 2.45 100 BLCA 0 0.17 74.15 22.80 1.33 0.34 0.30 1.07 100 CANY 6 0.37 81.95 15.39 1.17 0.30 0.24 0.94 100 CARE 1 0.20 92.75 0.18 3.05 0.78 0.86 2.39 100 GRCA 0 0.10 82.80 13.76 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.23 100 GRSA 0 0.08 80.25 15.56 1.86 0.48 0.39 1.46 100 LAGA 0 0.12 72.40 23.24 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 MABE 0 0.06 62.28 33.08 2.04 0.52 0.43 1.64 100 MEVE 37 1.14 72.79 14.10 5.54 1.42 1.87 4.28 100 PECO 0 0.18 70.01 26.06 1.78 0.45 0.28 1.41 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.27 5.40 1.93 0.49 0.34 1.57 100 SAPE 3 0.32 92.35 2.54 2.25 0.57 0.54 1.75 100 WEEL 0 0.11 63.07 30.13 2.97 0.76 0.74 2.33 100 WEMI 0 0.21 73.57 16.25 4.32 1.11 1.40 3.34 100 WHPE 0 0.13 84.11 10.37 2.52 0.65 0.34 2.00 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 92 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.36 61.95 32.34 2.52 0.65 0.59 1.96 100 BAND 0 0.15 61.60 33.19 2.30 0.59 0.55 1.77 100 BLCA 0 0.14 73.86 20.42 2.59 0.66 0.45 2.02 100 CANY 9 0.58 72.46 24.36 1.41 0.36 0.30 1.11 100 CARE 4 0.28 65.22 31.53 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.11 100 GRCA 1 0.14 68.56 28.09 1.48 0.38 0.30 1.19 100 GRSA 0 0.10 75.05 14.75 4.67 1.19 0.75 3.59 100 LAGA 0 0.11 73.77 23.11 1.40 0.36 0.26 1.11 100 MABE 0 0.07 62.19 32.36 2.43 0.62 0.52 1.87 100 MEVE 25 1.02 63.98 29.62 2.73 0.70 0.87 2.10 100 PECO 0 0.15 76.28 13.68 4.47 1.14 1.00 3.43 100 PEFO 1 0.11 90.31 2.92 2.98 0.76 0.74 2.30 100 SAPE 1 0.31 89.62 5.07 2.32 0.59 0.59 1.80 100 WEEL 0 0.11 60.89 34.34 2.09 0.53 0.53 1.62 100 WEMI 0 0.17 78.15 7.38 6.32 1.62 1.70 4.83 100 WHPE 0 0.13 90.12 3.93 2.72 0.70 0.44 2.10 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 93 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.28 91.92 0.23 3.47 0.89 0.81 2.68 100 BAND 2 0.23 65.78 26.29 3.51 0.90 0.83 2.70 100 BLCA 0 0.15 66.52 29.74 1.69 0.43 0.29 1.33 100 CANY 4 0.34 66.52 25.95 3.26 0.83 0.94 2.50 100 CARE 0 0.13 95.27 0.28 1.99 0.51 0.40 1.56 100 GRCA 0 0.11 75.19 21.66 1.40 0.36 0.26 1.14 100 GRSA 0 0.09 63.19 33.74 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.09 100 LAGA 0 0.11 69.82 27.25 1.31 0.33 0.26 1.04 100 MABE 0 0.07 67.59 24.09 3.85 0.99 0.40 3.08 100 MEVE 37 1.03 78.95 10.82 4.47 1.14 1.19 3.43 100 PECO 0 0.16 90.98 2.36 3.05 0.78 0.45 2.38 100 PEFO 0 0.10 95.44 0.70 1.73 0.44 0.31 1.38 100 SAPE 5 0.39 80.32 14.25 2.41 0.62 0.55 1.85 100 WEEL 0 0.11 67.26 22.92 4.28 1.09 1.16 3.28 100 WEMI 0 0.28 68.79 27.75 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 WHPE 0 0.11 69.61 27.31 1.39 0.35 0.25 1.09 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 94 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.34 74.63 22.64 1.20 0.31 0.27 0.95 100 BAND 0 0.20 83.17 9.90 3.15 0.81 0.54 2.44 100 BLCA 0 0.17 74.15 22.81 1.34 0.34 0.31 1.06 100 CANY 6 0.37 81.94 15.40 1.18 0.30 0.24 0.94 100 CARE 1 0.20 92.74 0.18 3.06 0.78 0.86 2.38 100 GRCA 0 0.10 82.79 13.76 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 0 0.08 80.25 15.56 1.87 0.48 0.39 1.46 100 LAGA 0 0.12 72.39 23.24 1.92 0.49 0.48 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.06 62.27 33.08 2.05 0.52 0.43 1.63 100 MEVE 37 1.14 72.77 14.11 5.57 1.42 1.87 4.26 100 PECO 0 0.18 70.01 26.07 1.78 0.46 0.28 1.40 100 PEFO 0 0.10 90.26 5.40 1.94 0.50 0.34 1.56 100 SAPE 3 0.32 92.34 2.54 2.26 0.58 0.54 1.74 100 WEEL 0 0.11 63.06 30.13 2.98 0.76 0.74 2.32 100 WEMI 0 0.21 73.55 16.27 4.34 1.11 1.41 3.32 100 WHPE 0 0.13 84.11 10.37 2.54 0.65 0.34 1.99 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 95 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.55 65.36 30.00 2.07 0.52 0.37 1.68 100 BAND 1 0.23 77.34 17.85 2.15 0.54 0.46 1.66 100 BLCA 1 0.23 63.67 30.05 2.79 0.71 0.64 2.15 100 CANY 21 0.71 73.31 23.52 1.40 0.35 0.30 1.11 100 CARE 6 0.42 79.41 15.17 2.38 0.60 0.60 1.85 100 GRCA 2 0.19 96.44 0.40 1.41 0.36 0.30 1.11 100 GRSA 0 0.15 74.85 21.43 1.68 0.42 0.30 1.32 100 LAGA 0 0.19 69.03 25.79 2.34 0.59 0.44 1.82 100 MABE 0 0.10 91.61 3.38 2.25 0.57 0.43 1.77 100 MEVE 51 1.49 86.12 1.17 5.50 1.39 1.60 4.22 100 PECO 0 0.22 75.75 14.19 4.46 1.13 1.03 3.44 100 PEFO 1 0.18 90.20 2.93 3.02 0.76 0.75 2.33 100 SAPE 8 0.51 89.39 5.25 2.34 0.59 0.60 1.83 100 WEEL 0 0.16 88.26 6.73 2.23 0.56 0.45 1.77 100 WEMI 2 0.28 71.48 20.35 3.56 0.90 0.97 2.74 100 WHPE 1 0.20 70.34 25.22 2.00 0.50 0.39 1.55 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 96 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.40 71.69 24.62 1.62 0.41 0.38 1.28 100 BAND 4 0.34 88.62 1.28 4.56 1.15 0.82 3.57 100 BLCA 2 0.23 63.19 31.87 2.18 0.55 0.48 1.73 100 CANY 7 0.49 68.91 25.21 2.60 0.66 0.61 2.02 100 CARE 1 0.21 95.28 0.28 1.99 0.50 0.40 1.56 100 GRCA 0 0.16 76.67 19.97 1.49 0.38 0.28 1.21 100 GRSA 0 0.16 60.88 33.29 2.69 0.68 0.28 2.19 100 LAGA 0 0.19 62.39 28.98 3.83 0.97 0.88 2.95 100 MABE 0 0.11 71.61 22.02 2.88 0.73 0.51 2.26 100 MEVE 55 1.38 72.26 22.52 2.24 0.57 0.68 1.74 100 PECO 0 0.25 65.21 27.80 3.13 0.79 0.65 2.42 100 PEFO 0 0.15 95.43 0.72 1.73 0.44 0.31 1.38 100 SAPE 9 0.54 68.55 24.65 2.97 0.75 0.78 2.29 100 WEEL 0 0.18 94.98 1.86 1.43 0.36 0.25 1.12 100 WEMI 2 0.41 68.79 27.68 1.56 0.39 0.33 1.24 100 WHPE 0 0.17 83.36 11.34 2.44 0.62 0.32 1.93 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 97 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 5 0.39 66.45 24.89 3.74 0.94 1.10 2.87 100 BAND 2 0.36 60.70 32.23 3.11 0.79 0.78 2.39 100 BLCA 0 0.27 62.45 33.46 1.79 0.45 0.45 1.40 100 CANY 8 0.52 66.25 28.82 2.12 0.53 0.65 1.63 100 CARE 1 0.26 65.12 29.81 2.21 0.56 0.60 1.71 100 GRCA 0 0.15 82.69 13.89 1.51 0.38 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 0 0.13 80.33 15.48 1.87 0.47 0.39 1.46 100 LAGA 0 0.19 73.90 22.29 1.70 0.43 0.32 1.36 100 MABE 0 0.09 71.55 22.59 2.72 0.69 0.33 2.12 100 MEVE 57 1.65 78.64 12.83 3.68 0.93 1.08 2.83 100 PECO 1 0.29 75.16 18.97 2.57 0.65 0.67 1.98 100 PEFO 0 0.15 90.18 5.49 1.94 0.49 0.34 1.56 100 SAPE 7 0.49 92.31 2.56 2.26 0.57 0.54 1.76 100 WEEL 0 0.16 60.48 35.63 1.70 0.43 0.43 1.33 100 WEMI 3 0.33 81.23 8.10 4.55 1.15 1.47 3.50 100 WHPE 0 0.17 61.59 33.11 2.40 0.61 0.41 1.89 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 98 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 65.23 30.13 2.06 0.53 0.37 1.68 100 BAND 1 0.23 77.34 17.84 2.15 0.55 0.45 1.67 100 BLCA 1 0.22 63.62 30.10 2.78 0.72 0.64 2.15 100 CANY 18 0.72 73.40 23.44 1.40 0.36 0.30 1.11 100 CARE 6 0.42 79.42 15.13 2.38 0.61 0.60 1.85 100 GRCA 2 0.18 96.43 0.39 1.41 0.36 0.30 1.11 100 GRSA 0 0.15 74.87 21.40 1.67 0.43 0.30 1.32 100 LAGA 0 0.18 68.84 25.92 2.36 0.61 0.44 1.84 100 MABE 0 0.10 91.61 3.37 2.24 0.58 0.43 1.77 100 MEVE 51 1.47 86.03 1.25 5.49 1.41 1.59 4.23 100 PECO 0 0.22 75.74 14.19 4.45 1.15 1.02 3.45 100 PEFO 1 0.18 90.19 2.93 3.01 0.78 0.75 2.34 100 SAPE 7 0.50 89.42 5.22 2.34 0.60 0.60 1.83 100 WEEL 0 0.16 88.25 6.72 2.23 0.57 0.45 1.77 100 WEMI 2 0.27 60.68 33.58 2.45 0.63 0.76 1.89 100 WHPE 0 0.20 70.42 25.14 1.99 0.51 0.39 1.55 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 99 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.39 62.19 33.21 2.04 0.53 0.41 1.61 100 BAND 4 0.34 88.61 1.28 4.55 1.17 0.82 3.58 100 BLCA 1 0.22 63.23 31.80 2.19 0.56 0.48 1.74 100 CANY 7 0.48 68.81 25.31 2.59 0.67 0.60 2.02 100 CARE 1 0.21 95.27 0.28 1.98 0.51 0.40 1.56 100 GRCA 0 0.16 74.95 21.85 1.42 0.36 0.27 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.15 61.60 34.46 1.76 0.45 0.14 1.59 100 LAGA 0 0.18 62.36 28.99 3.83 0.99 0.88 2.95 100 MABE 0 0.11 92.60 4.60 1.25 0.32 0.26 0.98 100 MEVE 55 1.37 71.90 22.90 2.22 0.57 0.67 1.74 100 PECO 0 0.25 65.25 27.75 3.13 0.81 0.65 2.42 100 PEFO 0 0.14 95.43 0.71 1.73 0.44 0.31 1.38 100 SAPE 8 0.54 68.50 24.70 2.96 0.76 0.78 2.30 100 WEEL 0 0.18 94.97 1.86 1.42 0.37 0.25 1.13 100 WEMI 2 0.39 68.52 27.95 1.55 0.40 0.33 1.24 100 WHPE 0 0.17 83.35 11.34 2.43 0.63 0.32 1.93 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 100 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

SCR with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 5 0.37 66.43 24.97 3.71 0.96 1.08 2.86 100 BAND 1 0.35 60.70 32.24 3.09 0.80 0.78 2.39 100 BLCA 0 0.27 70.67 21.77 3.29 0.85 0.88 2.54 100 CANY 8 0.52 68.96 21.08 4.25 1.09 1.35 3.27 100 CARE 1 0.26 65.13 29.80 2.20 0.57 0.60 1.71 100 GRCA 0 0.15 82.72 13.85 1.51 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 0 0.12 80.39 15.40 1.87 0.48 0.39 1.47 100 LAGA 0 0.18 74.29 21.99 1.66 0.43 0.29 1.33 100 MABE 0 0.09 71.48 25.07 1.51 0.39 0.38 1.18 100 MEVE 56 1.61 78.45 13.05 3.66 0.94 1.07 2.82 100 PECO 1 0.28 75.07 19.05 2.56 0.66 0.67 1.98 100 PEFO 0 0.15 90.17 5.49 1.94 0.50 0.34 1.56 100 SAPE 6 0.48 92.31 2.55 2.26 0.58 0.54 1.76 100 WEEL 0 0.15 60.50 35.59 1.70 0.44 0.43 1.34 100 WEMI 3 0.32 81.00 8.33 4.54 1.17 1.47 3.50 100 WHPE 0 0.17 61.58 33.11 2.40 0.62 0.41 1.89 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 101 of 148 

# SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 102 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 48 1.58 59.46 38.17 1.04 0.26 0.25 0.81 100 BAND 46 0.91 43.89 51.66 2.03 0.52 0.33 1.57 100 BLCA 21 0.84 75.89 18.58 2.44 0.62 0.51 1.95 100 CANY 65 2.17 70.69 23.24 2.66 0.68 0.65 2.08 100 CARE 28 1.64 47.95 50.59 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.53 100 GRCA 11 0.80 53.28 44.13 1.14 0.29 0.23 0.92 100 GRSA 10 0.62 86.10 8.14 2.65 0.68 0.36 2.07 100 LAGA 14 0.70 44.37 50.50 2.27 0.58 0.51 1.76 100 MABE 5 0.47 44.27 51.87 1.72 0.44 0.37 1.33 100 MEVE 158 4.08 86.86 0.25 5.52 1.41 1.73 4.24 100 PECO 28 0.84 57.98 38.73 1.47 0.38 0.29 1.15 100 PEFO 13 0.73 44.95 52.48 1.11 0.28 0.31 0.86 100 SAPE 87 1.42 83.28 10.64 2.63 0.67 0.76 2.02 100 WEEL 14 0.68 51.31 46.89 0.81 0.21 0.14 0.64 100 WEMI 44 1.01 46.23 48.94 2.11 0.54 0.54 1.64 100 WHPE 19 0.70 85.06 9.34 2.56 0.65 0.41 1.99 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 103 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 31 1.43 55.35 40.36 1.88 0.48 0.46 1.47 100 BAND 53 1.33 60.05 35.73 1.86 0.47 0.42 1.46 100 BLCA 25 0.92 66.90 25.07 3.61 0.92 0.71 2.79 100 CANY 53 1.57 67.76 28.32 1.73 0.44 0.39 1.37 100 CARE 14 0.67 94.87 0.69 1.98 0.50 0.40 1.55 100 GRCA 10 0.67 58.19 39.68 0.94 0.24 0.18 0.76 100 GRSA 10 0.64 91.77 4.85 1.53 0.39 0.25 1.21 100 LAGA 21 0.78 47.00 46.57 2.86 0.73 0.64 2.20 100 MABE 6 0.48 49.60 44.27 2.83 0.72 0.30 2.28 100 MEVE 170 3.88 85.00 5.76 3.95 1.01 1.22 3.06 100 PECO 32 0.86 58.19 39.90 0.85 0.22 0.17 0.68 100 PEFO 8 0.50 45.50 51.44 1.37 0.35 0.22 1.12 100 SAPE 100 1.80 67.04 26.24 2.93 0.75 0.77 2.27 100 WEEL 19 0.73 45.06 50.20 2.06 0.53 0.56 1.59 100 WEMI 67 1.33 72.37 16.26 4.85 1.24 1.54 3.73 100 WHPE 14 0.69 47.11 50.98 0.85 0.22 0.17 0.68 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 104 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 26 1.33 83.64 10.14 2.75 0.70 0.54 2.23 100 BAND 51 1.13 41.90 51.74 2.81 0.72 0.65 2.17 100 BLCA 18 0.94 57.89 37.54 1.99 0.51 0.51 1.56 100 CANY 44 1.67 66.35 31.36 1.01 0.26 0.22 0.81 100 CARE 22 0.96 92.50 0.40 3.06 0.78 0.86 2.39 100 GRCA 8 0.58 68.68 28.47 1.26 0.32 0.26 1.01 100 GRSA 7 0.50 64.81 31.80 1.51 0.39 0.31 1.18 100 LAGA 17 0.75 40.27 54.41 2.46 0.63 0.23 2.01 100 MABE 5 0.41 43.33 53.10 1.57 0.40 0.36 1.24 100 MEVE 163 4.42 78.39 13.91 3.32 0.85 0.95 2.58 100 PECO 40 0.90 80.27 16.55 1.44 0.37 0.24 1.14 100 PEFO 8 0.52 83.24 12.76 1.79 0.46 0.32 1.44 100 SAPE 92 1.57 89.32 5.71 2.18 0.56 0.52 1.70 100 WEEL 13 0.67 45.92 49.14 2.16 0.55 0.55 1.69 100 WEMI 57 1.14 48.95 47.95 1.37 0.35 0.29 1.09 100 WHPE 21 0.72 51.46 46.46 0.92 0.23 0.19 0.73 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 105 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.53 42.09 54.03 1.70 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 BAND 1 0.19 62.60 30.98 2.86 0.73 0.59 2.23 100 BLCA 1 0.20 39.98 56.80 1.40 0.36 0.37 1.10 100 CANY 17 0.79 52.29 45.41 1.01 0.26 0.22 0.81 100 CARE 5 0.41 65.29 29.98 2.07 0.53 0.52 1.62 100 GRCA 2 0.20 47.68 50.00 1.02 0.26 0.21 0.83 100 GRSA 0 0.12 55.89 36.68 3.37 0.86 0.56 2.63 100 LAGA 0 0.15 43.99 50.87 2.28 0.58 0.51 1.78 100 MABE 0 0.10 37.12 59.19 1.64 0.42 0.34 1.29 100 MEVE 35 1.25 51.66 43.17 2.20 0.56 0.70 1.70 100 PECO 0 0.18 62.58 29.19 3.64 0.93 0.82 2.83 100 PEFO 1 0.16 47.86 50.30 0.82 0.21 0.15 0.66 100 SAPE 4 0.33 44.94 50.86 1.84 0.47 0.46 1.43 100 WEEL 0 0.17 51.97 44.59 1.54 0.39 0.29 1.22 100 WEMI 1 0.24 91.72 1.46 3.03 0.77 0.65 2.38 100 WHPE 0 0.15 75.54 19.63 2.15 0.55 0.45 1.68 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 106 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.41 51.75 45.58 1.17 0.30 0.28 0.93 100 BAND 4 0.33 46.88 47.48 2.49 0.64 0.59 1.93 100 BLCA 0 0.21 35.70 60.98 1.43 0.37 0.40 1.11 100 CANY 7 0.47 40.11 56.08 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.30 100 CARE 1 0.14 59.12 33.68 3.11 0.80 0.87 2.43 100 GRCA 0 0.14 93.65 1.24 2.28 0.58 0.46 1.79 100 GRSA 0 0.13 91.65 4.99 1.52 0.39 0.25 1.21 100 LAGA 0 0.16 48.93 49.01 0.91 0.23 0.18 0.73 100 MABE 0 0.09 45.28 52.01 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.94 100 MEVE 49 1.25 83.08 9.44 3.25 0.83 0.85 2.54 100 PECO 0 0.20 59.06 34.65 2.85 0.73 0.47 2.24 100 PEFO 0 0.10 95.25 0.91 1.72 0.44 0.33 1.36 100 SAPE 7 0.47 67.26 28.20 2.01 0.51 0.46 1.56 100 WEEL 0 0.15 42.20 53.45 1.89 0.48 0.51 1.46 100 WEMI 0 0.35 58.45 39.34 0.98 0.25 0.19 0.79 100 WHPE 0 0.14 70.07 25.44 2.05 0.53 0.27 1.63 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 107 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 5 0.42 66.38 31.47 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 BAND 1 0.28 41.32 54.32 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.48 100 BLCA 0 0.22 60.66 34.77 1.98 0.51 0.54 1.55 100 CANY 6 0.46 51.59 40.94 3.17 0.81 1.03 2.45 100 CARE 2 0.23 94.91 0.80 1.88 0.48 0.44 1.49 100 GRCA 0 0.12 67.40 29.80 1.23 0.32 0.25 1.00 100 GRSA 0 0.10 44.40 52.18 1.52 0.39 0.30 1.21 100 LAGA 0 0.16 52.82 44.00 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.09 100 MABE 0 0.08 52.18 43.56 1.97 0.50 0.24 1.55 100 MEVE 45 1.29 60.35 33.03 2.85 0.73 0.84 2.20 100 PECO 1 0.22 62.64 34.84 1.13 0.29 0.19 0.91 100 PEFO 0 0.11 82.86 13.17 1.77 0.45 0.31 1.44 100 SAPE 5 0.41 46.26 48.36 2.31 0.59 0.68 1.79 100 WEEL 0 0.16 53.10 44.74 0.94 0.24 0.21 0.76 100 WEMI 1 0.29 55.93 41.00 1.32 0.34 0.38 1.03 100 WHPE 0 0.16 51.89 46.10 0.89 0.23 0.19 0.71 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 108 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.53 42.07 54.05 1.71 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 BAND 1 0.19 62.60 30.97 2.88 0.74 0.60 2.22 100 BLCA 1 0.20 39.98 56.79 1.41 0.36 0.37 1.09 100 CANY 17 0.79 52.29 45.42 1.02 0.26 0.22 0.80 100 CARE 5 0.41 65.29 29.98 2.08 0.53 0.52 1.61 100 GRCA 2 0.20 47.67 50.00 1.03 0.26 0.21 0.83 100 GRSA 0 0.12 55.89 36.68 3.39 0.87 0.56 2.61 100 LAGA 0 0.15 43.99 50.85 2.29 0.59 0.51 1.77 100 MABE 0 0.10 37.12 59.18 1.65 0.42 0.34 1.28 100 MEVE 34 1.25 51.49 43.36 2.20 0.56 0.70 1.69 100 PECO 0 0.18 62.57 29.19 3.66 0.94 0.82 2.82 100 PEFO 1 0.16 47.86 50.30 0.82 0.21 0.15 0.66 100 SAPE 4 0.33 48.38 46.01 2.48 0.63 0.60 1.90 100 WEEL 0 0.17 51.97 44.58 1.55 0.40 0.29 1.21 100 WEMI 1 0.24 91.71 1.46 3.04 0.78 0.65 2.36 100 WHPE 0 0.15 75.53 19.63 2.16 0.55 0.45 1.67 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 109 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.41 51.74 45.58 1.17 0.30 0.28 0.92 100 BAND 4 0.32 46.87 47.48 2.50 0.64 0.59 1.92 100 BLCA 0 0.21 35.70 60.98 1.44 0.37 0.40 1.11 100 CANY 7 0.47 40.11 56.08 1.66 0.43 0.43 1.29 100 CARE 1 0.14 59.11 33.68 3.12 0.80 0.87 2.41 100 GRCA 0 0.14 93.64 1.24 2.29 0.59 0.46 1.78 100 GRSA 0 0.13 91.65 4.98 1.53 0.39 0.25 1.20 100 LAGA 0 0.16 48.93 49.01 0.92 0.23 0.18 0.73 100 MABE 0 0.09 45.28 52.01 1.20 0.31 0.27 0.94 100 MEVE 49 1.25 82.95 9.58 3.26 0.83 0.85 2.53 100 PECO 0 0.20 59.05 34.64 2.87 0.73 0.47 2.23 100 PEFO 0 0.10 95.24 0.91 1.72 0.44 0.33 1.35 100 SAPE 7 0.46 67.20 28.26 2.02 0.52 0.46 1.55 100 WEEL 0 0.15 42.20 53.45 1.90 0.49 0.51 1.46 100 WEMI 0 0.35 58.44 39.34 0.98 0.25 0.19 0.79 100 WHPE 0 0.14 70.07 25.44 2.07 0.53 0.27 1.63 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 110 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 5 0.42 66.37 31.48 0.95 0.24 0.20 0.76 100 BAND 1 0.27 41.32 54.32 1.92 0.49 0.48 1.47 100 BLCA 0 0.22 60.64 34.79 1.99 0.51 0.54 1.54 100 CANY 6 0.46 51.58 40.95 3.19 0.82 1.03 2.44 100 CARE 2 0.23 94.91 0.80 1.89 0.48 0.44 1.48 100 GRCA 0 0.12 67.40 29.79 1.24 0.32 0.26 0.99 100 GRSA 0 0.10 44.40 52.17 1.53 0.39 0.30 1.21 100 LAGA 0 0.16 52.82 43.99 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 MABE 0 0.08 52.18 43.55 1.98 0.51 0.24 1.54 100 MEVE 45 1.28 60.30 33.08 2.86 0.73 0.84 2.19 100 PECO 1 0.22 62.63 34.85 1.14 0.29 0.19 0.90 100 PEFO 0 0.10 82.86 13.16 1.78 0.46 0.31 1.43 100 SAPE 5 0.41 46.21 48.41 2.32 0.59 0.68 1.78 100 WEEL 0 0.15 53.10 44.74 0.95 0.24 0.21 0.75 100 WEMI 1 0.29 55.93 41.00 1.33 0.34 0.38 1.02 100 WHPE 0 0.16 51.89 46.10 0.89 0.23 0.19 0.70 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 111 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.75 48.00 48.59 1.52 0.38 0.27 1.23 100 BAND 1 0.32 90.31 5.29 1.95 0.49 0.44 1.52 100 BLCA 2 0.33 43.68 52.01 1.92 0.48 0.44 1.47 100 CANY 26 0.96 53.53 44.16 1.02 0.26 0.22 0.81 100 CARE 12 0.63 42.98 54.86 0.94 0.24 0.24 0.74 100 GRCA 4 0.26 48.96 48.69 1.04 0.26 0.22 0.83 100 GRSA 0 0.20 85.18 9.13 2.62 0.66 0.36 2.04 100 LAGA 0 0.26 49.78 46.48 1.69 0.43 0.32 1.31 100 MABE 0 0.15 51.38 45.10 1.59 0.40 0.28 1.25 100 MEVE 61 1.60 69.53 24.65 2.51 0.63 0.74 1.94 100 PECO 2 0.27 59.61 36.93 1.57 0.40 0.28 1.22 100 PEFO 2 0.26 90.58 6.00 1.50 0.38 0.36 1.18 100 SAPE 10 0.55 44.52 51.19 1.88 0.47 0.50 1.44 100 WEEL 0 0.23 47.88 50.44 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 WEMI 2 0.35 55.36 38.30 2.76 0.70 0.75 2.12 100 WHPE 2 0.23 84.14 10.39 2.46 0.62 0.47 1.92 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 112 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 8 0.52 48.79 46.47 2.06 0.52 0.56 1.59 100 BAND 6 0.46 47.82 49.15 1.34 0.34 0.30 1.05 100 BLCA 4 0.32 63.28 28.97 3.49 0.88 0.69 2.69 100 CANY 12 0.66 50.99 44.65 1.93 0.49 0.45 1.50 100 CARE 4 0.21 94.84 0.74 1.98 0.50 0.40 1.55 100 GRCA 1 0.21 56.69 41.22 0.92 0.23 0.18 0.75 100 GRSA 0 0.21 91.50 5.13 1.53 0.39 0.25 1.21 100 LAGA 0 0.25 48.48 49.41 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.74 100 MABE 0 0.15 52.52 42.81 2.11 0.53 0.37 1.66 100 MEVE 79 1.67 58.87 36.87 1.82 0.46 0.55 1.42 100 PECO 3 0.30 61.61 32.11 2.85 0.72 0.48 2.23 100 PEFO 0 0.16 45.56 51.39 1.37 0.34 0.23 1.12 100 SAPE 21 0.66 73.70 21.35 2.19 0.55 0.52 1.69 100 WEEL 0 0.26 42.61 52.87 1.97 0.50 0.55 1.51 100 WEMI 10 0.52 62.77 30.83 2.75 0.70 0.84 2.12 100 WHPE 0 0.24 45.74 52.36 0.85 0.21 0.17 0.67 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 113 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 8 0.54 48.40 45.29 2.72 0.69 0.80 2.09 100 BAND 7 0.46 40.48 55.05 1.96 0.49 0.51 1.51 100 BLCA 1 0.37 52.81 41.55 2.46 0.62 0.66 1.89 100 CANY 11 0.67 66.57 29.91 1.55 0.39 0.32 1.26 100 CARE 2 0.31 63.57 34.10 1.03 0.26 0.22 0.83 100 GRCA 0 0.18 67.04 30.19 1.23 0.31 0.25 0.99 100 GRSA 1 0.16 44.00 53.73 1.06 0.27 0.12 0.83 100 LAGA 0 0.25 54.45 42.75 1.25 0.32 0.23 1.00 100 MABE 0 0.13 52.00 43.74 1.98 0.50 0.24 1.54 100 MEVE 65 1.81 61.69 27.17 4.72 1.19 1.60 3.62 100 PECO 1 0.36 69.51 26.08 1.98 0.50 0.36 1.57 100 PEFO 0 0.16 82.69 13.34 1.78 0.45 0.32 1.43 100 SAPE 13 0.59 46.01 47.86 2.65 0.67 0.77 2.04 100 WEEL 0 0.25 36.12 60.92 1.32 0.33 0.28 1.03 100 WEMI 5 0.40 64.13 26.96 3.80 0.96 1.24 2.92 100 WHPE 1 0.23 72.66 22.60 2.18 0.55 0.30 1.72 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 114 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.74 47.58 49.03 1.50 0.39 0.27 1.23 100 BAND 1 0.31 90.32 5.28 1.94 0.50 0.44 1.52 100 BLCA 2 0.33 43.60 52.09 1.91 0.49 0.44 1.47 100 CANY 26 0.97 57.52 39.83 1.12 0.29 0.37 0.87 100 CARE 11 0.64 43.16 54.68 0.94 0.24 0.24 0.74 100 GRCA 4 0.25 48.96 48.68 1.04 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 GRSA 0 0.19 85.17 9.13 2.62 0.67 0.36 2.05 100 LAGA 0 0.25 49.53 46.69 1.70 0.44 0.32 1.32 100 MABE 0 0.15 79.85 16.16 1.77 0.46 0.35 1.41 100 MEVE 59 1.58 68.52 25.71 2.48 0.64 0.73 1.92 100 PECO 2 0.27 59.52 37.02 1.57 0.40 0.28 1.22 100 PEFO 2 0.25 90.57 6.00 1.50 0.39 0.36 1.18 100 SAPE 10 0.54 44.45 51.26 1.87 0.48 0.50 1.44 100 WEEL 0 0.23 47.89 50.42 0.76 0.20 0.13 0.60 100 WEMI 2 0.35 55.25 38.42 2.75 0.71 0.75 2.12 100 WHPE 2 0.23 84.13 10.39 2.46 0.63 0.47 1.92 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 115 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 8 0.52 48.71 46.55 2.06 0.53 0.56 1.59 100 BAND 6 0.45 47.81 49.17 1.33 0.34 0.30 1.05 100 BLCA 4 0.30 36.30 60.23 1.50 0.39 0.42 1.16 100 CANY 11 0.65 47.45 49.79 1.21 0.31 0.27 0.96 100 CARE 4 0.21 94.83 0.74 1.97 0.51 0.40 1.55 100 GRCA 1 0.20 56.66 41.24 0.92 0.24 0.18 0.75 100 GRSA 0 0.20 91.48 5.14 1.53 0.39 0.25 1.21 100 LAGA 0 0.25 48.51 49.37 0.93 0.24 0.20 0.74 100 MABE 0 0.15 48.97 44.95 2.80 0.72 0.30 2.25 100 MEVE 76 1.66 58.38 37.40 1.80 0.46 0.54 1.41 100 PECO 3 0.30 61.69 32.01 2.85 0.73 0.48 2.23 100 PEFO 0 0.16 45.42 51.53 1.36 0.35 0.22 1.12 100 SAPE 21 0.66 73.19 21.88 2.18 0.56 0.51 1.68 100 WEEL 0 0.25 42.60 52.88 1.96 0.51 0.54 1.51 100 WEMI 9 0.51 43.26 52.99 1.61 0.42 0.47 1.25 100 WHPE 0 0.23 45.83 52.26 0.85 0.22 0.17 0.68 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 116 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 8 0.51 48.29 45.45 2.70 0.69 0.79 2.08 100 BAND 7 0.46 40.43 55.09 1.96 0.50 0.51 1.51 100 BLCA 1 0.36 52.90 41.47 2.45 0.63 0.65 1.89 100 CANY 11 0.66 66.40 30.09 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.25 100 CARE 2 0.31 63.58 34.08 1.02 0.26 0.22 0.83 100 GRCA 0 0.18 67.10 30.12 1.22 0.32 0.25 0.99 100 GRSA 1 0.15 43.95 53.77 1.05 0.27 0.12 0.83 100 LAGA 0 0.24 39.47 55.29 2.42 0.62 0.21 1.98 100 MABE 0 0.13 38.24 59.35 1.05 0.27 0.26 0.83 100 MEVE 65 1.79 61.65 27.20 4.71 1.21 1.59 3.63 100 PECO 1 0.36 69.63 25.96 1.97 0.51 0.36 1.57 100 PEFO 0 0.16 82.67 13.34 1.77 0.46 0.32 1.43 100 SAPE 12 0.58 45.91 47.97 2.64 0.68 0.77 2.03 100 WEEL 0 0.24 38.69 58.81 1.09 0.28 0.27 0.86 100 WEMI 4 0.40 63.80 27.31 3.77 0.97 1.23 2.91 100 WHPE 0 0.23 49.63 48.31 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 117 of 148 

# SCR with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 118 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 25 1.10 78.65 16.40 2.18 0.56 0.46 1.75 100 BAND 13 0.59 90.30 3.25 2.86 0.73 0.64 2.23 100 BLCA 9 0.54 46.88 43.93 4.03 1.03 1.03 3.11 100 CANY 47 1.59 92.64 1.94 2.31 0.59 0.73 1.79 100 CARE 20 1.08 74.52 17.89 3.32 0.85 0.83 2.58 100 GRCA 9 0.53 95.98 0.43 1.60 0.41 0.34 1.26 100 GRSA 2 0.40 89.74 4.73 2.43 0.62 0.59 1.89 100 LAGA 5 0.41 65.61 26.72 3.46 0.88 0.64 2.69 100 MABE 1 0.27 84.40 11.12 1.99 0.51 0.43 1.55 100 MEVE 112 2.28 75.83 9.46 6.23 1.59 2.10 4.79 100 PECO 11 0.57 92.83 2.51 2.08 0.53 0.42 1.63 100 PEFO 7 0.48 65.17 31.69 1.40 0.36 0.27 1.12 100 SAPE 45 1.04 77.34 14.22 3.64 0.93 1.05 2.81 100 WEEL 4 0.43 85.61 8.11 2.78 0.71 0.57 2.21 100 WEMI 15 0.57 44.26 46.92 3.76 0.96 1.21 2.89 100 WHPE 7 0.50 65.57 29.04 2.42 0.62 0.46 1.88 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 119 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 21 0.86 51.02 38.58 4.52 1.16 1.22 3.50 100 BAND 26 0.80 61.90 32.66 2.40 0.61 0.55 1.88 100 BLCA 11 0.55 66.71 27.63 2.51 0.64 0.53 1.97 100 CANY 35 1.19 64.71 30.00 2.33 0.59 0.52 1.84 100 CARE 10 0.58 94.55 0.30 2.30 0.59 0.46 1.80 100 GRCA 4 0.46 53.96 41.17 2.13 0.54 0.54 1.65 100 GRSA 3 0.33 41.55 49.63 4.06 1.04 0.42 3.31 100 LAGA 5 0.42 49.05 43.05 3.42 0.87 0.97 2.64 100 MABE 0 0.28 49.17 42.71 3.55 0.91 0.93 2.74 100 MEVE 126 2.46 67.76 24.75 3.19 0.81 1.02 2.47 100 PECO 12 0.56 47.42 43.53 4.19 1.07 0.57 3.22 100 PEFO 5 0.41 94.78 0.79 1.98 0.51 0.35 1.59 100 SAPE 54 1.13 59.78 29.13 4.83 1.23 1.27 3.74 100 WEEL 5 0.41 62.24 32.18 2.47 0.63 0.52 1.95 100 WEMI 29 0.90 49.98 28.12 9.51 2.43 2.55 7.40 100 WHPE 5 0.44 58.68 38.14 1.44 0.37 0.23 1.14 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 120 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 19 0.93 74.71 16.18 4.02 1.03 0.79 3.27 100 BAND 23 0.77 93.76 1.63 2.09 0.53 0.36 1.63 100 BLCA 9 0.63 52.82 40.24 3.02 0.77 0.78 2.37 100 CANY 33 1.17 75.89 15.94 3.50 0.90 1.06 2.70 100 CARE 14 0.69 56.97 36.41 2.88 0.73 0.79 2.23 100 GRCA 6 0.39 79.60 16.20 1.85 0.47 0.38 1.49 100 GRSA 3 0.33 49.16 44.91 2.58 0.66 0.70 1.99 100 LAGA 5 0.45 49.90 42.48 3.38 0.86 0.75 2.62 100 MABE 0 0.23 69.19 26.94 1.71 0.44 0.37 1.36 100 MEVE 120 2.39 49.81 40.04 4.35 1.11 1.31 3.38 100 PECO 18 0.66 64.03 26.57 4.16 1.06 0.92 3.25 100 PEFO 5 0.41 94.32 2.22 1.53 0.39 0.33 1.21 100 SAPE 50 1.09 61.43 28.83 4.26 1.09 1.08 3.31 100 WEEL 5 0.40 68.11 27.37 2.02 0.52 0.40 1.59 100 WEMI 17 0.65 62.17 32.25 2.46 0.63 0.52 1.97 100 WHPE 6 0.46 79.19 13.31 3.44 0.88 0.47 2.72 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 121 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 2 0.28 47.73 44.36 3.42 0.87 0.95 2.67 100 BAND 0 0.12 49.46 43.72 3.00 0.77 0.71 2.34 100 BLCA 0 0.11 43.66 48.23 3.58 0.92 0.82 2.80 100 CANY 4 0.48 66.19 29.95 1.71 0.44 0.37 1.36 100 CARE 2 0.24 56.65 41.23 0.94 0.24 0.17 0.77 100 GRCA 0 0.11 61.55 34.37 1.80 0.46 0.36 1.46 100 GRSA 0 0.08 90.15 4.37 2.40 0.61 0.59 1.87 100 LAGA 0 0.08 45.61 46.29 3.51 0.90 0.98 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.05 84.37 11.11 2.01 0.51 0.44 1.57 100 MEVE 14 0.68 61.20 26.45 5.22 1.33 1.77 4.03 100 PECO 0 0.11 48.79 44.90 2.89 0.74 0.44 2.24 100 PEFO 1 0.09 64.47 32.40 1.39 0.36 0.26 1.13 100 SAPE 0 0.22 43.81 46.07 4.46 1.14 1.07 3.45 100 WEEL 0 0.09 43.22 48.64 3.60 0.92 0.79 2.83 100 WEMI 0 0.12 46.55 44.95 3.61 0.92 1.18 2.79 100 WHPE 0 0.10 81.91 11.01 3.15 0.81 0.66 2.46 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 122 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 1 0.22 48.02 42.23 4.24 1.08 1.13 3.31 100 BAND 1 0.19 68.96 27.51 1.55 0.40 0.37 1.22 100 BLCA 0 0.11 59.71 36.13 1.88 0.48 0.30 1.50 100 CANY 2 0.25 87.37 0.80 5.23 1.34 1.18 4.08 100 CARE 0 0.12 94.53 0.32 2.29 0.59 0.46 1.81 100 GRCA 0 0.10 71.19 25.16 1.61 0.41 0.30 1.33 100 GRSA 0 0.07 40.62 50.77 3.96 1.01 0.41 3.23 100 LAGA 0 0.08 44.82 48.06 3.14 0.80 0.73 2.44 100 MABE 0 0.05 48.36 43.82 3.42 0.88 0.88 2.65 100 MEVE 18 0.73 58.06 30.43 4.86 1.24 1.64 3.76 100 PECO 0 0.12 70.34 23.18 2.87 0.73 0.61 2.27 100 PEFO 0 0.08 94.76 0.81 1.98 0.51 0.35 1.59 100 SAPE 4 0.30 71.74 21.07 3.18 0.81 0.73 2.47 100 WEEL 0 0.09 61.22 33.28 2.43 0.62 0.51 1.93 100 WEMI 0 0.21 45.94 34.37 8.55 2.19 2.27 6.69 100 WHPE 0 0.09 77.40 15.50 3.25 0.83 0.43 2.58 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 123 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 0 0.25 57.19 35.83 3.08 0.79 0.60 2.51 100 BAND 0 0.17 94.07 0.41 2.45 0.63 0.52 1.92 100 BLCA 0 0.13 66.53 25.59 3.41 0.87 0.92 2.67 100 CANY 3 0.30 71.12 22.78 2.66 0.68 0.63 2.13 100 CARE 0 0.15 90.48 0.23 4.00 1.02 1.13 3.14 100 GRCA 0 0.08 87.80 5.90 2.77 0.71 0.61 2.21 100 GRSA 0 0.07 76.13 18.82 2.24 0.57 0.47 1.77 100 LAGA 0 0.09 40.72 44.22 6.84 1.75 1.02 5.46 100 MABE 0 0.05 65.75 30.57 1.61 0.41 0.37 1.29 100 MEVE 15 0.61 57.86 17.99 10.26 2.63 3.34 7.92 100 PECO 0 0.15 78.33 14.77 3.08 0.79 0.57 2.46 100 PEFO 0 0.08 94.29 2.26 1.52 0.39 0.33 1.21 100 SAPE 0 0.23 58.64 32.64 3.83 0.98 0.93 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.09 76.06 19.52 1.93 0.49 0.48 1.51 100 WEMI 0 0.13 47.70 27.45 10.56 2.70 3.44 8.16 100 WHPE 0 0.10 67.97 28.76 1.44 0.37 0.30 1.15 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 124 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 2 0.28 47.72 44.36 3.44 0.88 0.95 2.66 100 BAND 0 0.12 49.45 43.72 3.01 0.77 0.71 2.33 100 BLCA 0 0.11 43.65 48.23 3.59 0.92 0.82 2.78 100 CANY 4 0.48 66.18 29.95 1.71 0.44 0.37 1.35 100 CARE 1 0.24 56.65 41.23 0.94 0.24 0.17 0.77 100 GRCA 0 0.11 61.55 34.38 1.80 0.46 0.36 1.45 100 GRSA 0 0.08 90.15 4.37 2.41 0.62 0.59 1.86 100 LAGA 0 0.08 45.60 46.29 3.52 0.90 0.98 2.71 100 MABE 0 0.05 84.36 11.11 2.02 0.52 0.44 1.56 100 MEVE 14 0.67 61.15 26.49 5.24 1.34 1.77 4.01 100 PECO 0 0.11 92.80 2.59 2.07 0.53 0.41 1.61 100 PEFO 1 0.09 64.46 32.41 1.39 0.36 0.26 1.12 100 SAPE 0 0.22 43.80 46.06 4.48 1.15 1.07 3.43 100 WEEL 0 0.09 43.21 48.64 3.62 0.93 0.79 2.81 100 WEMI 0 0.12 46.54 44.94 3.63 0.93 1.18 2.78 100 WHPE 0 0.10 81.90 11.01 3.17 0.81 0.66 2.45 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 125 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 1 0.22 48.01 42.23 4.26 1.09 1.13 3.29 100 BAND 1 0.19 68.95 27.51 1.55 0.40 0.37 1.22 100 BLCA 0 0.11 45.87 44.59 4.16 1.06 1.15 3.18 100 CANY 2 0.25 87.36 0.80 5.26 1.35 1.18 4.06 100 CARE 0 0.12 94.52 0.32 2.30 0.59 0.46 1.80 100 GRCA 0 0.10 71.18 25.16 1.62 0.42 0.30 1.32 100 GRSA 0 0.07 40.62 50.77 3.98 1.02 0.41 3.21 100 LAGA 0 0.08 44.82 48.07 3.15 0.81 0.73 2.43 100 MABE 0 0.05 48.35 43.82 3.44 0.88 0.88 2.64 100 MEVE 18 0.72 58.03 30.45 4.89 1.25 1.64 3.74 100 PECO 0 0.12 70.33 23.18 2.88 0.74 0.61 2.26 100 PEFO 0 0.08 94.76 0.81 1.99 0.51 0.35 1.58 100 SAPE 4 0.30 71.71 21.09 3.20 0.82 0.73 2.45 100 WEEL 0 0.09 61.21 33.28 2.45 0.63 0.51 1.92 100 WEMI 0 0.21 45.92 34.37 8.59 2.20 2.27 6.65 100 WHPE 0 0.09 77.40 15.50 3.27 0.84 0.43 2.57 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 126 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 0 0.25 57.18 35.84 3.09 0.79 0.60 2.50 100 BAND 0 0.17 94.06 0.41 2.47 0.63 0.52 1.91 100 BLCA 0 0.13 66.51 25.60 3.43 0.88 0.92 2.66 100 CANY 3 0.30 71.10 22.79 2.67 0.68 0.64 2.12 100 CARE 0 0.15 90.47 0.23 4.02 1.03 1.13 3.12 100 GRCA 0 0.08 87.79 5.90 2.79 0.71 0.61 2.20 100 GRSA 0 0.07 76.12 18.82 2.26 0.58 0.47 1.76 100 LAGA 0 0.09 40.71 44.22 6.87 1.76 1.02 5.43 100 MABE 0 0.05 65.74 30.58 1.62 0.41 0.37 1.28 100 MEVE 15 0.61 57.78 18.07 10.30 2.64 3.34 7.87 100 PECO 0 0.15 78.32 14.76 3.10 0.79 0.57 2.45 100 PEFO 0 0.08 94.29 2.26 1.53 0.39 0.33 1.21 100 SAPE 0 0.23 58.62 32.64 3.85 0.98 0.93 2.97 100 WEEL 0 0.09 50.81 43.11 2.67 0.68 0.59 2.13 100 WEMI 0 0.13 47.69 27.44 10.61 2.71 3.44 8.11 100 WHPE 0 0.10 67.97 28.77 1.45 0.37 0.30 1.15 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 127 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.43 52.71 41.29 2.68 0.68 0.47 2.17 100 BAND 0 0.19 89.99 3.54 2.87 0.72 0.65 2.23 100 BLCA 0 0.17 44.39 47.67 3.51 0.89 0.80 2.74 100 CANY 10 0.59 67.17 28.99 1.70 0.43 0.36 1.35 100 CARE 5 0.35 56.21 39.81 1.73 0.44 0.45 1.36 100 GRCA 1 0.17 95.96 0.45 1.60 0.40 0.34 1.25 100 GRSA 0 0.13 89.74 4.65 2.47 0.62 0.60 1.92 100 LAGA 0 0.14 57.86 35.22 3.12 0.79 0.59 2.42 100 MABE 0 0.08 89.42 4.26 2.83 0.71 0.55 2.23 100 MEVE 25 0.87 44.29 46.01 4.12 1.04 1.37 3.17 100 PECO 0 0.18 92.73 2.59 2.09 0.53 0.42 1.64 100 PEFO 1 0.15 64.64 32.26 1.38 0.35 0.26 1.11 100 SAPE 2 0.36 42.78 46.64 4.66 1.18 1.18 3.58 100 WEEL 0 0.13 85.29 8.44 2.79 0.70 0.57 2.21 100 WEMI 0 0.20 58.37 35.12 2.77 0.70 0.91 2.13 100 WHPE 0 0.16 63.69 30.91 2.43 0.61 0.47 1.89 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 128 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.28 43.35 47.22 4.13 1.04 1.08 3.18 100 BAND 3 0.26 69.79 26.82 1.49 0.38 0.34 1.17 100 BLCA 0 0.17 66.06 28.34 2.49 0.63 0.53 1.95 100 CANY 5 0.37 59.85 35.24 2.17 0.55 0.48 1.72 100 CARE 0 0.18 94.54 0.32 2.30 0.58 0.46 1.80 100 GRCA 0 0.14 72.68 23.39 1.75 0.44 0.33 1.41 100 GRSA 0 0.11 41.01 50.27 4.02 1.01 0.41 3.28 100 LAGA 0 0.13 47.31 44.59 3.50 0.88 1.02 2.70 100 MABE 0 0.09 48.82 43.03 3.57 0.90 0.94 2.74 100 MEVE 32 1.01 57.58 37.32 2.19 0.55 0.63 1.72 100 PECO 0 0.18 50.24 39.84 4.45 1.12 0.92 3.43 100 PEFO 0 0.13 94.75 0.82 1.99 0.50 0.35 1.58 100 SAPE 5 0.38 53.55 36.70 4.26 1.08 1.13 3.29 100 WEEL 0 0.14 59.90 29.07 4.96 1.25 0.94 3.87 100 WEMI 0 0.27 48.20 44.41 3.19 0.80 0.93 2.47 100 WHPE 0 0.14 58.73 38.12 1.43 0.36 0.23 1.13 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 129 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.29 79.33 17.53 1.39 0.35 0.30 1.10 100 BAND 1 0.25 94.12 0.43 2.43 0.61 0.51 1.89 100 BLCA 0 0.20 64.98 30.95 1.80 0.45 0.41 1.41 100 CANY 4 0.40 71.16 25.76 1.36 0.34 0.29 1.09 100 CARE 1 0.21 55.03 38.47 2.83 0.71 0.77 2.19 100 GRCA 0 0.12 78.89 16.96 1.83 0.46 0.38 1.48 100 GRSA 0 0.10 47.34 46.73 2.58 0.65 0.72 1.99 100 LAGA 0 0.14 49.66 42.75 3.37 0.85 0.75 2.61 100 MABE 0 0.07 66.10 29.83 1.78 0.45 0.45 1.39 100 MEVE 35 0.94 51.76 14.78 14.20 3.59 4.78 10.89 100 PECO 1 0.23 62.14 32.99 2.22 0.56 0.35 1.75 100 PEFO 0 0.13 94.26 2.29 1.53 0.39 0.33 1.21 100 SAPE 2 0.37 87.64 3.99 3.64 0.92 0.97 2.84 100 WEEL 0 0.13 65.84 29.59 2.03 0.51 0.43 1.59 100 WEMI 1 0.20 64.28 30.64 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.69 100 WHPE 0 0.14 73.36 23.27 1.54 0.39 0.23 1.22 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 130 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.42 52.65 41.34 2.67 0.69 0.47 2.18 100 BAND 0 0.18 89.99 3.52 2.87 0.74 0.65 2.24 100 BLCA 0 0.17 44.25 47.76 3.52 0.91 0.80 2.75 100 CANY 10 0.60 67.28 28.88 1.69 0.44 0.36 1.35 100 CARE 5 0.35 56.42 39.60 1.72 0.44 0.45 1.36 100 GRCA 1 0.16 95.95 0.45 1.59 0.41 0.34 1.26 100 GRSA 0 0.12 89.12 5.33 2.44 0.63 0.59 1.90 100 LAGA 0 0.14 57.57 35.42 3.15 0.81 0.59 2.45 100 MABE 0 0.08 84.23 11.33 1.97 0.51 0.43 1.54 100 MEVE 24 0.86 44.24 45.98 4.14 1.07 1.38 3.19 100 PECO 0 0.18 92.73 2.59 2.09 0.54 0.42 1.64 100 PEFO 1 0.15 64.65 32.24 1.38 0.36 0.26 1.11 100 SAPE 2 0.35 42.81 46.60 4.64 1.20 1.17 3.58 100 WEEL 0 0.13 85.29 8.43 2.78 0.72 0.57 2.21 100 WEMI 0 0.19 58.35 35.13 2.77 0.71 0.91 2.13 100 WHPE 0 0.16 63.81 30.79 2.42 0.62 0.47 1.89 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 131 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.27 43.33 47.22 4.12 1.06 1.08 3.19 100 BAND 3 0.26 69.65 26.94 1.50 0.39 0.35 1.18 100 BLCA 0 0.17 66.00 28.40 2.48 0.64 0.53 1.95 100 CANY 5 0.37 59.85 35.24 2.16 0.56 0.48 1.72 100 CARE 0 0.18 94.53 0.32 2.29 0.59 0.46 1.80 100 GRCA 0 0.14 72.75 23.31 1.74 0.45 0.33 1.41 100 GRSA 0 0.10 41.06 50.21 4.00 1.03 0.41 3.29 100 LAGA 0 0.13 47.39 44.49 3.50 0.90 1.02 2.70 100 MABE 0 0.09 48.80 43.04 3.56 0.92 0.94 2.74 100 MEVE 30 0.99 57.30 37.58 2.19 0.57 0.64 1.72 100 PECO 0 0.17 50.30 39.76 4.44 1.14 0.92 3.44 100 PEFO 0 0.12 94.75 0.82 1.98 0.51 0.35 1.59 100 SAPE 4 0.38 53.53 36.72 4.24 1.09 1.12 3.29 100 WEEL 0 0.13 59.75 29.22 4.94 1.27 0.95 3.87 100 WEMI 0 0.26 48.67 43.95 3.18 0.82 0.93 2.47 100 WHPE 0 0.14 58.68 38.15 1.43 0.37 0.23 1.14 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 132 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

SCR with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.29 79.37 17.49 1.38 0.36 0.30 1.10 100 BAND 0 0.25 94.11 0.43 2.43 0.63 0.51 1.89 100 BLCA 0 0.20 65.19 30.74 1.79 0.46 0.40 1.41 100 CANY 4 0.39 71.16 25.75 1.36 0.35 0.29 1.09 100 CARE 1 0.20 55.06 38.43 2.82 0.73 0.77 2.19 100 GRCA 0 0.12 78.94 16.90 1.83 0.47 0.38 1.48 100 GRSA 0 0.10 47.37 46.69 2.57 0.66 0.72 1.99 100 LAGA 0 0.14 49.75 42.67 3.36 0.87 0.75 2.61 100 MABE 0 0.07 67.65 28.33 1.76 0.45 0.40 1.40 100 MEVE 34 0.92 51.60 15.01 14.12 3.64 4.76 10.87 100 PECO 1 0.23 62.09 33.01 2.22 0.57 0.35 1.76 100 PEFO 0 0.13 94.24 2.30 1.53 0.39 0.33 1.21 100 SAPE 2 0.37 87.57 4.02 3.64 0.94 0.98 2.85 100 WEEL 0 0.13 65.86 29.57 2.03 0.52 0.43 1.60 100 WEMI 1 0.20 64.33 30.61 2.17 0.56 0.64 1.68 100 WHPE 0 0.14 73.36 23.25 1.54 0.40 0.23 1.23 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 133 of 148 

# SCR/SNCR Hybrid with Inherent SO 3 

# Removal and Sorbent Injection

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 134 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 35 1.41 29.06 65.47 2.39 0.61 0.62 1.86 100 BAND 32 0.80 88.54 6.14 2.35 0.60 0.53 1.84 100 BLCA 14 0.73 76.20 17.52 2.81 0.72 0.50 2.26 100 CANY 51 1.95 68.31 27.75 1.74 0.45 0.37 1.38 100 CARE 23 1.43 42.95 54.03 1.31 0.34 0.34 1.03 100 GRCA 11 0.72 44.24 52.86 1.28 0.33 0.26 1.03 100 GRSA 7 0.49 81.65 10.95 3.41 0.87 0.46 2.66 100 LAGA 11 0.60 48.80 48.56 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.94 100 MABE 4 0.41 76.35 18.86 2.13 0.54 0.42 1.69 100 MEVE 126 2.41 78.97 3.09 7.64 1.95 2.47 5.89 100 PECO 18 0.73 50.78 45.39 1.71 0.44 0.34 1.34 100 PEFO 11 0.65 36.22 60.88 1.25 0.32 0.35 0.98 100 SAPE 64 1.16 69.11 23.35 3.26 0.83 0.94 2.51 100 WEEL 10 0.61 44.82 50.34 2.18 0.56 0.39 1.71 100 WEMI 33 0.82 29.87 64.10 2.64 0.67 0.68 2.04 100 WHPE 12 0.57 70.23 23.54 2.77 0.71 0.59 2.15 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 135 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.25 41.79 55.33 1.26 0.32 0.28 1.01 100 BAND 38 1.11 50.66 44.23 2.25 0.58 0.51 1.77 100 BLCA 19 0.80 40.57 56.60 1.28 0.33 0.21 1.02 100 CANY 44 1.38 66.26 24.81 3.92 1.00 0.94 3.06 100 CARE 12 0.58 42.35 55.17 1.09 0.28 0.23 0.88 100 GRCA 9 0.56 92.26 1.44 2.81 0.72 0.56 2.20 100 GRSA 8 0.55 90.36 5.70 1.78 0.46 0.29 1.41 100 LAGA 14 0.63 26.44 65.54 3.56 0.91 0.80 2.74 100 MABE 2 0.38 37.74 59.01 1.45 0.37 0.28 1.15 100 MEVE 134 2.65 81.86 4.96 5.76 1.47 1.44 4.50 100 PECO 19 0.78 53.53 44.37 0.94 0.24 0.18 0.74 100 PEFO 6 0.44 36.86 59.60 1.58 0.40 0.26 1.29 100 SAPE 71 1.47 35.03 58.43 2.86 0.73 0.72 2.23 100 WEEL 13 0.60 29.96 64.26 2.52 0.64 0.69 1.94 100 WEMI 46 1.13 43.59 53.88 1.11 0.28 0.28 0.86 100 WHPE 11 0.63 41.25 56.63 0.94 0.24 0.19 0.75 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 136 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 22 1.11 33.29 57.64 3.92 1.00 1.14 3.02 100 BAND 36 0.94 32.54 60.69 2.96 0.76 0.76 2.29 100 BLCA 13 0.87 37.45 57.60 2.15 0.55 0.56 1.69 100 CANY 39 1.39 56.12 35.92 3.46 0.88 0.88 2.75 100 CARE 18 0.83 50.85 46.30 1.24 0.32 0.29 1.00 100 GRCA 7 0.50 61.50 35.26 1.43 0.36 0.29 1.15 100 GRSA 6 0.43 58.89 37.19 1.74 0.45 0.36 1.37 100 LAGA 11 0.63 52.78 43.74 1.56 0.40 0.27 1.25 100 MABE 4 0.35 30.55 65.31 1.82 0.46 0.42 1.43 100 MEVE 132 2.83 36.97 41.45 9.14 2.34 3.08 7.03 100 PECO 29 0.82 50.63 43.14 2.72 0.69 0.71 2.10 100 PEFO 6 0.44 80.26 15.06 2.09 0.53 0.37 1.68 100 SAPE 73 1.28 86.36 7.46 2.72 0.69 0.65 2.11 100 WEEL 11 0.56 31.89 65.29 1.23 0.31 0.30 0.97 100 WEMI 39 0.94 51.38 44.45 1.79 0.46 0.53 1.39 100 WHPE 13 0.63 31.96 63.40 2.10 0.54 0.35 1.65 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 137 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.82 25.92 68.87 1.30 0.79 1.06 2.06 100 BAND 1 0.31 41.96 53.16 1.24 0.75 0.94 1.95 100 BLCA 2 0.35 31.77 66.43 0.47 0.29 0.29 0.75 100 CANY 28 1.10 43.62 52.48 0.91 0.55 1.03 1.41 100 CARE 12 0.76 26.38 71.01 0.64 0.38 0.58 1.01 100 GRCA 5 0.31 31.06 66.09 0.72 0.44 0.52 1.17 100 GRSA 0 0.18 87.77 6.73 1.38 0.83 1.12 2.17 100 LAGA 1 0.26 36.35 60.88 0.72 0.44 0.46 1.16 100 MABE 0 0.18 23.69 72.07 1.08 0.65 0.82 1.69 100 MEVE 55 1.51 47.09 35.97 3.88 2.35 4.67 6.04 100 PECO 2 0.29 24.39 68.71 1.72 1.04 1.48 2.67 100 PEFO 2 0.25 84.76 11.37 0.99 0.60 0.69 1.59 100 SAPE 10 0.61 26.56 68.07 1.32 0.80 1.20 2.05 100 WEEL 2 0.27 31.55 66.50 0.52 0.31 0.29 0.82 100 WEMI 3 0.37 22.71 69.34 1.89 1.14 1.99 2.93 100 WHPE 2 0.24 27.68 69.49 0.76 0.46 0.42 1.20 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.34 71.69 1.31 0.33 0.31 1.03 100 BAND 1 0.24 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.04 100 BLCA 2 0.29 23.45 74.26 0.99 0.25 0.26 0.78 100 CANY 22 1.00 38.19 59.52 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 11 0.57 26.93 71.52 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.85 67.43 0.76 0.19 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.20 0.17 0.63 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.88 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.73 0.44 0.40 1.34 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.69 59.62 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.55 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.82 0.47 0.44 1.41 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.19 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.84 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.36 69.47 1.39 0.36 0.35 1.08 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.73 1.17 0.30 0.22 0.93 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.48 0.89 0.91 2.70 100 WHPE 2 0.19 28.38 69.83 0.81 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 5 0.44 40.18 57.32 1.10 0.28 0.23 0.89 100 BAND 0 0.16 31.97 64.52 1.56 0.40 0.33 1.22 100 BLCA 0 0.18 43.29 55.02 0.76 0.19 0.14 0.60 100 CANY 12 0.71 45.91 51.40 1.15 0.29 0.35 0.89 100 CARE 5 0.36 35.24 62.30 1.07 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 GRCA 2 0.17 40.04 57.31 1.17 0.30 0.24 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.10 80.73 11.94 3.37 0.86 0.46 2.64 100 LAGA 0 0.13 47.62 49.82 1.14 0.29 0.22 0.92 100 MABE 0 0.08 76.05 19.20 2.11 0.54 0.42 1.68 100 MEVE 21 0.95 34.45 62.50 1.30 0.33 0.41 1.01 100 PECO 0 0.15 49.98 46.26 1.68 0.43 0.33 1.32 100 PEFO 1 0.14 89.14 6.88 1.74 0.44 0.42 1.38 100 SAPE 3 0.28 32.25 62.65 2.24 0.57 0.56 1.73 100 WEEL 0 0.14 42.33 53.57 1.84 0.47 0.34 1.45 100 WEMI 1 0.19 26.55 65.61 3.37 0.86 0.98 2.61 100 WHPE 0 0.13 47.00 49.86 1.42 0.36 0.24 1.11 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 138 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.68 24.06 72.39 0.91 0.55 0.63 1.46 100 BAND 7 0.49 50.26 40.84 2.33 1.41 1.50 3.66 100 BLCA 4 0.37 19.24 76.63 0.99 0.60 0.99 1.55 100 CANY 16 0.84 30.14 66.46 0.85 0.51 0.67 1.36 100 CARE 4 0.23 29.36 68.45 0.54 0.33 0.45 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.21 42.87 54.86 0.58 0.35 0.37 0.97 100 GRSA 0 0.20 27.46 69.95 0.68 0.41 0.39 1.10 100 LAGA 0 0.28 23.68 72.69 0.93 0.56 0.66 1.48 100 MABE 0 0.16 27.20 65.28 2.09 1.27 0.76 3.40 100 MEVE 73 1.79 37.50 56.98 1.29 0.78 1.40 2.05 100 PECO 3 0.31 38.08 53.60 2.22 1.34 1.25 3.51 100 PEFO 2 0.16 28.11 69.15 0.71 0.43 0.44 1.17 100 SAPE 27 0.73 26.46 67.64 1.45 0.88 1.29 2.29 100 WEEL 1 0.28 23.98 70.42 1.36 0.82 1.31 2.11 100 WEMI 9 0.54 43.96 46.81 2.18 1.32 2.34 3.39 100 WHPE 0 0.25 30.07 67.71 0.57 0.35 0.39 0.92 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.97 72.89 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.04 66.80 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.75 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.43 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.94 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.72 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.20 0.31 0.33 0.94 100 MABE 0 0.12 26.89 71.16 0.87 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.18 31.05 3.70 0.95 1.26 2.86 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 16 0.59 26.83 69.85 1.45 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.40 0.36 0.38 1.09 100 WEMI 6 0.43 24.32 73.64 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.60 0.15 0.12 0.49 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.34 30.13 66.49 1.50 0.38 0.30 1.19 100 BAND 4 0.26 39.64 57.04 1.46 0.37 0.34 1.15 100 BLCA 0 0.17 22.92 73.13 1.71 0.44 0.47 1.33 100 CANY 5 0.40 29.29 67.11 1.55 0.40 0.44 1.21 100 CARE 0 0.12 41.89 55.66 1.08 0.28 0.23 0.88 100 GRCA 0 0.12 56.32 41.70 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.73 100 GRSA 0 0.11 90.27 5.82 1.77 0.45 0.29 1.41 100 LAGA 0 0.14 24.51 67.82 3.39 0.87 0.78 2.63 100 MABE 0 0.08 37.30 59.48 1.43 0.37 0.28 1.14 100 MEVE 27 0.99 32.02 64.36 1.54 0.39 0.49 1.20 100 PECO 0 0.17 53.03 44.87 0.93 0.24 0.18 0.75 100 PEFO 0 0.09 94.56 1.04 1.96 0.50 0.38 1.55 100 SAPE 6 0.38 55.39 39.06 2.46 0.63 0.56 1.90 100 WEEL 0 0.12 28.60 66.05 2.33 0.60 0.62 1.80 100 WEMI 0 0.29 51.19 40.96 3.37 0.86 1.01 2.61 100 WHPE 0 0.11 42.45 55.47 0.92 0.24 0.18 0.74 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 139 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 1 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.60 28.75 65.62 1.35 0.81 1.33 2.14 100 BAND 8 0.54 22.07 72.47 1.34 0.81 1.23 2.09 100 BLCA 2 0.38 34.19 62.97 0.72 0.43 0.54 1.15 100 CANY 14 0.71 29.97 59.10 2.54 1.54 2.91 3.94 100 CARE 3 0.32 86.40 1.13 3.02 1.83 2.88 4.74 100 GRCA 0 0.16 51.56 42.85 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.30 100 GRSA 1 0.17 19.79 77.41 0.69 0.42 0.59 1.10 100 LAGA 2 0.29 36.29 60.25 0.89 0.54 0.59 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.87 65.36 0.70 0.42 0.53 1.12 100 MEVE 60 1.67 38.31 45.74 3.66 2.22 4.38 5.69 100 PECO 3 0.35 51.53 42.28 1.61 0.98 1.01 2.59 100 PEFO 0 0.14 31.20 64.81 1.05 0.64 0.58 1.73 100 SAPE 13 0.63 34.16 60.15 1.34 0.81 1.43 2.10 100 WEEL 0 0.25 23.83 70.37 1.42 0.86 1.27 2.25 100 WEMI 4 0.45 21.90 69.56 2.19 1.33 1.52 3.49 100 WHPE 1 0.26 22.07 72.11 1.47 0.89 1.11 2.34 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.53 67.07 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.16 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.82 72.96 1.41 0.36 0.36 1.10 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.26 65.22 1.53 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.37 44.18 1.52 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.12 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.71 0.44 0.17 1.41 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.53 0.39 0.19 1.20 100 MEVE 48 1.27 41.93 48.61 4.01 1.03 1.33 3.10 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.70 51.27 0.91 0.23 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 31.59 65.92 1.12 0.29 0.18 0.91 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.74 68.42 2.08 0.53 0.62 1.61 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.88 76.49 1.15 0.30 0.29 0.90 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.71 42.80 4.96 1.27 1.43 3.84 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.74 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.23 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.38 62.01 35.59 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.85 100 BAND 0 0.23 27.23 67.40 2.35 0.60 0.59 1.82 100 BLCA 0 0.18 33.69 63.38 1.28 0.33 0.29 1.03 100 CANY 6 0.40 52.43 43.07 1.96 0.50 0.47 1.57 100 CARE 2 0.20 94.02 0.95 2.20 0.56 0.52 1.75 100 GRCA 0 0.10 37.65 58.16 1.86 0.48 0.36 1.50 100 GRSA 0 0.09 57.96 38.20 1.71 0.44 0.36 1.35 100 LAGA 0 0.14 44.34 51.98 1.61 0.41 0.39 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.07 44.41 53.11 1.09 0.28 0.25 0.87 100 MEVE 31 0.87 26.61 68.33 2.16 0.55 0.65 1.70 100 PECO 1 0.19 62.60 31.88 2.47 0.63 0.45 1.97 100 PEFO 0 0.09 79.92 15.43 2.07 0.53 0.36 1.68 100 SAPE 2 0.33 25.36 66.84 3.37 0.86 0.96 2.60 100 WEEL 0 0.13 26.96 67.15 2.57 0.66 0.64 2.02 100 WEMI 1 0.22 23.18 66.45 4.49 1.15 1.23 3.50 100 WHPE 0 0.15 46.41 51.36 0.98 0.25 0.21 0.79 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 140 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 16 0.83 25.00 69.90 1.28 0.78 1.04 2.02 100 BAND 1 0.32 25.12 71.09 1.01 0.61 0.61 1.57 100 BLCA 3 0.36 23.37 71.60 1.28 0.78 0.99 1.98 100 CANY 27 1.07 40.57 55.69 0.86 0.53 1.00 1.35 100 CARE 12 0.78 25.24 72.22 0.62 0.38 0.56 0.99 100 GRCA 5 0.31 29.84 67.36 0.71 0.43 0.51 1.15 100 GRSA 0 0.19 32.82 57.23 2.66 1.62 1.52 4.16 100 LAGA 0 0.26 34.98 62.29 0.71 0.43 0.46 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.18 19.11 76.53 1.10 0.67 0.86 1.73 100 MEVE 56 1.49 45.92 37.44 3.81 2.32 4.60 5.92 100 PECO 2 0.29 84.16 9.33 1.63 0.99 1.33 2.56 100 PEFO 2 0.25 23.63 72.55 0.97 0.59 0.72 1.54 100 SAPE 11 0.63 25.41 69.31 1.29 0.79 1.19 2.01 100 WEEL 1 0.27 30.10 67.99 0.51 0.31 0.29 0.80 100 WEMI 3 0.38 31.78 59.74 2.05 1.25 1.98 3.19 100 WHPE 2 0.24 26.23 70.99 0.74 0.45 0.42 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.69 25.31 71.71 1.31 0.34 0.31 1.02 100 BAND 1 0.23 43.57 53.42 1.34 0.34 0.29 1.03 100 BLCA 2 0.28 23.45 74.26 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.77 100 CANY 22 0.99 38.13 59.58 1.01 0.26 0.23 0.80 100 CARE 10 0.57 26.92 71.52 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.53 100 GRCA 4 0.27 30.84 67.43 0.76 0.20 0.15 0.61 100 GRSA 0 0.14 21.45 76.75 0.80 0.21 0.17 0.62 100 LAGA 0 0.19 28.87 69.14 0.89 0.23 0.16 0.70 100 MABE 0 0.14 20.45 75.64 1.74 0.44 0.40 1.33 100 MEVE 38 1.35 35.54 59.78 2.00 0.51 0.63 1.53 100 PECO 1 0.23 25.62 70.23 1.83 0.47 0.44 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.19 25.42 72.18 1.07 0.27 0.23 0.83 100 SAPE 7 0.44 27.35 69.47 1.40 0.36 0.35 1.07 100 WEEL 0 0.22 33.65 63.72 1.18 0.30 0.22 0.92 100 WEMI 2 0.31 30.63 61.38 3.50 0.90 0.91 2.69 100 WHPE 2 0.18 28.38 69.83 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.64 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 5 0.44 40.18 57.32 1.11 0.28 0.24 0.88 100 BAND 0 0.16 31.97 64.51 1.57 0.40 0.33 1.21 100 BLCA 0 0.18 43.29 55.02 0.76 0.19 0.14 0.59 100 CANY 12 0.71 45.90 51.41 1.15 0.29 0.35 0.89 100 CARE 5 0.36 35.24 62.30 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.84 100 GRCA 2 0.17 40.04 57.30 1.17 0.30 0.24 0.94 100 GRSA 0 0.10 80.73 11.93 3.38 0.87 0.46 2.63 100 LAGA 0 0.13 47.62 49.81 1.15 0.29 0.22 0.91 100 MABE 0 0.08 76.05 19.19 2.12 0.54 0.42 1.67 100 MEVE 21 0.94 34.44 62.50 1.31 0.33 0.41 1.01 100 PECO 0 0.15 49.98 46.25 1.69 0.43 0.33 1.32 100 PEFO 1 0.14 89.13 6.88 1.75 0.45 0.42 1.37 100 SAPE 3 0.27 32.24 62.65 2.25 0.58 0.56 1.72 100 WEEL 0 0.14 42.33 53.56 1.85 0.47 0.35 1.45 100 WEMI 1 0.19 26.55 65.61 3.39 0.87 0.98 2.60 100 WHPE 0 0.13 47.00 49.86 1.43 0.37 0.24 1.11 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 141 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 11 0.64 26.15 67.85 1.45 0.89 1.39 2.27 100 BAND 7 0.50 48.55 42.63 2.30 1.40 1.49 3.62 100 BLCA 4 0.37 18.38 77.59 0.97 0.59 0.97 1.51 100 CANY 15 0.83 28.77 67.90 0.83 0.51 0.66 1.33 100 CARE 4 0.23 27.98 69.89 0.53 0.32 0.44 0.85 100 GRCA 1 0.20 40.86 56.90 0.57 0.35 0.37 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.21 26.11 71.35 0.67 0.41 0.39 1.08 100 LAGA 0 0.29 22.65 73.82 0.90 0.55 0.64 1.44 100 MABE 0 0.16 26.26 66.39 2.05 1.25 0.74 3.32 100 MEVE 72 1.82 36.41 58.08 1.29 0.79 1.39 2.04 100 PECO 3 0.31 36.65 55.19 2.17 1.32 1.23 3.43 100 PEFO 2 0.16 26.72 70.61 0.69 0.42 0.43 1.13 100 SAPE 28 0.73 25.48 68.66 1.43 0.87 1.28 2.26 100 WEEL 1 0.29 22.95 71.57 1.32 0.81 1.29 2.06 100 WEMI 9 0.56 18.60 76.08 1.26 0.77 1.32 1.97 100 WHPE 0 0.26 28.49 69.36 0.55 0.33 0.38 0.89 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.54 23.96 72.89 1.38 0.35 0.35 1.07 100 BAND 4 0.40 31.03 66.81 0.95 0.24 0.22 0.74 100 BLCA 1 0.29 25.16 72.63 0.98 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 CANY 13 0.65 23.42 73.82 1.20 0.31 0.31 0.93 100 CARE 3 0.18 31.45 66.94 0.71 0.18 0.15 0.57 100 GRCA 1 0.16 43.73 54.87 0.62 0.16 0.11 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.14 27.52 70.87 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.77 71.45 1.21 0.31 0.33 0.93 100 MABE 0 0.11 26.89 71.16 0.88 0.22 0.16 0.69 100 MEVE 52 1.40 60.02 31.23 3.71 0.95 1.25 2.84 100 PECO 3 0.24 40.91 57.63 0.65 0.17 0.13 0.52 100 PEFO 0 0.13 28.41 69.90 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 16 0.58 26.82 69.85 1.46 0.37 0.35 1.14 100 WEEL 0 0.20 24.64 72.13 1.41 0.36 0.38 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.42 24.31 73.65 0.91 0.23 0.19 0.72 100 WHPE 0 0.17 31.55 67.09 0.61 0.16 0.12 0.48 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.34 30.13 66.49 1.51 0.39 0.30 1.19 100 BAND 4 0.26 39.63 57.04 1.47 0.38 0.34 1.15 100 BLCA 0 0.17 22.92 73.13 1.72 0.44 0.47 1.32 100 CANY 5 0.40 29.28 67.11 1.56 0.40 0.44 1.21 100 CARE 0 0.12 41.89 55.65 1.08 0.28 0.23 0.87 100 GRCA 0 0.11 56.32 41.69 0.88 0.23 0.16 0.72 100 GRSA 0 0.11 90.26 5.82 1.78 0.46 0.29 1.40 100 LAGA 0 0.14 31.23 64.21 1.99 0.51 0.54 1.53 100 MABE 0 0.08 37.30 59.48 1.44 0.37 0.28 1.14 100 MEVE 27 0.99 32.01 64.37 1.55 0.40 0.49 1.20 100 PECO 0 0.17 53.03 44.86 0.94 0.24 0.18 0.74 100 PEFO 0 0.09 94.55 1.04 1.97 0.51 0.38 1.55 100 SAPE 6 0.38 55.34 39.10 2.47 0.63 0.56 1.89 100 WEEL 0 0.12 28.60 66.05 2.34 0.60 0.62 1.79 100 WEMI 0 0.28 51.18 40.96 3.39 0.87 1.01 2.59 100 WHPE 0 0.11 42.45 55.47 0.92 0.24 0.18 0.73 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 142 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 2 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.58 26.09 65.91 1.91 1.16 1.95 2.97 100 BAND 8 0.54 21.18 73.48 1.31 0.80 1.19 2.04 100 BLCA 3 0.39 31.74 65.45 0.70 0.43 0.55 1.12 100 CANY 13 0.72 29.11 60.16 2.49 1.52 2.85 3.87 100 CARE 3 0.31 86.04 1.21 3.09 1.88 2.94 4.84 100 GRCA 0 0.16 49.96 44.45 1.42 0.86 1.00 2.29 100 GRSA 1 0.17 25.45 72.07 0.69 0.42 0.28 1.09 100 LAGA 1 0.29 19.38 74.87 1.61 0.98 0.49 2.66 100 MABE 0 0.16 31.67 65.36 0.73 0.45 0.63 1.16 100 MEVE 60 1.66 38.26 45.78 3.66 2.23 4.39 5.68 100 PECO 3 0.36 20.30 74.98 1.21 0.74 0.82 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.14 69.40 24.51 1.58 0.96 0.97 2.58 100 SAPE 13 0.64 24.73 67.13 1.92 1.17 2.07 2.99 100 WEEL 0 0.26 22.86 71.46 1.39 0.85 1.25 2.20 100 WEMI 4 0.44 37.67 57.85 1.06 0.65 1.12 1.65 100 WHPE 1 0.26 32.19 65.39 0.61 0.37 0.45 0.98 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.52 29.52 67.08 1.47 0.38 0.40 1.15 100 BAND 3 0.37 23.81 72.96 1.42 0.36 0.36 1.09 100 BLCA 0 0.28 25.40 72.77 0.80 0.21 0.19 0.64 100 CANY 12 0.57 38.31 60.22 0.65 0.17 0.14 0.52 100 CARE 2 0.23 31.25 65.23 1.54 0.39 0.39 1.20 100 GRCA 0 0.12 52.36 44.18 1.53 0.39 0.31 1.22 100 GRSA 1 0.14 27.01 70.46 1.13 0.29 0.22 0.89 100 LAGA 0 0.21 20.74 75.52 1.72 0.44 0.17 1.40 100 MABE 0 0.11 33.14 63.55 1.54 0.39 0.19 1.19 100 MEVE 48 1.26 41.89 48.65 4.03 1.03 1.33 3.08 100 PECO 1 0.27 46.68 51.28 0.92 0.24 0.15 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.11 72.61 23.59 1.70 0.44 0.30 1.37 100 SAPE 7 0.50 26.73 68.43 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.60 100 WEEL 0 0.20 20.87 76.49 1.16 0.30 0.29 0.89 100 WEMI 3 0.35 45.70 42.79 4.98 1.28 1.43 3.82 100 WHPE 0 0.20 22.74 73.73 1.56 0.40 0.34 1.22 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.37 62.00 35.59 1.06 0.27 0.23 0.85 100 BAND 0 0.22 27.23 67.40 2.36 0.60 0.59 1.81 100 BLCA 0 0.17 33.69 63.38 1.29 0.33 0.29 1.02 100 CANY 6 0.40 52.42 43.08 1.97 0.50 0.47 1.56 100 CARE 2 0.19 94.01 0.95 2.22 0.57 0.52 1.74 100 GRCA 0 0.10 37.65 58.16 1.87 0.48 0.36 1.49 100 GRSA 0 0.09 57.96 38.19 1.72 0.44 0.36 1.34 100 LAGA 0 0.14 44.34 51.98 1.62 0.41 0.39 1.25 100 MABE 0 0.07 44.41 53.10 1.09 0.28 0.25 0.86 100 MEVE 31 0.86 26.61 68.32 2.18 0.56 0.65 1.69 100 PECO 1 0.19 62.60 31.88 2.48 0.63 0.45 1.96 100 PEFO 0 0.09 79.92 15.42 2.08 0.53 0.37 1.67 100 SAPE 1 0.33 25.36 66.84 3.38 0.87 0.97 2.59 100 WEEL 0 0.13 26.96 67.15 2.58 0.66 0.64 2.01 100 WEMI 1 0.21 23.18 66.44 4.51 1.15 1.23 3.48 100 WHPE 0 0.14 46.41 51.36 0.99 0.25 0.21 0.78 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 143 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.04 37.90 59.89 0.56 0.35 0.41 0.89 100 BAND 9 0.53 76.32 16.85 1.73 1.07 1.30 2.73 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.65 66.71 1.42 0.87 1.14 2.21 100 CANY 35 1.44 35.63 61.86 0.63 0.39 0.48 1.02 100 CARE 17 1.10 29.96 67.35 0.65 0.40 0.61 1.03 100 GRCA 7 0.48 30.18 67.22 0.65 0.40 0.53 1.03 100 GRSA 1 0.28 76.24 15.49 2.27 1.39 1.03 3.58 100 LAGA 4 0.40 39.72 57.57 0.70 0.43 0.45 1.13 100 MABE 1 0.24 35.97 61.92 0.56 0.35 0.32 0.89 100 MEVE 100 1.92 53.68 38.69 1.83 1.12 1.82 2.86 100 PECO 6 0.48 51.34 44.27 1.13 0.69 0.80 1.77 100 PEFO 5 0.43 86.46 10.06 0.89 0.55 0.62 1.42 100 SAPE 31 0.88 30.39 63.58 1.46 0.90 1.41 2.26 100 WEEL 6 0.38 37.70 56.66 1.47 0.91 0.92 2.33 100 WEMI 9 0.59 26.83 67.21 1.46 0.90 1.33 2.28 100 WHPE 5 0.37 29.53 67.67 0.74 0.45 0.44 1.17 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.89 35.30 62.84 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.39 26.98 70.54 1.12 0.28 0.21 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.44 25.68 71.04 1.46 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.15 32.46 66.00 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 14 0.86 26.87 71.56 0.68 0.17 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.35 27.44 70.95 0.71 0.18 0.17 0.56 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.16 57.33 2.97 0.75 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.29 25.67 70.62 1.64 0.42 0.37 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.23 64.11 1.21 0.30 0.21 0.95 100 MEVE 64 1.56 52.43 37.30 4.36 1.10 1.46 3.35 100 PECO 3 0.35 87.02 9.06 1.73 0.44 0.41 1.34 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.92 11.67 1.07 0.27 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.70 27.84 68.80 1.47 0.37 0.39 1.13 100 WEEL 4 0.30 34.05 62.90 1.38 0.35 0.24 1.08 100 WEMI 6 0.44 21.26 75.66 1.32 0.33 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.58 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.14 0.63 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.67 40.21 57.22 1.14 0.29 0.24 0.91 100 BAND 1 0.26 88.18 6.47 2.37 0.60 0.53 1.85 100 BLCA 2 0.28 43.38 54.93 0.76 0.19 0.14 0.60 100 CANY 21 0.85 45.95 51.43 1.16 0.29 0.25 0.92 100 CARE 9 0.56 34.63 62.92 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.84 100 GRCA 2 0.23 41.46 55.85 1.19 0.30 0.25 0.95 100 GRSA 0 0.15 80.79 11.89 3.38 0.85 0.46 2.63 100 LAGA 0 0.21 37.63 57.87 2.03 0.51 0.38 1.57 100 MABE 0 0.13 75.75 19.48 2.13 0.54 0.42 1.69 100 MEVE 35 1.13 29.14 64.57 2.70 0.68 0.84 2.07 100 PECO 2 0.24 53.12 42.90 1.80 0.45 0.32 1.40 100 PEFO 2 0.22 89.13 6.93 1.73 0.44 0.42 1.36 100 SAPE 7 0.46 31.04 63.80 2.25 0.57 0.60 1.73 100 WEEL 0 0.20 41.78 53.38 2.19 0.55 0.38 1.72 100 WEMI 2 0.29 48.79 48.01 1.45 0.37 0.26 1.13 100 WHPE 2 0.19 80.33 12.92 3.03 0.77 0.58 2.37 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 144 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.81 31.17 63.37 1.30 0.80 1.33 2.03 100 BAND 20 0.81 28.33 63.99 1.89 1.16 1.69 2.94 100 BLCA 9 0.53 21.84 73.75 1.06 0.65 1.04 1.65 100 CANY 22 1.04 23.62 71.52 1.13 0.70 1.26 1.76 100 CARE 5 0.38 34.41 62.98 0.66 0.40 0.48 1.07 100 GRCA 3 0.33 45.95 51.86 0.55 0.34 0.36 0.92 100 GRSA 3 0.33 82.46 13.08 1.16 0.71 0.76 1.83 100 LAGA 5 0.44 25.09 67.37 1.91 1.17 1.50 2.97 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.79 63.57 2.12 1.30 0.81 3.42 100 MEVE 95 2.18 50.54 42.30 1.67 1.03 1.84 2.63 100 PECO 8 0.52 43.31 54.53 0.56 0.34 0.37 0.89 100 PEFO 5 0.25 91.13 1.98 1.75 1.08 1.27 2.80 100 SAPE 43 1.03 34.16 58.88 1.69 1.04 1.59 2.64 100 WEEL 5 0.42 34.33 58.68 1.81 1.11 1.22 2.86 100 WEMI 23 0.82 31.35 66.25 0.58 0.36 0.54 0.92 100 WHPE 3 0.39 33.90 60.27 1.53 0.94 0.95 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.26 66.96 1.65 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.57 52.51 41.86 2.54 0.64 0.47 1.97 100 BLCA 5 0.41 28.10 70.16 0.78 0.20 0.14 0.62 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.97 66.94 0.92 0.23 0.21 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.08 1.83 3.13 0.79 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.65 55.95 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.24 27.92 70.46 0.73 0.18 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.33 22.49 73.90 1.64 0.41 0.29 1.26 100 MABE 0 0.18 27.59 70.65 0.80 0.20 0.13 0.63 100 MEVE 76 1.90 42.51 53.81 1.58 0.40 0.48 1.23 100 PECO 5 0.36 30.99 66.44 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.46 69.86 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.81 28.26 67.95 1.66 0.42 0.43 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 32.22 63.43 1.95 0.49 0.38 1.52 100 WEMI 16 0.64 31.41 61.73 2.93 0.74 0.94 2.25 100 WHPE 0 0.31 44.36 54.39 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 4 0.42 40.35 56.81 1.25 0.32 0.28 1.00 100 BAND 4 0.39 58.60 33.24 3.69 0.93 0.68 2.86 100 BLCA 2 0.26 37.61 59.65 1.23 0.31 0.22 0.97 100 CANY 9 0.56 38.75 58.07 1.40 0.35 0.31 1.11 100 CARE 3 0.19 42.02 55.52 1.08 0.27 0.23 0.87 100 GRCA 1 0.18 92.20 1.53 2.81 0.71 0.56 2.19 100 GRSA 0 0.18 90.09 5.99 1.78 0.45 0.29 1.40 100 LAGA 0 0.21 25.06 67.26 3.42 0.86 0.78 2.63 100 MABE 0 0.12 40.10 54.02 2.65 0.67 0.47 2.08 100 MEVE 50 1.31 42.33 53.64 1.73 0.44 0.51 1.35 100 PECO 3 0.24 52.38 45.58 0.91 0.23 0.18 0.72 100 PEFO 0 0.14 37.00 59.48 1.58 0.40 0.26 1.29 100 SAPE 10 0.56 59.05 35.08 2.60 0.66 0.61 2.00 100 WEEL 0 0.21 36.58 60.66 1.25 0.32 0.21 0.99 100 WEMI 3 0.41 22.76 71.73 2.37 0.60 0.71 1.83 100 WHPE 0 0.22 39.87 58.02 0.94 0.24 0.18 0.74 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 145 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 3 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.72 30.15 61.20 2.06 1.26 2.13 3.19 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.24 69.03 1.92 1.18 1.63 2.99 100 BLCA 9 0.59 23.67 72.71 0.88 0.54 0.82 1.38 100 CANY 19 0.96 32.66 55.96 2.65 1.63 2.99 4.11 100 CARE 9 0.52 48.88 48.12 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.23 100 GRCA 3 0.26 91.93 1.11 1.76 1.08 1.29 2.83 100 GRSA 3 0.27 49.52 46.33 1.06 0.65 0.76 1.68 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.09 71.73 1.75 1.07 0.58 2.78 100 MABE 0 0.25 27.57 67.94 1.12 0.69 0.91 1.76 100 MEVE 92 2.14 70.75 6.38 5.19 3.19 6.44 8.05 100 PECO 12 0.58 54.64 39.46 1.53 0.94 0.97 2.45 100 PEFO 1 0.24 88.09 6.50 1.41 0.87 0.86 2.28 100 SAPE 34 0.88 39.44 54.36 1.46 0.90 1.58 2.27 100 WEEL 4 0.38 22.78 73.96 0.83 0.51 0.60 1.31 100 WEMI 15 0.65 30.94 64.97 1.04 0.64 0.76 1.65 100 WHPE 4 0.37 24.02 69.82 1.56 0.96 1.20 2.46 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.66 29.12 65.81 2.19 0.55 0.65 1.68 100 BAND 8 0.61 31.91 64.13 1.75 0.44 0.40 1.36 100 BLCA 7 0.46 33.18 65.04 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 14 0.79 32.64 60.84 2.79 0.70 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.36 91.10 1.19 3.36 0.85 0.90 2.60 100 GRCA 0 0.19 52.76 43.76 1.54 0.39 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.94 1.57 0.40 0.34 1.22 100 LAGA 3 0.33 21.25 74.88 1.79 0.45 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.58 74.94 1.09 0.27 0.27 0.85 100 MEVE 64 1.74 43.30 46.82 4.20 1.06 1.40 3.22 100 PECO 5 0.42 34.27 62.29 1.50 0.38 0.39 1.16 100 PEFO 1 0.17 72.31 23.90 1.69 0.43 0.30 1.36 100 SAPE 18 0.72 27.03 68.03 2.14 0.54 0.62 1.64 100 WEEL 2 0.35 23.08 74.48 1.07 0.27 0.28 0.83 100 WEMI 7 0.50 30.19 67.61 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.86 5.64 1.60 0.40 0.26 1.24 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 7 0.41 29.77 61.89 3.60 0.91 1.06 2.77 100 BAND 2 0.38 25.60 68.91 2.40 0.61 0.62 1.85 100 BLCA 0 0.30 43.38 53.90 1.20 0.30 0.27 0.94 100 CANY 9 0.56 49.82 48.02 0.95 0.24 0.21 0.76 100 CARE 2 0.27 57.22 40.06 1.19 0.30 0.25 0.97 100 GRCA 0 0.16 60.14 36.71 1.40 0.35 0.29 1.12 100 GRSA 1 0.14 57.89 38.26 1.72 0.43 0.35 1.34 100 LAGA 0 0.22 46.95 49.82 1.45 0.37 0.27 1.15 100 MABE 0 0.11 44.31 52.96 1.19 0.30 0.30 0.93 100 MEVE 44 1.19 35.84 48.98 6.45 1.63 2.15 4.95 100 PECO 1 0.29 61.89 32.63 2.46 0.62 0.45 1.95 100 PEFO 0 0.14 79.72 15.64 2.08 0.52 0.37 1.67 100 SAPE 6 0.47 35.58 58.79 2.42 0.61 0.73 1.87 100 WEEL 0 0.21 26.31 70.28 1.52 0.38 0.32 1.18 100 WEMI 2 0.30 36.44 59.57 1.78 0.45 0.37 1.39 100 WHPE 0 0.19 53.40 44.14 1.12 0.28 0.16 0.89 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 146 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 1.05 38.73 59.14 0.54 0.33 0.40 0.86 100 BAND 9 0.54 77.25 16.22 1.66 1.02 1.24 2.61 100 BLCA 10 0.58 27.97 66.50 1.39 0.86 1.12 2.16 100 CANY 35 1.47 36.32 61.24 0.61 0.38 0.47 0.99 100 CARE 18 1.11 30.71 66.66 0.64 0.39 0.59 1.01 100 GRCA 7 0.48 31.01 66.45 0.63 0.39 0.51 1.00 100 GRSA 1 0.29 76.95 15.10 2.18 1.34 1.00 3.43 100 LAGA 4 0.40 40.66 56.73 0.68 0.42 0.44 1.09 100 MABE 1 0.24 69.36 25.32 1.36 0.84 0.94 2.18 100 MEVE 97 1.94 55.06 37.27 1.83 1.13 1.84 2.87 100 PECO 6 0.48 32.92 63.69 0.95 0.58 0.38 1.49 100 PEFO 5 0.44 29.28 67.84 0.68 0.42 0.71 1.07 100 SAPE 33 0.89 31.06 63.04 1.43 0.88 1.38 2.22 100 WEEL 6 0.38 38.50 56.07 1.42 0.88 0.88 2.25 100 WEMI 10 0.59 27.20 66.98 1.42 0.88 1.30 2.23 100 WHPE 5 0.37 30.24 67.03 0.72 0.44 0.43 1.14 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 18 0.88 35.06 63.08 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.66 100 BAND 3 0.38 26.97 70.54 1.12 0.29 0.20 0.87 100 BLCA 4 0.42 25.63 71.10 1.45 0.37 0.33 1.12 100 CANY 29 1.14 32.53 65.94 0.68 0.17 0.15 0.54 100 CARE 13 0.86 26.89 71.54 0.68 0.18 0.18 0.54 100 GRCA 5 0.36 27.72 70.68 0.70 0.18 0.16 0.55 100 GRSA 0 0.21 36.09 57.39 2.96 0.76 0.50 2.30 100 LAGA 1 0.28 36.17 62.10 0.77 0.20 0.14 0.61 100 MABE 0 0.20 33.07 64.29 1.19 0.31 0.21 0.94 100 MEVE 64 1.55 71.87 17.66 4.45 1.15 1.45 3.43 100 PECO 2 0.34 87.02 9.05 1.73 0.45 0.41 1.35 100 PEFO 2 0.29 85.93 11.66 1.07 0.28 0.21 0.85 100 SAPE 18 0.69 27.73 68.93 1.46 0.38 0.39 1.12 100 WEEL 4 0.30 33.81 63.19 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.07 100 WEMI 6 0.43 21.27 75.64 1.32 0.34 0.40 1.03 100 WHPE 2 0.28 27.76 70.47 0.80 0.21 0.13 0.63 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.65 33.66 62.50 1.71 0.44 0.30 1.39 100 BAND 1 0.26 88.19 6.46 2.36 0.61 0.53 1.85 100 BLCA 2 0.27 43.40 54.90 0.76 0.20 0.14 0.60 100 CANY 21 0.87 46.18 51.19 1.16 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 CARE 9 0.56 34.84 62.71 1.06 0.27 0.28 0.84 100 GRCA 2 0.22 36.68 60.79 1.11 0.29 0.26 0.87 100 GRSA 0 0.15 80.78 11.88 3.37 0.87 0.46 2.64 100 LAGA 0 0.21 37.34 58.11 2.04 0.53 0.38 1.59 100 MABE 0 0.12 41.90 53.92 1.88 0.49 0.33 1.48 100 MEVE 35 1.15 29.00 64.69 2.70 0.69 0.84 2.08 100 PECO 2 0.24 53.02 42.99 1.80 0.46 0.32 1.40 100 PEFO 1 0.22 89.13 6.92 1.72 0.44 0.42 1.36 100 SAPE 7 0.46 31.03 63.81 2.25 0.58 0.60 1.73 100 WEEL 0 0.19 41.63 53.55 2.18 0.56 0.38 1.71 100 WEMI 2 0.29 48.61 48.20 1.44 0.37 0.26 1.12 100 WHPE 2 0.18 80.32 12.92 3.03 0.78 0.58 2.37 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 147 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 15 0.84 33.46 63.61 0.73 0.45 0.58 1.17 100 BAND 20 0.81 53.16 38.54 2.16 1.33 1.41 3.39 100 BLCA 10 0.54 22.21 73.48 1.04 0.64 1.01 1.62 100 CANY 22 1.06 24.09 71.18 1.10 0.68 1.23 1.72 100 CARE 5 0.38 35.19 62.28 0.64 0.39 0.47 1.04 100 GRCA 3 0.34 47.06 50.82 0.54 0.33 0.35 0.90 100 GRSA 2 0.34 83.04 12.72 1.10 0.68 0.71 1.74 100 LAGA 4 0.45 81.97 13.16 1.28 0.79 0.74 2.05 100 MABE 0 0.25 28.95 63.55 2.07 1.28 0.79 3.36 100 MEVE 96 2.18 51.65 41.36 1.63 1.00 1.80 2.56 100 PECO 8 0.52 44.34 53.57 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.86 100 PEFO 5 0.27 91.57 1.90 1.66 1.02 1.20 2.65 100 SAPE 43 1.04 34.95 58.17 1.67 1.03 1.57 2.61 100 WEEL 5 0.43 35.21 57.78 1.81 1.12 1.23 2.86 100 WEMI 25 0.81 32.08 65.59 0.56 0.35 0.53 0.90 100 WHPE 4 0.41 34.54 59.79 1.49 0.92 0.93 2.35 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 12 0.65 29.14 67.09 1.64 0.42 0.45 1.27 100 BAND 10 0.56 52.56 41.80 2.54 0.65 0.47 1.98 100 BLCA 4 0.42 20.20 77.31 1.08 0.28 0.30 0.83 100 CANY 17 0.85 30.88 67.04 0.92 0.24 0.20 0.73 100 CARE 5 0.26 91.06 1.83 3.12 0.81 0.70 2.47 100 GRCA 3 0.24 42.57 56.03 0.62 0.16 0.12 0.51 100 GRSA 0 0.23 28.00 70.38 0.73 0.19 0.12 0.58 100 LAGA 1 0.32 22.47 73.91 1.64 0.42 0.29 1.27 100 MABE 0 0.19 28.63 66.47 2.26 0.58 0.24 1.82 100 MEVE 75 1.89 42.10 54.26 1.56 0.40 0.47 1.22 100 PECO 5 0.35 30.81 66.63 1.17 0.30 0.18 0.91 100 PEFO 3 0.18 28.47 69.84 0.75 0.19 0.13 0.61 100 SAPE 34 0.80 28.16 68.06 1.65 0.42 0.42 1.29 100 WEEL 4 0.33 24.93 71.68 1.47 0.38 0.41 1.13 100 WEMI 13 0.63 31.35 61.78 2.92 0.75 0.93 2.26 100 WHPE 0 0.30 44.20 54.55 0.55 0.14 0.11 0.44 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 3 0.41 40.44 56.72 1.24 0.32 0.28 1.00 100 BAND 4 0.39 38.79 57.71 1.54 0.40 0.35 1.21 100 BLCA 2 0.26 39.93 57.31 1.24 0.32 0.20 0.99 100 CANY 9 0.57 38.74 58.08 1.40 0.36 0.31 1.11 100 CARE 3 0.18 42.10 55.43 1.08 0.28 0.23 0.88 100 GRCA 1 0.17 92.18 1.53 2.81 0.72 0.56 2.20 100 GRSA 0 0.17 90.06 6.00 1.78 0.46 0.29 1.41 100 LAGA 0 0.20 25.05 67.26 3.41 0.88 0.77 2.63 100 MABE 0 0.12 40.21 53.92 2.64 0.68 0.47 2.08 100 MEVE 49 1.29 41.74 54.25 1.72 0.44 0.51 1.34 100 PECO 3 0.24 52.44 45.51 0.91 0.24 0.18 0.73 100 PEFO 0 0.14 36.83 59.63 1.57 0.41 0.26 1.29 100 SAPE 10 0.55 58.71 35.43 2.59 0.67 0.61 2.00 100 WEEL 0 0.20 28.43 65.98 2.43 0.63 0.67 1.87 100 WEMI 2 0.40 22.67 71.81 2.37 0.61 0.71 1.83 100 WHPE 0 0.21 39.95 57.94 0.94 0.24 0.19 0.75 100

# Attachment 6 – Results Tables Page 148 of 148 PNM SJGS BART Modeling - Unit 4 Nitrate Repartitioning - Monthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

Pre-Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 14 0.74 30.46 60.93 2.04 1.26 2.14 3.18 100 BAND 15 0.71 23.48 68.94 1.88 1.16 1.60 2.93 100 BLCA 9 0.59 37.08 55.34 1.83 1.13 1.78 2.84 100 CANY 20 0.97 32.92 55.93 2.59 1.60 2.93 4.03 100 CARE 9 0.53 49.90 47.20 0.72 0.45 0.54 1.19 100 GRCA 3 0.27 92.31 1.07 1.68 1.03 1.22 2.69 100 GRSA 3 0.27 24.99 69.23 1.46 0.90 1.12 2.30 100 LAGA 5 0.43 22.20 71.74 1.71 1.06 0.56 2.72 100 MABE 0 0.24 24.98 71.07 0.97 0.60 0.87 1.52 100 MEVE 93 2.15 71.14 6.46 5.08 3.13 6.31 7.88 100 PECO 12 0.59 55.50 38.80 1.48 0.91 0.94 2.37 100 PEFO 1 0.25 88.57 6.28 1.34 0.83 0.81 2.17 100 SAPE 35 0.88 28.38 62.72 2.09 1.29 2.27 3.25 100 WEEL 5 0.39 23.21 73.59 0.82 0.50 0.58 1.29 100 WEMI 15 0.65 31.61 64.42 1.01 0.63 0.73 1.61 100 WHPE 4 0.38 24.18 69.77 1.52 0.94 1.18 2.41 100

Baseline - Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 9 0.63 28.93 66.06 2.16 0.56 0.63 1.67 100 BAND 8 0.60 23.30 73.35 1.46 0.38 0.38 1.13 100 BLCA 7 0.44 33.38 64.83 0.79 0.20 0.18 0.62 100 CANY 13 0.78 32.54 60.94 2.78 0.72 0.88 2.14 100 CARE 4 0.35 91.08 1.19 3.35 0.86 0.90 2.61 100 GRCA 0 0.18 52.85 43.67 1.54 0.40 0.32 1.23 100 GRSA 1 0.21 23.53 72.93 1.57 0.41 0.34 1.23 100 LAGA 3 0.32 21.23 74.90 1.79 0.46 0.16 1.47 100 MABE 0 0.18 22.92 75.41 0.73 0.19 0.18 0.57 100 MEVE 63 1.73 44.56 45.24 4.32 1.11 1.44 3.33 100 PECO 5 0.41 52.81 43.33 1.73 0.45 0.31 1.38 100 PEFO 1 0.17 31.86 65.63 1.13 0.29 0.18 0.92 100 SAPE 17 0.69 26.79 68.32 2.10 0.54 0.62 1.62 100 WEEL 1 0.33 23.22 75.05 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.59 100 WEMI 6 0.49 30.25 67.54 0.97 0.25 0.20 0.78 100 WHPE 2 0.28 90.85 5.63 1.59 0.41 0.26 1.24 100

Hybrid with Inherent Controls and Sorbent Injection Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 7 0.39 29.71 62.08 3.54 0.91 1.03 2.73 100 BAND 2 0.37 25.57 68.93 2.40 0.62 0.62 1.86 100 BLCA 0 0.29 43.61 53.67 1.20 0.31 0.27 0.95 100 CANY 9 0.56 49.81 48.03 0.95 0.25 0.21 0.76 100 CARE 2 0.26 57.25 40.03 1.19 0.31 0.25 0.97 100 GRCA 0 0.15 60.21 36.63 1.39 0.36 0.29 1.12 100 GRSA 1 0.13 58.07 38.06 1.72 0.44 0.36 1.35 100 LAGA 0 0.21 47.49 49.34 1.42 0.37 0.25 1.14 100 MABE 0 0.11 44.47 52.79 1.19 0.31 0.30 0.94 100 MEVE 44 1.19 35.93 48.86 6.44 1.66 2.15 4.96 100 PECO 1 0.29 62.06 32.46 2.45 0.63 0.45 1.95 100 PEFO 0 0.14 79.71 15.64 2.07 0.53 0.37 1.68 100 SAPE 6 0.46 35.57 58.83 2.40 0.62 0.72 1.86 100 WEEL 0 0.21 26.06 70.50 1.53 0.39 0.32 1.19 100 WEMI 2 0.30 36.39 59.62 1.77 0.46 0.37 1.39 100 WHPE 0 0.19 91.14 3.30 2.50 0.64 0.47 1.95 100

## 02/09/11 1 

# PNM San Juan Generating Station BART Analysis Update February 9, 2011

I. Introduction

The purpose of this Best Available Retr ofit Technology (BART) Analysis Update for Public Service of New Mexico’s (PNM) San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) is to present additional information re lated to the nitrogen oxide (NO x 

# ) emission reductions achievable using selective non- catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology. In addition to addressing new information available on SN CR technology, the cost calculations below are revised to express the calculati ons in fourth qu arter 2010 dollars.

Because Step 1 and Step 2 of the BA RT analysis (i.e., identify available technologies and eliminate technically infeas ible options) have already been completed with respect to SNCR, (see PNM BART Anal ysis dated June 6, 2007), and the additional information recently obtained does not affect the analysis previously provided under those steps, this analysis will only address Steps 3 – 5 of the BART Analysis for SNCR (i.e., emissions control effectiveness, impact analysis / cost effectiveness, and visibility analysis.)

II. Previous Submittals

PNM has previously submitted two documents addressing the capabilities of SNCR systems at SJGS. The first document, dated May 30, 2008, included a BART analysis for SNCR, which concluded that SNCR could achieve a NO x 

# emission rate of
0.24 lb/mmBtu. This emission rate was base d on a quotation received from Fuel Tech, Inc. (Fuel Tech) the industry leader in e xperience with SNCR systems, particularly for units larger than 300 MW. The second document, dated August 29, 2008, included a BART analysis specifically for one type of SNCR technology o ffered by Mobotec known as “Rotamix.” In that document, PNM rec ognized that Mobotec claimed that its Rotamix technology would be capa ble of achieving a NO x 

# emission rate of 0.23 lb/mmBtu. However, PNM expressed concerns about Mobotec’s experience with the Rotamix system at units larger than 300 MW. PNM is not aware of any new information that
would address the concerns identified in th e 2008 analysis of M obotec’s Rotamix system.

## 02/09/11 2 

# III. Additional Information Regarding SNCR

BART Analysis Step 3: Control Effectiveness

New developments have recently occurred in the SNCR market since PNM last
evaluated SNCR in the context of the BART determination for SJGS. In January 2009, Fuel Tech purchased Advanced Combustion Technologies (ACT), which also provides SNCR systems for smaller boilers. ACT’s SN CR technology, sold under the brand name HERT, uses a single nozzle injector instead of the multiple nozzle lance system developed by Fuel Tech. The HERT syst em has shown promising levels of NO x 

# reduction in smaller boilers. Following the pur chase of ACT, Fuel Tech developed new
alternatives for SNCR NO x 

# reduction at larger units, uti lizing techniques adapted from ACT’s experience. Fuel Tech has recently performed several confidential tests of NO x 

# reduction on larger boilers firing fuels that are similar to the fuel burned at SJGS.

Based on the most recent test results, Fuel Tech has indicated that they would be willing to guarantee that its SNCR technology can achieve a NO x 

# emission rate of 0.23 lb/mmBtu with an ammonia slip of 5 ppm at SJGS. According to Fuel Tech, an SNCR
could be installed at each of the SJGS units using their traditional NOxOUT wall injectors, multi-nozzle injection lances, HERT-s tyle injectors, or a combination of one or more injection systems. Fuel Tech’s te sting program, along with their CFD modeling, would determine the correct technology for the application. According to Fuel Tech, the technology may be able to achieve even lower NO x 

# emission rates, but full-scale testing of the new systems will be necessary to determine whether additional reductions are achievable at SJGS. Correspondence with Fu el Tech during the in vestigation of the control effectiveness of this new SNCR technology is included in Attachment 1. Based on this new information, the control effectiv eness of SNCR in the BART analysis for
NO x 

# should be revised from 0.24 lb /mmBtu to 0.23 lb/mmBtu.

BART Analysis Step 4: Impact Analysis / Cost Effectiveness

Fuel Tech has indicated that the capital cost for its SNCR system has escalated no more that 15 percent from the original es timate provided to PNM in 2007. Revised costs for these modifications to the SNCR system are included in Attachment 2, updated to reflect fourth quarter 2010 dollars.

## 02/09/11 3 

# To allow for a comparison of the cost s associated with SNCR to the costs
associated with the other avai lable and technically feasible controls that have been evaluated in previous submittals, the cost calculations for those other controls have also been updated to reflect fourth quarter 2010 dollars as well. For the SCR costs, PNM and B&V performed a detailed update of the cost s using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in response to questions from the EPA in November – December 2010. A copy of the document that was submitted to the EPA is included in Attachment 3, which contains a detailed explanation of how th e calculation was performed. For the other controls listed, including SNCR/SCR hybrid, ROFA/Rotamix, ROFA, and Rotamix, a similar calculation was applied. However, the costs associated with ROFA/Rotamix, ROFA, and Rotamix were only updated from Fe bruary 2008 to fourth quarter 2010, since the budgetary requests from Mobotec were prov ided in February 2008. As a result, the effect of the update on the calculations for these controls appears somewhat lower than
the calculations made for S CR and SNCR/SCR hybrid. Attachment 4 prov ides a detailed explanation of these calculations.

Table 1 shows the impact analysis and cost effectiveness results of each available and technically feasible NO x 

# control technology. In additi on, the “least cost” curves of these technologies are provi ded as Figures 1 through 4.02/09/11 4Total TotalEmission Expected Expected Expected Capital Annualized IncrementalPerformance Emission Emission Emission Investment Cost Cost Cost Energy Non-AirLevel Rate Rate Reduction (TCI) (TAC) Effectiveness Effectiveness Impacts ImpactsAll Feasible Technologies (lb/MBtu) (lb/h) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)SJGS Unit 1Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 259.5 966 3,174 184,143 20,525 6,466 2,443 1,496 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 0.18 667.3 2,484 1,656 110,683 16,816 10,154 35,917 706 1,762ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.20 741.4 2,760 1,380 30,790 6,902 5,001 7,982 1,413 3Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.23 852.6 3,174 966 11,822 3,597 3,723 116 51 4SNCR (Fuel Tech) 0.23 852.6 3,174 966 17,048 3,582 3,708 80 36 --ROFA (Mobotec) 0.26 963.8 3,588 552 19,256 3,549 6,429 -- 1,363 --SJGS Unit 2Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 258.2 961 3,158 198,790 21,891 6,932 3,036 1,492 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 0.18 663.8 2,471 1,648 115,151 17,306 10,503 37,887 346 1,762ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.20 737.6 2,746 1,373 30,790 6,902 5,027 8,024 1,413 3Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.23 848.2 3,158 961 11,822 3,597 3,742 117 51 4SNCR (Fuel Tech) 0.23 848.2 3,158 961 17,048 3,582 3,727 80 36 --ROFA (Mobotec) 0.26 958.9 3,570 549 19,256 3,549 6,462 -- 1,363 --SJGS Unit 3Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 403.1 1,501 4,931 248,416 28,359 5,752 744 2,194 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 0.18 1,036.4 3,859 2,572 178,759 26,604 10,342 39,171 507 2,658ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.20 1,151.6 4,287 2,144 35,724 9,810 4,576 7,498 2,810 5Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.23 1,324.3 4,931 1,501 13,919 4,988 3,324 -378 84 5SNCR (Fuel Tech) 0.23 1,324.3 4,931 1,501 21,220 4,859 3,238 -578 36 --ROFA (Mobotec) 0.26 1,497.1 5,574 857 22,081 5,231 6,100 -- 2,725 --SJGS Unit 4Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 0.07 395.4 1,472 4,837 230,089 26,592 5,497 339 2,215 --SNCR/SCR Hybrid 0.18 1,016.8 3,786 2,524 171,412 25,808 10,226 38,034 507 2,658ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.20 1,129.8 4,206 2,103 35,724 9,810 4,664 7,643 2,810 5Rotamix (Mobotec) 0.23 1,299.3 4,837 1,472 13,919 4,988 3,388 -385 84 5SNCR (Fuel Tech) 0.23 1,299.3 4,837 1,472 21,220 4,859 3,301 -590 36 --ROFA (Mobotec) 0.26 1,468.7 5,468 841 22,081 5,231 6,218 -- 2,725 --Notes:1. Costs for all technologies are shown in fourth quarter 2010 dollars. Costs were escalated from the original BART estimate calculations.2. Expected emission rates (ton/yr) calculations were based on 85 percent unit capacity factor (refer to Appendix A Design Basis in June 6, 2007 BART Application Document).3. Expected emission reduction (ton/yr) calculations were based on control effectiveness described in submittal and baseline emission (refer to June 6, 2007 BART Application Document).4. TCI and TAC are referenced from Attachment 2, 3, and 4.5. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is defined as ratio of TAC over Expected Emission Reduction (ton/yr).6. Expected emission reduction is based on annual emission reduction from baseline upgrade emission levels.7. Incremental cost effectiveness are based on increments in expected emission reduction (ton/yr).Table 1Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Results of Additional NOx Control Technologies for SJGS02/09/11 5Figure 1SJGS 1 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve02,5005,0007,50010,00012,50015,00017,50020,00022,50025,0000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCR (Fuel Tech)ROFA (Mobotec)ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec)Rotamix (Mobotec)02/09/11 6Figure 2SJGS 2 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve02,5005,0007,50010,00012,50015,00017,50020,00022,50025,0000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCR (Fuel Tech)ROFA (Mobotec)ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec)Rotamix (Mobotec)02/09/11 7Figure 3SJGS 3 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve02,5005,0007,50010,00012,50015,00017,50020,00022,50025,00027,50030,0000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCR (Fuel Tech)ROFA (Mobotec)ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec)Rotamix (Mobotec)02/09/11 8Figure 4SJGS 4 NOx Technology Least Cost Curve02,5005,0007,50010,00012,50015,00017,50020,00022,50025,00027,50030,0000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000Expected Emissions Reduction (ton/yr)

Total Annualized Cost (1,000$/yr)SNCR/SCR HybridSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Dominant ControlsSNCR (Fuel Tech)ROFA (Mobotec)ROFA & Rotamix (Mobotec)Rotamix (Mobotec)

## 02/09/11 9 

# BART Analysis Step 5: Visibility Analysis

CALPUFF modeling analyses were perf ormed to provide SJGS plant-wide visibility impacts at 16 Class I areas for the SNCR NO x 

# control technology. For consistency, the modeling methodology and modeling refinements contained in this submittal use “nitrate repartitioning” and the “variable ammonia background,” based on the November 6, 2007 refinements provide d to NMED. These refinements are
summarized below.

Nitrate Repartitioning

Nitrate repartitioning has been include d to better account for the amount of particulate nitrate (NO 3 

# ) by limiting the available ammonia when individual unit puffs overlap. The original visibility m odeling conducted for the June 2, 2007 BART application did not incorporat e repartitioning of availabl e ammonia (MNITRATE = 0).
The refinements did not allow each overl apping puff(s) to use the full ammonia background value but instead on ly a portion of the ammonia available (MNITRATE = 1). This concept is reflected in Section 3.1.2.6 of the CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States dated August 15, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the WRAP Protocol). “Nitrate repartitioning” does not refer to the ammonia limiting meth od commonly referred to as
“ALM.”

Ammonia Background Concentration

The Sithe Global Power, LLC’s Desert Rock Energy Facility and the Toquop Energy Projects located in the southwestern Un ited States recently used variable monthly background ammonia concentrations, base d on ammonia background concentrations
monitored at several western class I areas. Based on this information, SJGS’s BART modeling reflects these approve d values, presented in Table 2 for reference.

## 02/09/11 10 

# Table 2 Variable Monthly Ammonia Background Concentration 1



# Month Background Ammonia Concentration (ppb) January 0.2 February 0.2

March 0.2 April 0.5 May 0.5 June 1.0 July 1.0 August 1.0 September 1.0

October 0.5 November 0.5 December 0.2
1 

# The ammonia data and supporting information for the values contained in Desert Rock Energy Facility and the Toquop Energy Project visibility analyses were included in detail in Attachment 1 of the March 31, 2008 report submittal.

Visibility Modeling Results

The expected degree of visibility im provement for the SNCR control technology
scenario was determined based on the differe nce between the maximum visibility impact for the baseline (taking into account the existing NO x 

# combustion controls) and the maximum visibility impact for the SNCR contro l technology scenario, as determined for each receptor at each of the sixteen Class I areas. The baseline includes the effects of the
NO x 

# combustion controls currently installed an d operating at each SJGS unit. The stack
outlet conditions which were modeled for each scenario are included in Attachment 5.

The results of the refined visibility m odeling for the SJGS plant, assuming the same SNCR control technology is installed on a ll four units, are illustrated in Tables 1 through 3 of Attachment 6. These tables summarize the scenarios and the maximum visibility (deciview) im pact projected at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the

## 02/09/11 11 

# 2001 to 2003 period. Attachment 7 includes (i) the plant- wide summary of the 98th percentile visibility impact fo r the modeled scenarios, (ii) the number of days above 0.5 dv threshold, and (iii) the contribution of each pollutant associated with the 98th percentile visibility impa ct for each Class I area.

The visibility modeling analysis indicates an improvement in visibility impact at
each of the 16 Class I areas. The maximum vi sibility (deciview) improvement projected at any of the 16 Class I area s at any time over th e 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in
Table 3 of Attachment 6. These maximum vi sibility improvements between the baseline and the SNCR control scenarios range from 0.05 dv to 0.22 dv of ex pected visibility improvement. Based on the visibility impr ovement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of this document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined for SJGS over the range of vi sibility improvement. The cost effectiveness of installing SNCRs at all four SJGS units ranges fr om $352 million/dv to $79 million/dv over the range of visibility improvements at the different Class I areas.

Unit-specific results for the SNCR tec hnology will be provided in a separate
submission.

IV. Summary

The information provided above is in tended to assist the New Mexico Environment Department in preparing it s BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station. As noted above, additional information recently obtained by PNM suggests that SNCR is ca pable of achieving a NO x 

# emission rate of 0.23 lb/mmBtu, based on the guarantee provided by Fuel Tech, which will result in an overall reduction in NO x 

# emissions of 4,900 tons. Additionally, those NO x 

# emission reductions will result in additional visibility improvements at each of the 16 Class I areas reviewed for this BART analysis.

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 1

Communication from FuelTech on SNCR (2/8/2011)

### Fuel Tech, Inc. • 120 Long Ridge Road 

### • Stamford, CT 06902 • PH: (203) 323-8401 • FX: (203) 967-2366 

## William E. Cummings, Jr. Senior Vice President Air Pollution Control Sales



# February 8, 2011

Ms. Diane M. Fischer, P.E. Air Quality Business Development Manager BLACK & VEATCH 11401 Lamar Avenue Overland Park, KS 66211

RE: FUEL TECH, INC. PROPOSAL 07-B-047

Dear Ms. Fischer:

Fuel Tech has reviewed the data contained in FTI Proposal 07-B-047 and our overall experience with the combined HERT and NOxOUT injection strategies. Provided the San Juan process conditions reasonably match those indicated in the aforementioned proposal and the baseline NOx is at or below 0.30 LBS/MMBtu, Fuel Tech’s SNCR systems will, for the subject application, be capable of achieving a controlled NOx emission rate of 0.23 LBS/MMBtu or le ss with an expected ammonia slip limit of 5 ppm.

Further, our experience with testing of a combi ned HERT/NOxOUT system and a NOxOUT system for confidential clients on utility boilers firing western US coals, provides us with the confidence necessary to support commercial guarantees for these controlled emission levels.

While we remain comfortable with this determination, we have yet to confirm this performance prediction through temperature/gas species testing, computat ional fluid dynamics (CFD) and chemical kinetic modeling (CKM). It would also be prudent to confirm the selected scope of supply can indeed be installed without interference or compromise due to the San Juan unit configurations. Fuel Tech strongly recommends that PSNM complete the above recommended testing and modeling in an effort to generate a firm commercial guarantee.

We hope you find this information helpful. Should y ou or your staff have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

Very truly yours,



## WEC:bav

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 2

Updated SNCR Costs

## 02/09/11 PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 1 & 2 Date: 1/24/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

SNCR system scope: $4,962,000 From vendor quote (FuelTech), escalated by 15 percent, Reagent delivery system per email from Fuel Tech dated 1/23/2011 Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature monitors Reagent storage tank $100,000 B&V cost estimate NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $279,000 B&V cost estimate

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $5,750,000 Gross Receipt Tax $355,781 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $287,500 (CC) X 5.0%

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $6,393,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $639,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $1,918,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $639,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $160,000 (PEC) X 2.5% Insulation $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $320,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Relocation $128,000 (PEC) X 2.0%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,804,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $11,268,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $789,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $563,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,127,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $338,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,254,000 (DC) X 20.0%

Total indirect costs (IC) $5,171,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $609,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $17,048,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $338,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $463,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,417,000 906 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Auxiliary and ID fan power $36,000 80 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimate in vendor quote Water $6,000 39 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $1,459,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,922,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,660,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,660,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,582,000

## 02/09/11 PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft)

Technology: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 3 & 4 Date: 1/24/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Direct Costs

Purchased equipment costs

SNCR system scope: $6,462,000 From vendor quote (FuelTech), escalated by 15 percent, Reagent delivery system per email from Fuel Tech dated 1/23/2011 Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature monitors Reagent storage tank $100,000 B&V cost estimate NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate Instrumentation and control system $291,000 B&V cost estimate

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $7,315,000 Gross Receipt Tax $452,616 (CC) X 6.2% Freight $365,750 (CC) X 5.0%

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $8,133,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $813,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Handling & erection $2,440,000 (PEC) X 30.0% Electrical $813,000 (PEC) X 10.0% Piping $203,000 (PEC) X 2.5% Insulation $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Painting $0 (PEC) X 0.0% Demolition $407,000 (PEC) X 5.0% Relocation $163,000 (PEC) X 2.0%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $4,839,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate Site preparation $0 N/A Buildings $0 N/A Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $14,043,000

Indirect Costs

Engineering $983,000 (DC) X 7.0% Owner's cost $702,000 (DC) X 5.0% Construction management $1,404,000 (DC) X 10.0% Start-up and spare parts $421,000 (DC) X 3.0% Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate Contingencies $2,809,000 (DC) X 20.0%

Total indirect costs (IC) $6,419,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $758,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2)

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $21,220,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs

Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor and materials $421,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $546,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,201,000 1,408 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Auxiliary and ID fan power $36,000 80 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Estimate in vendor quote Water $9,000 60 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate

Total variable annual costs $2,246,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,792,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $2,067,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,067,000

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,859,000

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 3

Updated SCR Costs, As Submitted to the EPA

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 1 

# San Juan Generation Station BART Project Review and Update of 2007 BART Cost Estimates

1.0 Introduction The purpose of this document is to update the cost estimates for application of SCR at the San Juan Generating Station that were performed by B&V in May of 2007 in support of PNM’s BART application. The following items were assessed in this update:

• Impact of escalation on the prices incl uded in the original BART estimate.

• Impact of auxiliary power limitations at San Juan Generation Station.

• Impact of changes to the draft syst em resulting from the addition of the consent decree air quality control equipment.

• Impact of other general changes to the price.

It should be noted that the potential impact of lead and asbestos abatement on the price of SCR upgrades at San Juan was not assessed by B&V. These costs are site specific and can not be determined until the project is under construction. This document presents a discussion of each impact. The last section of this document presents the revised cost estimates that incorporate all impacts to the costs.

2.0 Price Escalation The estimates developed by B&V for the BART project were completed in May 2007. PNM requested B&V to perform an es calation analysis to update the BART estimates from May 2007 to current day dolla rs (Oct 2010). First, B&V utilized the corporate escalation tool for this analysis. The tool wa s jointly developed by Black & Veatch and an outside consulting firm that specializes in financial analysis and forecasting. For the purposes of this analys is the costs were grouped into three major categories:

• Materials (steel, pipe, cable, etc.)

• Equipment (pumps, tanks, switchgear, etc)

• Labor

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 2 The resulting price escalation between May 2007 and October 2010 is shown in

Table 1. It should be noted that the esca lation shown is cumulative over the period. There were portions of this period where escalation was negative. However, there were also periods where escalati on was extremely high.

Table 1 Escalation Calculation Using B&V’s Corporate Escalation Tool May 2007 to October 2010

Cost Item Cumulative Escalation Rate

Materials 10.0 percent increase
Equipment 10.0 percent increase

Labor 9.7 percent increase Average 10.0 percent increase

B&V also compared the values from th e corporate escalation tool to values

available from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Producer Price Index” and the “Employer Cost for Employee Compensa tion Index”. To do this comparison, B&V selected several representative cost categor ies and checked the inde x for those categories between May 2007 and September 2010 (latest data available). Table 2 is a summary of that investigation. The screen shots from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website that form the basis for Table 2 have been included for reference in Appendix A of this document.

The data in Table 1 and Table 2 are rela tively comparable. However, since the

data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis tics can be independen tly verified, B&V has

utilized the values in Table 2 to escalate the BART estimates for San Juan Generating Station. The quantitative impacts to the costs will be presented in Section 5.0.

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 3 Table 2 Escalation Calculation Using Data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Index Value

Cost item May 2007 Sept 2007 Change
(Escalation)

Materials

Plate Steel 119.2 137.5 15.4

Cable 160.8 166.1 3.3 Steel Pipe 170.1 195.7 15.0 Average 11.2 Equipment Pumps 117.9 129.7 10.0 Switchgear 179.1 195.2 9.0

Tanks 132.6 140.8 6.2 Average 8.4

Construction Labor (see note) $29.48/hr $31.43/hr 6.6

Note: Values for construction labor are in $/hour. Th e Bureau of Labor Sta tistics only has data available by quarter (1 st 

# quarter, 2 nd 

# quarter, etc.) and onl y has data through 2 nd 

# quarter of 2010 (not 3 rd 

# quarter 2010).

3.0 Auxiliary Power The original BART estimate included limited costs for upgrades to the auxiliary power systems that will be needed to ad dress the increased loads resulting from the addition of SCR and associated equipment. The SCR results in additional parasitic load at the site due to the additional fan power needed to overcome the pressure drop associated with the SCR and to provide addi tional power for ancillary equipment needed to operate the SCR. In th e initial 2007 estimate, PNM exp ected the existing auxiliary power to be sufficient. However, now that the consent decree AQC equipment has been

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 4 installed, B&V has determined that the current auxiliary power system is not sufficient to power the additional loads that would result from adding SCR and associated equipment. B&V anticipates the following minimum load changes (no balanced draft
conversion) as a result of the SCR’s:

• Unit 1 - ID fan increase of 4,400 hp

• Unit 2 - ID fan increase of 4,400 hp (same as Unit 1)

• Unit 3 - ID fan increase of 13,000 hp

• Unit 4 - ID fan increase of 13,000 hp (same as Unit 3)

• Other aux loads are as 140 kW (each) for Units 1 and 2 and 190 kW (each

for Units 3 and 4. From these minimum auxiliary power requirements, the following assumptions were made about the station. These assump tions are based on the information available

at this time.

• The existing start- up buses are limited.

• The startup issues are transformer limitations that require the additional power to be fed from the 345 kV switchyard.

• When motors are started, 85 percent bus undervoltage is acceptable and 80 percent motor undervoltage is acceptable.

• Two 3-breaker connection bays can be added to the 345 kV yard.

• The Units 1 and 2 ID fans will be 6,000 hp, three per unit, at 6.9 kV.

• The Units 3 and 4 ID fans will be 9,000 hp, three per unit, at 6.9 kV.

• Two additional bays (to feed the four new transformers) can be added to the 345 kV switchyard.

• Four new transformers will be required because of the new fan sizes. The transformers would be sized to power and start across the line fans for
both sister units. In other words, Un its 1 and 2 would be coupled together

and Units 3 and 4 would be coupled together.

• There is adequate space near the new ID Fans is available to install new switchgear and transformers. With these assumptions, the following add itional equipment would be needed to power the SCR new equipment. The quanti ties listed are for the entire plant.

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 5 • Two 345kV bays (includes 6 – 345 kV 3-phase breakers, 16 – 345 kV 3- phase motorized disconnect switches)

• Two 40 MVA 345 kV to 6.9 kV transf ormers (for Units 1 and 2)

• Two 60 MVA 345 kV to 12.47 kV transformers (for Units 3 and 4)

• One 6.9 kV Switchgear lineup Main-Tie -Main with 8 f eeder breakers,

3000 A bus for Units 1 and 2.

• One 12.49kV Switchgear lineup Main-Tie-Main with 8 feeder breakers,

3000 A bus for Units 3 and 4.

• Four 480 V single ended secondary un it substations (SUS), with motor
control center (MCC) sections.

Figure 1 is a conceptual one-line diagram showing this configuration. The cost for this additional equipment is summarized in Table 3. These costs are conceptual,

based on in-house data. B&V did not obtain out side quotations specifically for this project to develop thes e costs. These costs are included in the overall u pdate of the SCR costs that are presented in Section 5.0.

Table 3 Presentation of Costs for Auxiliary Electrical Equipment Requirements for SCR Systems at San Juan Station Equipment Cost Item Estimate Amount 345 kV Bays $3,500,000 Transformers (for Units 1 and 2) $2,000,000 Transformers (for Units 3 and 4) $3,000,000 6.9 kV Switchgear Line Up (Units 1 and 2) $7,000,000 12.49 kV Switchgear Line Up (Units 3 and 4) $10,000,000 Four Secondary Unit Substations with Motor Control Centers $4,000,000 Total $29,500,000 Amount Attributable to Units 1 and 2 $6,400,000 (each) Amount Attributable to Units 3 and 4 $8,350,000 (each)

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 6 Figure 1 Conceptual One-Line Diagram for New Auxiliary Electrical Equipmen t Associated with SCR Systems

4.0 Assessment of Draft Systems Implosion studies were performed for Un its 1-4 at SJGS for the implementation of the modifications required by the c onsent decree of 2005, which included the installation of new pollution control equipment and new in duced draft (ID) booster fans (although the furnace continued operation in pressurized mode). These studies modeled various transient conditions that could potentially occur during unit operation (including upset conditions) and reviewed the corresponding pressures across the furnace and flue gas stream. The studies did not consider the effect of operating the booster fans with a loss of airside gas path that c ould occur with air side damper failure. This analysis was not required at the time but would be required to be in compliance with the current code.

This is discussed in more detail below. B&V has reviewed the implosion studies a nd their impact on the original BART

estimate for the balance draft conversion. The design basis from each implosion study

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 7 was also validated against current plant ope rating data. B&V used this design basis information as the basis for updated recommen dations concerning the draft system. The figures in Appendix B show the current draft configurat ion as well as the draft configuration after a ddition of SCR. As a result of the implosi on studies, PNM made some physical modifications to

the boilers and some modifications to the co ntrols during the installation of the new control equipment required by the consent d ecree. These modifications brought Units 1-4 into compliance with the National Fire Pr otection Association (N FPA) Code 85 for the 2004 revision of the code. The following is a summary of the modifications that were made to the draft systems as part of the consent decree work:

• The open stack system upstream of the FGD system was permanently closed in conjunction with the fabric filter addition.

• The boiler penthouse floor (furnace roof ) was stiffened with the addition

of beams.

• Buckstay clips (connections to furnace walls) were added and cover plates were placed over some of the buckstay webs.

• The inlet ductwork penetration to the ESP was stiffened using internal bracing.

• Based on the stiffening modifications made, the control system was programmed to “trip” (shut the unit down) if the pressu re in the units exceeded a range of -2 / +18 inches wg.

The following modifications were not made to the draft system:

• Buckstays were not installed in the corners of the boiler.

• Trusses were not installed in the windbox.

At the time of the consent decree wor k, the NFPA requirements (2004 revision)

were unclear on how to handle the addition of ID booster fans on units that were still to be operated in a pressurized furnace mode. In 2007 the requirements were clarified to define that any unit with a fan between the boiler and stack must meet the same requirements as a “balanced draf t” unit and be stiffened accord ingly. This requires that

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 8 the furnace either be designed for +/- 35 inches or the ratings of the ID/booster fans corrected to ambient temperatur e (whichever is less). Th e key provisions of the NFPA 85 code are quoted below:

Article 1.3.1 : The code shall apply to new installations and to major

alterations or extensions that are contra cted for subsequent to the effective date of this code.

Article 1.4.1 Unless otherwise specified, the pr ovisions in this code shall not apply to facilities equipm ent, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or insta llation prior to the effective date of

the code.

Article 4.6.1 : The furnace shall be capabl e of withstanding transient design pressures and normal operati ng pressures without permanent deformation due to yield or buckling of any support member. Transient pressures to be considered shall in clude but shall not necessarily be limited to misoperation of fans or dampers and a master fuel trip while operating at maximum design load.

Article 6.5.1.3: Balanced Draft Units. All boilers with a fan located in the flue gas path downstream of the boile r enclosure shall be designed in

accordance with either 6.5.1.3.1 or 6.5.1.3.2.

6.5.1.3.1 The furnace and flue gas removal system shall be designed so that the maximum head capability of the induced draft fan system with

ambient air does not exceed the continuous design pressure of furnace, ducts, and associated equipment.

6.5.1.3.2 Where a furnace pressure control system in accordance with 6.5.2 is provided, the furnace shall be designed for the transient design pressures in 6.5.1.3.2.1 and 6.5.1.3.2.2.

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 9 6.5.1.3.2.1 Positive Transient Design Pressure. The positive transient design pressure shall be at least, but shall not be required to exceed, +8.7 kPa (+35 in. of water). 6.5.1.3.2.2 Negative Transient Design Pressure. The negative transient design pressure shall be at least as negative as, but shall not be required to be more negative than,

− 8.7 kPa (

− 35 in. of water).

Accordingly, NFPA 85 now requires SJGS to increase the pressure ratings of the boilers to +/- 35 inches wg if the capacity of the ID /booster fans is increased. To comply with NFPA 85, and increase the pressure rati ng of the units to +/ - 35 inches wg, SJGS will have to install buckstay corner conn ections, buckstay over-turning posts, and will likely have to install air heater stiffening as well. While some buckstay clips were added for the consent decree work, the spacing of those clips is unknown. Therefore, it is assumed that some additional clips would be needed to increase the pressure rating from

the current level of -2 / +18 in ches wg to +/- 35 inches wg. The fabric filters will also require add itional stiffening to increase the continuous pressure rating to that of the new ID fan te st block suction pressure. B&V expects that the hot ESP casing will require stiffening as well. B&V continues to recommend a balanced draft conversion be pe rformed on all four units at SJ GS if SCR installation is required. Due to the 2007 NFPA 85 revisi ons, stiffening of the boiler and other components will be required regardless of whether a balanced draft conversion is performed (the majority of the costs associ ated with the balanced draft conversion are related to boiler stiffening). Table 4 and Table 5 provide the updated cost estimates for the balanced draft conversion. Costs for stiffening the fabric f ilters have been added as it was determined

that the fabric filters will also need to be stiffened if the capacity of the booster fans is increased to allow for SCR operation. Tables 4 and 5 also show a column for deleting the balance draft conversion po rtion of the work. In this scenario, th e boiler would remain a positive pressure boiler, but the stiffening work, required by NFPA 85, would still need to be completed. As a result , the long outage associ ated with the boiler stiffening would also be required regardless of whether the units remain pressurized or

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 10 are converted to balanced draf t. If a balanced draft conve rsion is not performed, new, low-speed motors for the FD fans would not be required and the ID fans would be smaller, resulting in a total cost savings of $1.5 million.

Table 4 Updated Costs for Balanced Draft Conversion Units 1 and 2 (2007 Dollars) Units 1 & 2 BART Study Updated

Balanced Draft Conversion Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Pressurized Furnace Differential Boiler Stiffening $1,335,000 $1,418,000 $1,335,000 $1,418,000 (Same) Scaffolding -- $195,000 -- $195,000 (Same) Insulation & Lagging $139,000 $1,197,000 $139,000 $1,197,000 (Same) Ductwork & Casing Repairs (Allowance) $182,000 $1,008,000 $182,000 $1,008,000 (Same) Air Heater Stiffening $106,000 $195,000 $106,000 $195,000 (Same) Electrostatic Precipitator Stiffening (Excludes Casing Repairs) $341,000 $1,114,000 $341,000 $1,114,000 (Same) Insulation & Lagging (Allowance) $84,000 $418,000 $84,000 $418,000 (Same) Electrical/Control Modifications $159,000 $334,000 $159,000 $334,000 (Same) New Transformer (Note 2) $1,000,000 $0
Fan Modifications

FD Fans (new motors only) $490,000 $86,000 $490,000 $86,000 ($576,000)
ID Fans $2,400,000 $840,000 $2,400,000 $840,000 ($500,000) Fabric Filter (assumed same

as ESP) Stiffening (Excludes Casing Repairs) $341,000 $1,114,000 (Same) Insulation & Lagging (Allowance) $84,000 $418,000 (Same) Miscellaneous Mech Commodities & Instrumentation $325,000 -- $325,000 -- (Same) Subtotal $6,561,000 $6,805,000 $5,986 ,000 $8,337,000 ($1,076,000) Notes: 1. Excludes Contingency and Indirects 2. Auxiliary electric costs are being accounted for in a separate analysis. Refe r to Section 3.0 of this report. Therefore, they are being deleted from the balanced draft conversion estimate.

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 11 Table 5 Updated Costs for Balanced Draft Conversion Units 3 and 4 (2007 Dollars)

Units 3&4 BART Study Updated

Balanced Draft Conversion Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Engineering & Material Construction Labor Costs Pressurized Furnace Differential Boiler Stiffening $1,537,000 $1,908,000 $1,537,000 $1,908,000 (Same) Scaffolding - - $262,000 - - $263,000 (Same) Insulation & Lagging $188,000 $1,438,000 $188,000 $1,438,000 (Same) Ductwork & Casing Repairs (Allowance) $182,000 $1,009,000 $182,000 $1,009,000 (Same) Air Heater Stiffening $125,000 $263,000 $125,000 $263,000 (Same) Electrostatic Precipitator Stiffening (Excludes Casing Repairs) $416,000 $1,500,000 $416,000 $1,500,000 (Same) Insulation & Lagging (Allowance) $113,000 $563,000 $113,000 $563,000 (Same) Electrical/Control Modifications $214,000 $450,000 $214,000 $450,000 (Same) New Transformer (Note 2) $1,000,000 $0 Fan Modifications

FD Fans (new motors only) $660,000 $116,000 $660,000 $116,000 ($776,000)
ID Fans $3,600,000 $1,260,000 $3,600,000 $1,260,000 ($800,000) Fabric Filter (assumed

same as ESP) Stiffening (Excludes Casing Repairs) $416,000 $1,500,000 (Same) Insulation & Lagging (Allowance) $113,000 $563,000 (Same) Miscellaneous Mech Commodities & Instrumentation $325,000 - - $325,000 - - (Same)

Subtotal $8,357,000 $8,765,000 $7,886 ,000 $10,828,000 ($1,576,000) Notes: 1. Excludes Contingency and Indirects. 2. Auxiliary electric costs are being accounted for in a separate analysis. Refe r to Section 3.0 of this report. Therefore, they are being deleted from the balanced draft conversion estimate.

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 12 The values presented in Tabl es 4 and 5 are in 2007 dollars and will be included in the revised estimates presented in Section 5.0.

5.0 Updated Cost Estimates This section of the document will present the updated capital cost estimates for the SCR systems on San Juan Generating Statio n. A summary of the updates is shown in Table 6. The details of the updated costs are presented in Tabl es 7 through 10. The following updates were made to the original BART cost estimates:

• Escalation to 2010 dollars, as described in Section 2.0 of this document.

• Auxiliary power system costs, as described in Section 3.0 of this

document.

• Balanced draft conversion updates, as described in Se ction 4.0 of this

document.

• Correction to the error in expansio n joint costs, noted to the EPA on
October 8, 2010.

• Correction to air heater costs fo r Units 3 and 4. The costs for modifications to the secondary ai r heaters were inadvertently double

counted.

• Reduction in ductwork steel costs to move to the use of ASTM A572 duct

material instead of ASTM A588 Grad e B material. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the foll ow up responses to the conference call
held with the EPA on October 13, 2010.

Line items in Tables 7 through 10 that have changes as a direct result of one of

the items listed above are shown in red in th e tables. Since the estimate is a factored estimate, a change to one line item will change other line items that are factors. For example, as the total purchased equipment cost (PEC) changes, the cost for “handling and erection” will also change because it is a multiplication factor of the purchased equipment cost.

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 13 Table 6 Summary of SCR Capital Cost Updates for San Juan Station
Unit No. 2007 BART Estimate 2010 Updated Cost Estimate Change

1 $156,805,000 $194,101,000 +23.8 %

2 $169,251,000 $209,652,000 +23.9 %
3 $215,568,000 $261,954,000 +21.5 %

4 $199,558,000 $242,377,000 +21.5 %
Total $741,182,000 $908,084,000 +22.5 %



# As can be seen in Table 6, the costs for S CR are higher than the original estimate. The two main causes of these changes are the escalation to 2010 dollars and the auxiliary power system upgrades that are required

The cost increases shown above incl ude the recommended balanced draft conversion costs. For compar ison purposes, B&V did examine the impact to the costs if only the “boiler stiffening” work discussed in Section 4.0 is done (boiler, duct, ESP, air heater, and fabric filter stiffening in accord ance with NFPA 85) but not the additional fan

work that would be associated with the balance draft conversi on. The result of this analysis showed that the updated costs will be only slightly different when the costs solely attributable to the balanced draft c onversion are excluded -- an increase of 21.3 percent (for the whol e station) compared with 22.5 perc ent, for a total difference of $9,192,000 (about 1 percent of the project cost). As discussed in Section 4.0, the difference is slight because all of the boiler stiffening work is requ ired (with or without balance draft conversion). The only differe nce in the total pri ce for including the

balanced draft conversion is the difference in fan costs.10/22/2010B&V E-2 and E-414Table 7 - PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Updated Cost AnalysisTechnology:Selective Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 1Date:10/21/2010Cost Item$Remarks/Cost BasisOriginal 2007 BART Cost EstimateEscalation EscalationDirect CostsCurrent ValueComments on Updatesto Oct 2010PercentagePurchased equipment costsAnhydrous Ammonia Injection System$437,000 B&V cost estimate$437,000$473,708 8.4%Anhydrous Ammonia Vaporization System$436,000B&V cost estimate$436,000$472,624 8.4%Reactor Box, Breeching and Ductwork$4,451,000 B&V cost estimate$4,005,900 Adjustement for ASTM A572$4,454,561 11.2%Ductwork Expansion Joints$294,000 B&V cost estimate$147,000 Correction$159,348 8.4%Catalyst$2,557,000 B&V cost estimate$2,557,000$2,557,000 0.0%Sonic Horns$188,000 B&V cost estimate$188,000$203,792 8.4%Elevator$1,236,000 B&V cost estimate$1,236,000$1,339,824 8.4%Structural Steel$4,881,000 B&V costestimate$4,881,000$5,427,672 11.2%SCR Bypass$10,000,000 B&V cost estimate$10,000,000$10,840,000 8.4%NOx Monitoring System$440,000B&V cost estimate$440,000$476,960 8.4%Electrical System Upgrade$378,000 B&V cost estimate$378,000$409,752 8.4%Auxiliary Electric System Requirements$0 Not in estimate$6,400,000 Added, Refer to Sect. 3.0$6,400,000 0.0%Instrumentation and Control System$279,000 B&V cost estimate$279,000$302,436 8.4%Subtotal capital cost (CC)$25,577,000$31,384,900$33,517,677Gross Receipt Tax$1,583,000 (CC) X 6.2%$1,942,000$2,074,000Freight$1,279,000 (CC) X 5.0%$1,569,000$1,676,000Total purchased equipment cost (PEC)$28,439,000$34,896,000$37,268,000Direct installation costsFoundation & supports$8,532,000 (PEC) X 30.0%$10,468,800$11,117,866 6.2%Handling & erection$8,532,000 (PEC) X 30.0%$10,468,800$11,117,866 6.2%Electrical$4,266,000 (PEC) X 15.0%$5,234,400$5,558,933 6.2%Piping$711,000 (PEC) X 2.5%$872,400$926,489 6.2%Insulation$2,844,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$3,489,600$3,705,955 6.2%Painting$284,000 (PEC) X 1.0%$348,960$370,596 6.2%Demolition$2,844,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$3,489,600$3,705,955 6.2%Relocation$1,422,000 (PEC) X 5.0%$1,744,800$1,852,978 6.2%Total direct installation costs (DIC)$29,435,000$36,117,360$38,356,636Air preheater modifications$1,071,000B&V cost estimate$1,071,000$1,160,964 8.4%Balanced draft conversion$13,366,000B&V cost estimate$14,323,000 Refer to Section 4.0$15,526,132 8.4%Site preparation$2,000,000 Engineering estimate$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0%Buildings & enclosures$500,000 Engineering estimate$500,000$500,000 0.0%Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $74,811,000$88,907,000$94,812,000Indirect CostsEngineering$5,237,000 (DC) X 7.0%$6,223,490$6,636,840Owner's cost$3,741,000 (DC) X 5.0%$4,445,350$4,740,600Construction management$7,481,000 (DC) X 10.0%$8,890,700$9,481,200Construction indirect$18,344,000 B&V labor marketreview $22,507,920$23,903,411 6.2%Start-up and spare parts$2,244,000 (DC) X 3.0%$2,667,210$2,844,360Performance test$200,000 Engineering estimate$200,000$200,000Contingencies$14,962,000 (DC) X 20.0%$17,781,400$18,962,400Total indirect costs (IC)$52,209,000$62,716,000$66,769,000Interest During Construction (IDC)$14,118,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41%$16,853,000$16,853,000Loss Generation during Outage (GEN)$15,667,000$15,667,000$15,667,000Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) + (GEN)$156,805,000$184,143,000$194,101,00010/22/2010B&V E-2 and E-415Table 8 - PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Updated Cost AnalysisTechnology:Selective Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 2Date:10/21/2010Cost Item$Remarks/Cost BasisOriginal 2007 BART Cost EstimateCAPITAL COSTEscalation EscalationDirect CostsCurrent ValueComments on Updatesto Oct 2010PercentagePurchased equipment costsAnhydrous Ammonia Injection System $429,000 B&V cost estimate $429,000 $465,036 8.4%Anhydrous Ammonia Vaporization System $429,000 B&V cost estimate $429,000 $465,036 8.4%Reactor Box, Breeching and Ductwork $4,444,000 B&V cost estimate$3,999,600 Adjustement for ASTM A572$4,447,555 11.2%Ductwork Expansion Joints$294,000 B&V cost estimate$147,000 Correction$159,348 8.4%Catalyst$2,553,000 B&V cost estimate$2,553,000$2,553,000 0.0%Sonic Horns$188,000 B&V cost estimate$188,000$203,792 8.4%Elevator$1,236,000 B&V cost estimate$1,236,000$1,339,824 8.4%Structural Steel$5,998,000 B&V cost estimate$5,998,000$6,669,776 11.2%SCR Bypass$10,000,000 B&V cost estimate$10,000,000$10,840,000 8.4%NOx Monitoring System$440,000 B&V cost estimate$440,000$476,960 8.4%Electrical System Upgrade$372,000 B&V cost estimate$372,000$403,248 8.4%Auxiliary Electric System Requirements$0 Not in estimate$6,400,000 Added, Refer to Sect. 3.0$6,400,000 0.0%Instrumentation and Control System$278,000 B&V cost estimate$278,000$301,352 8.4%Subtotal capital cost (CC)$26,661,000$32,469,600$34,724,927Gross Receipt Tax$1,650,000 (CC) X 6.2%$2,009,000$2,149,000Freight$1,333,000 (CC) X 5.0%$1,623,000$1,736,000Total purchased equipment cost (PEC)$29,644,000$36,102,000$38,610,000Direct installation costsFoundation & supports$8,893,000 (PEC) X 30.0%$10,830,600$11,502,097 6.2%Handling & erection$11,858,000 (PEC) X 40.0%$14,440,800$15,336,130 6.2%Electrical$4,447,000 (PEC) X 15.0%$5,415,300$5,751,049 6.2%Piping$741,000 (PEC) X 2.5%$902,550$958,508 6.2%Insulation$2,964,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$3,610,200$3,834,032 6.2%Painting$296,000 (PEC) X 1.0%$361,020$383,403 6.2%Demolition$2,964,000 (PEC)X 10.0%$3,610,200$3,834,032 6.2%Relocation$1,482,000 (PEC) X 5.0%$1,805,100$1,917,016 6.2%Total direct installation costs (DIC)$33,645,000$40,975,770$43,516,268Air preheater modifications$1,071,000 B&V cost estimate$1,071,000$1,160,964 8.4%Balanced draft conversion$13,366,000 B&V cost estimate$14,323,000 Refer to Section 4.0$15,526,132 8.4%Site preparation$2,000,000 Engineering estimate$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0%Buildings & enclosures$500,000 Engineering estimate$500,000$500,000 0.0%Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $80,226,000$94,972,000$101,313,000Indirect CostsEngineering$5,616,000 (DC) X 7.0%$6,648,040$7,091,910Owner's cost$4,011,000 (DC) X 5.0%$4,748,600$5,065,650Construction management$8,023,000 (DC) X 10.0%$9,497,200$10,131,300Construction indirect$22,085,000 B&V labor market review $26,895,990$28,563,541 6.2%Start-up and spare parts$2,407,000 (DC) X 3.0%$2,849,160$3,039,390Performance test$200,000 Engineering estimate$200,000$200,000Contingencies$16,045,000 (DC) X 20.0%$18,994,400$20,262,600Total indirect costs (IC)$58,387,000$69,833,000$74,354,000Interest During Construction (IDC)$15,407,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41%$18,318,000$18,318,000Loss Generation during Outage (GEN)$15,231,000$15,667,000$15,667,000Total Capital Investment (TCI)= (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) + (GEN)$169,251,000$198,790,000$209,652,00010/22/2010B&V E-2 and E-416Table 9 - PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Updated Cost AnalysisTechnology:Selective Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 3Date:10/21/2010Cost Item$Remarks/Cost BasisOriginal 2007 BART Cost EstimateCAPITAL COSTEscalation EscalationDirect CostsCurrent ValueComments on Updatesto Oct 2010PercentagePurchased equipment costsAnhydrous Ammonia Injection System $559,000 B&V cost estimate $559,000 $605,956 8.4%Anhydrous Ammonia Vaporization System $559,000 B&V cost estimate $559,000 $605,956 8.4%Reactor Box, Breeching and Ductwork $5,613,000 B&V cost estimate$5,051,700 Adjustement for ASTM A572$5,617,490 11.2%Ductwork Expansion Joints$371,000 B&V cost estimate$185,500 Correction$201,082 8.4%Catalyst$3,225,000 B&V cost estimate$3,225,000$3,225,000 0.0%Sonic Horns$188,000 B&V cost estimate$188,000$203,792 8.4%Elevator$1,236,000 B&V cost estimate$1,236,000$1,339,824 8.4%SCR Bypass$10,000,000 B&V cost estimate$10,000,000$11,120,000 11.2%Structural Steel$7,816,000 B&V cost estimate$7,816,000$8,472,544 8.4%NOx Monitoring System$440,000 B&V cost estimate$440,000$476,960 8.4%Electrical System Upgrade$484,000 B&V cost estimate$484,000$524,656 8.4%Auxiliary Electric System Requirements$0 Not in estimate$8,350,000 Added, Refer to Sect. 3.0$8,350,000 0.0%Instrumentation and Control System$291,000 B&V cost estimate$291,000$315,444 8.4%Subtotal capital cost (CC)$30,782,000$38,385,200$41,058,704Gross Receipt Tax$1,905,000 (CC) X 6.2%$2,375,000$2,541,000Freight$1,539,000 (CC) X 5.0%$1,919,000$2,053,000Total purchased equipment cost (PEC)$34,226,000$42,679,000$45,653,000Direct installation costsFoundation & supports$10,268,000 (PEC) X 30.0%$12,803,700$13,597,529 6.2%Handling & erection$13,690,000 (PEC) X 40.0%$17,071,600$18,130,039 6.2%Electrical$5,134,000 (PEC) X 15.0%$6,401,850$6,798,765 6.2%Piping$856,000 (PEC) X 2.5%$1,066,975$1,133,127 6.2%Insulation$3,423,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$4,267,900$4,532,510 6.2%Painting$342,000 (PEC) X 1.0%$426,790$453,251 6.2%Demolition$3,423,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$4,267,900$4,532,510 6.2%Relocation$1,711,000 (PEC) X 5.0%$2,133,950$2,266,255 6.2%Total direct installation costs (DIC)$38,847,000$48,440,665$51,443,986Air preheater modifications$8,685,000 B&V cost estimate$5,090,000 Correction$5,517,560 8.4%Balanced draft conversion$17,122,000 B&V cost estimate$18,714,000 Refer to Section 4.0$20,285,976 8.4%Site preparation$2,000,000 Engineering estimate$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0%Buildings & enclosures$500,000 Engineering estimate$500,000$500,000 0.0%Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $101,380,000$117,424,000$125,401,000Indirect CostsEngineering$7,097,000 (DC) X 7.0%$8,219,680$8,778,070Owner's cost$5,069,000 (DC) X 5.0%$5,871,200$6,270,050Construction management$10,138,000 (DC) X 10.0%$11,742,400$12,540,100Construction indirect$25,498,000 B&V labor market review $31,795,855$33,767,198 6.2%Start-up and spare parts$3,041,000 (DC) X 3.0%$3,522,720$3,762,030Performance test$200,000 Engineering estimate$200,000$200,000Contingencies$20,276,000 (DC) X 20.0%$23,484,800$25,080,200Total indirect costs (IC)$71,319,000$84,837,000$90,398,000Interest During Construction (IDC)$19,195,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41%$22,481,000$22,481,000Loss Generation during Outage (GEN)$23,674,000$23,674,000$23,674,000Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) + (GEN)$215,568,000$248,416,000$261,954,00010/22/2010B&V E-2 and E-417Table 10 - PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Updated Cost AnalysisTechnology:Selective Catalytic Reduction - SJGS Unit 4Date:10/21/2010Cost Item$Remarks/Cost BasisOriginal 2007 BART Cost EstimateCAPITAL COSTEscalation EscalationDirect CostsCurrent ValueComments on Updatesto Oct 2010PercentagePurchased equipment costsAnhydrous Ammonia Injection System $559,000 B&V cost estimate $559,000 $605,956 8.4%Anhydrous Ammonia Vaporization System $559,000 B&V cost estimate $559,000 $605,956 8.4%Reactor Box, Breeching and Ductwork $5,648,000 B&V cost estimate$5,083,200 Adjustement for ASTM A572$5,652,518 11.2%Ductwork Expansion Joints$373,000 B&V cost estimate$186,500 Correction$202,166 8.4%Catalyst$3,245,000 B&V cost estimate$3,245,000$3,245,000 0.0%Sonic Horns$188,000 B&V cost estimate$188,000$203,792 8.4%Elevator$1,236,000 B&V cost estimate$1,236,000$1,339,824 8.4%Structural Steel$6,252,000 B&V cost estimate$6,252,000$6,952,224 11.2%SCR Bypass$10,000,000 B&V cost estimate$10,000,000$10,840,000 8.4%NOx Monitoring System$440,000 B&V cost estimate$440,000$476,960 8.4%Electrical System Upgrade$484,000 B&V cost estimate$484,000$524,656 8.4%Auxiliary Electric System Requirements$0 Not in estimate$8,350,000 Added, Refer to Sect. 3.0$8,350,000 0.0%Instrumentation and Control System$291,000 B&V cost estimate$291,000$315,444 8.4%Subtotal capital cost (CC)$29,275,000$36,873,700$39,314,496Gross Receipt Tax$1,811,000 (CC) X 6.2%$2,282,000$2,433,000Freight$1,464,000 (CC) X 5.0%$1,844,000$1,966,000Total purchased equipment cost (PEC)$32,550,000$41,000,000$43,713,000Direct installation costsFoundation & supports$9,765,000 (PEC) X 30.0%$12,300,000$13,062,600 6.2%Handling & erection$9,765,000 (PEC) X 30.0%$12,300,000$13,062,600 6.2%Electrical$4,883,000 (PEC) X 15.0%$6,150,000$6,531,300 6.2%Piping$814,000 (PEC) X 2.5%$1,025,000$1,088,550 6.2%Insulation$3,255,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$4,100,000$4,354,200 6.2%Painting$326,000 (PEC) X 1.0%$410,000$435,420 6.2%Demolition$3,255,000 (PEC) X 10.0%$4,100,000$4,354,200 6.2%Relocation$1,628,000 (PEC) X 5.0%$2,050,000$2,177,100 6.2%Total direct installation costs (DIC)$33,691,000$42,435,000$45,065,970Air preheater modifications$8,685,000 B&V cost estimate$5,090,000 Correction$5,517,560 8.4%Balanced draft conversion$17,122,000 B&V cost estimate$18,714,000 Refer to Section 4.0$20,285,976 8.4%Site preparation$2,000,000 Engineering estimate$2,000,000$2,000,000 0.0%Buildings & enclosures$500,000 Engineering estimate$500,000$500,000 0.0%Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $94,548,000$109,739,000$117,083,000Indirect CostsEngineering$6,618,000 (DC) X 7.0%$7,681,730$8,195,810Owner's cost$4,727,000 (DC) X 5.0%$5,486,950$5,854,150Construction management$9,455,000 (DC) X 10.0%$10,973,900$11,708,300Construction indirect$20,996,000 B&V labor market review $26,445,000$28,084,590 6.2%Start-up and spare parts$2,836,000 (DC) X 3.0%$3,292,170$3,512,490Performance test$200,000 Engineering estimate$200,000$200,000Contingencies$18,910,000 (DC) X 20.0%$21,947,800$23,416,600Total indirect costs (IC)$63,742,000$76,028,000$80,972,000Interest During Construction (IDC)$17,594,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41%$20,648,000$20,648,000Loss Generation during Outage (GEN)$23,674,000$23,674,000$23,674,000Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) + (GEN)$199,558,000$230,089,000$242,377,000

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 Appendix A

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### include graphs

Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (4:43:35 PM)



## Producer Price Index Industry Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2007 118.3 118.3 119.6 118.9 119.2 119.8 119.8 120.9 120.9 120.9 121.7 124.3 120.2
2008 130.1 136.7 137.3 139.0 143.3 146.6 148.4 152.4 151.3 151.7 151.2 151.0 144.9
2009 148.4 145.8 143.5 141.7 138.6 136.5 136.0 135.8 136.7 136.8 134.3 134.6 139.1
2010 134.7 135.0 135.1 136.2 136.9 136.7(P) 136.3(P) 136.2(P) 137.5(P) P : Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original publication. **Series Id:** PCU332313332313 **Industry:** Plate work manufacturing **Product:** Plate work manufacturing

**Base Date:** 200312

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCON TINUED DATABASES FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServletSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### include graphs

Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (10:24:46 AM)



## Producer Price Index Industry Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2007 153.5 147.6 148.9 154.6 160.8 162.6 166.8 170.3 167.0 169.8 168.5 164.9 161.3
2008 165.8 167.2 175.5 175.4 176.8 174.1 175.9 173.9 171.9 163.4 148.5 146.8 167.9
2009 143.2 142.1 141.2 148.6 153.8 154.6 156.5 159.7 161.2 162.3 164.7 169.8 154.8
2010 169.7 172.5 169.6 173.3 173.6 170.5(P) 169.2(P) 169.7(P) 166.1(P) P : Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original publication. **Series Id:** PCU33592-33592- **Industry:** Communication & energy wire & cable mfg **Product:** Communication & energy wire & cable mfg

**Base Date:** 200312

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCON TINUED DATABASES FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServletSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### include graphs

Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (10:35:04 AM)



## Producer Price Index Industry Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2007 169.4 167.2 168.6 169.8 170.1 169.1 168.8 168.1 167.0 167.1 165.3 166.7 168.1
2008 170.2 176.1 186.0 197.2 207.9 218.9 223.0 225.8 227.7 228.8 214.1 203.0 206.6
2009 182.8 177.4 172.9 161.6 158.1 152.2 153.2 157.3 164.1 166.1 164.8 166.2 164.7
2010 170.8 174.7 185.0 190.0 195.7 194.0(P) 196.6(P) 193.7(P) 195.7(P) P : Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original publication. **Series Id:** PCU33121-33121- **Industry:** Iron/steel pipe & tube mfg from purch steel **Product:** Iron/steel pipe & tube mfg from purch steel

**Base Date:** 200312

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCON TINUED DATABASES FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServletSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### include graphs

Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (10:36:26 AM)



## Producer Price Index Industry Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2007 115.2 116.3 116.7 117.6 117.9 118.0 118.1 118.4 118.6 119.1 119.3 119.5 117.9
2008 120.9 121.5 122.0 121.9 122.4 122.9 123.8 124.8 125.8 125.6 126.0 126.2 123.6
2009 127.0 127.0 127.0 127.2 127.2 127.4 127.7 127.6 127.9 127.8 127.8 127.9 127.5
2010 128.2 128.2 128.4 128.4 128.8 128.7(P) 129.0(P) 129.4(P) 129.7(P) P : Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original publication. **Series Id:** PCU33391-33391- **Industry:** Pump and compressor manufacturing **Product:** Pump and compressor manufacturing

**Base Date:** 200312

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCON TINUED DATABASES FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServletSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### include graphs

Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (10:38:09 AM)



## Producer Price Index Industry Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2007 175.2 177.1 178.4 179.1 179.1 179.2 179.6 177.7 181.7 181.3 182.1 182.5 179.4
2008 180.9 183.3 183.7 185.3 184.8 186.7 188.5 191.1 190.7 191.8 191.0 192.3 187.5
2009 193.9 190.4 193.2 194.7 190.6 191.7 191.7 193.8 193.6 194.2 194.6 194.5 193.1
2010 194.2 193.4 194.5 194.7 194.2 196.2(P) 194.6(P) 195.5(P) 195.2(P) P : Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original publication. **Series Id:** PCU335313335313 **Industry:** Switchgear and switchboard apparatus mfg **Product:** Switchgear and switchboard apparatus mfg

**Base Date:** 198506

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCON TINUED DATABASES FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServletSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### include graphs

Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (10:27:59 AM)



## Producer Price Index Industry Data

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2007 128.8 129.3 131.0 131.4 132.6 132.6 132.8 133.3 133.5 133.9 134.3 134.4 132.3
2008 134.6 136.9 138.1 140.3 142.6 144.4 145.5 147.3 147.1 147.6 147.0 146.8 143.2
2009 146.5 145.8 145.6 143.4 142.5 141.2 140.9 140.5 140.2 140.4 140.3 140.2 142.3
2010 139.2 139.1 139.1 140.1 140.5 141.1(P) 141.0(P) 141.0(P) 140.8(P) P : Preliminary. All indexes are subject to revision four months after original publication. **Series Id:** PCU33242-33242- **Industry:** Metal tank (heavy gauge) mfg **Product:** Metal tank (heavy gauge) mfg

**Base Date:** 200312

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCON TINUED DATABASES FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServletSubscribe to E-mail Updates: Enter E-mail Address SUBSCRIBE

A to Z Index | Site Map | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us



### Search:

Home Subject Areas Databases & Tables Publications Economic Releases

What's New | Release Calendar 

# Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject FONT SIZE:



### Change Output Options: From: 2007 To: 2010



### Data extracted on: October 20, 2010 (11:44:21 AM)



## Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

Year Period Cost of compensation (Cost per hour worked) Percent of total compensation
2007 Qtr1 29.02 100.0 2007 Qtr2 29.48 100.0 2007 Qtr3 29.77 100.0 2007 Qtr4 29.88 100.0
2008 Qtr1 30.33 100.0 2008 Qtr2 30.60 100.0 2008 Qtr3 30.92 100.0 2008 Qtr4 31.21 100.0 2009 Qtr1 31.33 100.0 2009 Qtr2 31.53 100.0 2009 Qtr3 31.65 100.0 2009 Qtr4 30.99 100.0
2010 Qtr1 31.20 100.0 2010 Qtr2 31.43 100.0 V : See www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/mapnote.htm for details regarding the Farming, fishing, and forestry series. **Series Id:** CMU1010000405000D,CMU1010000405000P (V) **Compensation Component:** Total compensation **Employer/Employee Charac.:** Construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations

**Sector:** All Civilian

Download: Beta

TOP PICKS SERIES REPORT DISCONTINUED DATABASE S FAQs SPECIAL NOTICES MORE SOURCES OF DATA 

# Pa g e 1 of 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

10/20/2010 htt p ://data.bls. g ov/PDQ/servlet/Surve y Out p utServlet

# 10/22/2010 B&V E-2 and E-4 Appendix B

Draft System Pressure Curves10/22/2010B&V E-2 and E-410/22/2010B&V E-2 and E-4

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 4

Updated Costs for ROFA, ROFA/Rotamix, Rotamix, and SCR/SNCR Hybrid SystemsPNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: SNCR/SCR Hybrid - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2007 Dollars Taken from 2007 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Hybrid system scope: $15,753,000 B&V cost development from vendor quote $17,076,000 8.4% Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature, NOx monitors Reagent storage tank Single layer catalyst SCR system Ductwork modifications Electrical system upgrades $378,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $410,000 8.4% Instrumentation and control system $279,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $302,000 8.4% Subtotal capital cost (CC) $16,410,000 $17,788,000 Gross Receipt Tax $1,015,000 (CC) X 6.2% $1,101,000 Freight $821,000 (CC) X 5.0% $889,000 Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $18,246,000 $19,778,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $3,649,000 (PEC) X 20.0% $3,875,000 6.2% Handling & erection $5,474,000 (PEC) X 30.0% $5,813,000 6.2% Electrical $2,737,000 (PEC) X 15.0% $2,907,000 6.2% Piping $456,000 (PEC) X 2.5% $484,000 6.2% Insulation $1,825,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $1,938,000 6.2% Painting $182,000 (PEC) X 1.0% $193,000 6.2% Demolition $1,825,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $1,938,000 6.2% Relocation $912,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $969,000 6.2% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $17,060,000 $18,117,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,161,000 8.4% Balanced draft conversion $13,366,000 B&V cost estimate $14,489,000 8.4% Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate $1,000,000 0.0% Buildings $200,000 Engineering estimate $200,000 0.0% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $50,943,000 $54,745,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $3,566,000 (DC) X 7.0% $3,832,000 Owner's cost $2,547,000 (DC) X 5.0% $2,737,000 Construction management $5,094,000 (DC) X 10.0% $5,475,000 Construction indirect $11,222,000 B&V labor market review $11,918,000 6.2% Start-up and spare parts $1,528,000 (DC) X 3.0% $1,642,000 Performance test $509,000 (DC) X 1.0% $547,000 Contingencies $10,189,000 (DC) X 20.0% $10,949,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $34,655,000 $37,100,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $3,171,000 $3,171,000 Loss Generation during Outage (GEN) $15,667,000 $15,667,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (GEN) $104,436,000 $110,683,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor & materials $1,528,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $1,653,000

Variable annual costs Urea $1,703,000 1,089 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Water $1,762,000 252 gpm and 15.67 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Catalyst replacement $215,000 33 m3 and 6,500 $/m3 2 yr catalyst replacement rate Auxiliary power $32,000 70 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate ID fan power $670,000 1,477 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $4,382,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $6,035,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $10,781,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $10,781,000 Calculated from escalated costs

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $16,816,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: SNCR/SCR Hybrid - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2007 Dollars Taken from 2007 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Hybrid system scope: $15,753,000 B&V cost development from vendor quote $17,076,000 8.4% Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature, NOx monitors Reagent storage tank Single layer catalyst SCR system Ductwork modifications Electrical system upgrades $372,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $403,000 8.4% Instrumentation and control system $278,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $301,000 8.4% Subtotal capital cost (CC) $16,403,000 $17,780,000 Gross Receipt Tax $1,015,000 (CC) X 6.2% $1,100,000 Freight $820,000 (CC) X 5.0% $889,000 Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $18,238,000 $19,769,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $3,648,000 (PEC) X 20.0% $3,874,000 6.2% Handling & erection $7,295,000 (PEC) X 40.0% $7,747,000 6.2% Electrical $2,736,000 (PEC) X 15.0% $2,906,000 6.2% Piping $456,000 (PEC) X 2.5% $484,000 6.2% Insulation $1,824,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $1,937,000 6.2% Painting $182,000 (PEC) X 1.0% $193,000 6.2% Demolition $1,824,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $1,937,000 6.2% Relocation $912,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $969,000 6.2% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $18,877,000 $20,047,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,161,000 8.4% Balanced draft conversion $13,366,000 B&V cost estimate $14,489,000 8.4% Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate $1,000,000 0.0% Buildings $200,000 Engineering estimate $200,000 0.0% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $52,752,000 $56,666,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $3,693,000 (DC) X 7.0% $3,967,000 Owner's cost $2,638,000 (DC) X 5.0% $2,833,000 Construction management $5,275,000 (DC) X 10.0% $5,667,000 Construction indirect $13,041,000 B&V labor market review $13,850,000 6.2% Start-up and spare parts $1,583,000 (DC) X 3.0% $1,700,000 Performance test $528,000 (DC) X 1.0% $567,000 Contingencies $10,550,000 (DC) X 20.0% $11,333,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $37,308,000 $39,917,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $3,337,000 $3,337,000 Loss Generation during Outage (GEN) $15,231,000 $15,231,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (GEN) $108,628,000 $115,151,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor & materials $1,583,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $1,708,000

Variable annual costs Urea $1,703,000 1,089 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Water $1,762,000 252 gpm and 15.67 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Catalyst replacement $215,000 33 m3 and 6,500 $/m3 2 yr catalyst replacement rate Auxiliary power $32,000 70 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate ID fan power $670,000 1,477 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $4,382,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $6,090,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $11,216,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $11,216,000 Calculated from escalated costs

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $17,306,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: SNCR/SCR Hybrid - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2007 Dollars Taken from 2007 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Hybrid system scope: $23,680,000 B&V cost development from vendor quote $25,669,000 8.4% Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature, NOx monitors Reagent storage tank Single layer catalyst SCR system Ductwork modifications Electrical system upgrades $484,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $525,000 8.4% Instrumentation and control system $291,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $315,000 8.4% Subtotal capital cost (CC) $24,455,000 $26,509,000 Gross Receipt Tax $1,513,000 (CC) X 6.2% $1,640,000 Freight $1,223,000 (CC) X 5.0% $1,325,000 Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $27,191,000 $29,474,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $5,438,000 (PEC) X 20.0% $5,775,000 6.2% Handling & erection $10,876,000 (PEC) X 40.0% $11,550,000 6.2% Electrical $4,079,000 (PEC) X 15.0% $4,332,000 6.2% Piping $680,000 (PEC) X 2.5% $722,000 6.2% Insulation $2,719,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $2,888,000 6.2% Painting $272,000 (PEC) X 1.0% $289,000 6.2% Demolition $2,719,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $2,888,000 6.2% Relocation $1,360,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $1,444,000 6.2% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $28,143,000 $29,888,000

Air preheater modifications $8,685,000 B&V cost estimate $9,415,000 8.4% Balanced draft conversion $17,122,000 B&V cost estimate $18,560,000 8.4% Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate $1,000,000 0.0% Buildings $200,000 Engineering estimate $200,000 0.0% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $82,341,000 $88,537,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $5,764,000 (DC) X 7.0% $6,198,000 Owner's cost $4,117,000 (DC) X 5.0% $4,427,000 Construction management $8,234,000 (DC) X 10.0% $8,854,000 Construction indirect $19,442,000 B&V labor market review $20,647,000 6.2% Start-up and spare parts $2,470,000 (DC) X 3.0% $2,656,000 Performance test $823,000 (DC) X 1.0% $885,000 Contingencies $16,468,000 (DC) X 20.0% $17,707,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $57,318,000 $61,374,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $5,174,000 $5,174,000 Loss Generation during Outage (GEN) $23,674,000 $23,674,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (GEN) $168,507,000 $178,759,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor & materials $2,470,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $2,595,000

Variable annual costs Urea $2,641,000 1,689 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Water $2,658,000 380 gpm and 15.67 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Catalyst replacement $270,000 42 m3 and 6,500 $/m3 2 yr catalyst replacement rate Auxiliary power $32,000 70 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate ID fan power $997,000 2,197 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $6,598,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $9,193,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $17,411,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $17,411,000 Calculated from escalated costs

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $26,604,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: SNCR/SCR Hybrid - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2007 Dollars Taken from 2007 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Hybrid system scope: $23,680,000 B&V cost development from vendor quote $25,669,000 8.4% Reagent delivery system Wall injectors and multiple nozzle lances Automatic injector and lance retract system Flue gas temperature, NOx monitors Reagent storage tank Single layer catalyst SCR system Ductwork modifications Electrical system upgrades $484,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $525,000 8.4% Instrumentation and control system $291,000 Similar scope to SCR modifications $315,000 8.4% Subtotal capital cost (CC) $24,455,000 $26,509,000 Gross Receipt Tax $1,513,000 (CC) X 6.2% $1,640,000 Freight $1,223,000 (CC) X 5.0% $1,325,000 Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $27,191,000 $29,474,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $5,438,000 (PEC) X 20.0% $5,775,000 6.2% Handling & erection $8,157,000 (PEC) X 30.0% $8,663,000 6.2% Electrical $4,079,000 (PEC) X 15.0% $4,332,000 6.2% Piping $680,000 (PEC) X 2.5% $722,000 6.2% Insulation $2,719,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $2,888,000 6.2% Painting $272,000 (PEC) X 1.0% $289,000 6.2% Demolition $2,719,000 (PEC) X 10.0% $2,888,000 6.2% Relocation $1,360,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $1,444,000 6.2% Total direct installation costs (DIC) $25,424,000 $27,001,000

Air preheater modifications $8,685,000 B&V cost estimate $9,415,000 8.4% Balanced draft conversion $17,122,000 B&V cost estimate $18,560,000 8.4% Site preparation $1,000,000 Engineering estimate $1,000,000 0.0% Buildings $200,000 Engineering estimate $200,000 0.0% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $79,622,000 $85,650,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $5,574,000 (DC) X 7.0% $5,996,000 Owner's cost $3,981,000 (DC) X 5.0% $4,283,000 Construction management $7,962,000 (DC) X 10.0% $8,565,000 Construction indirect $16,723,000 B&V labor market review $17,760,000 6.2% Start-up and spare parts $2,389,000 (DC) X 3.0% $2,570,000 Performance test $796,000 (DC) X 1.0% $857,000 Contingencies $15,924,000 (DC) X 20.0% $17,130,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $53,349,000 $57,161,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $4,927,000 $4,927,000 Loss Generation during Outage (GEN) $23,674,000 $23,674,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (GEN) $161,572,000 $171,412,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated manpower level Maintenance labor & materials $2,389,000 (DC) X 3.0% Total fixed annual costs $2,514,000

Variable annual costs Urea $2,641,000 1,689 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Engineering estimate Water $2,658,000 380 gpm and 15.67 $/1,000 gal Engineering estimate Catalyst replacement $270,000 42 m3 and 6,500 $/m3 2 yr catalyst replacement rate Auxiliary power $32,000 70 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate ID fan power $997,000 2,197 kW and 0.06095 $/kWh Engineering estimate Total variable annual costs $6,598,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $9,112,000

Indirect Annual Costs Cost for capital recovery $16,696,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $16,696,000 Calculated from escalated costs

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $25,808,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA - Unit 1 Date: 8/15/2008

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $6,681,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $7,075,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,159,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans $1,227,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $8,185,000 $8,667,000 Gross Receipt Tax $506,447 (CC) X 6.2% $536,271 Freight $409,250 (CC) X 5.0% $433,350

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $9,101,000 $9,637,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $252,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $261,000 3.6% Handling & erection $1,843,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $1,909,000 3.6% Electrical $435,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $451,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $301,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $312,000 3.6% Relocation $455,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $471,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,286,000 $3,404,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $12,387,000 $13,041,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,239,000 (DC) X 10.0% $1,304,000 Owner's cost $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% $652,000 Construction management $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% $652,000 Start-up and spare parts $248,000 (DC) X 2.0% $261,000 Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $50,000 No escalation Contingencies $2,477,000 (DC) X 20.0% $2,608,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $5,252,000 $5,527,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $654,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $688,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $18,293,000 $19,256,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $310,000 (DC) X 2.5%

Total fixed annual costs $310,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,363,000 3000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $1,363,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,673,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,876,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,876,000 Calculated from escalated costs

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,549,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA - Unit 2 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basi s

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $6,681,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $7,075,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,159,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans $1,227,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $8,185,000 $8,667,000 Gross Receipt Tax $506,447 (CC) X 6.2% $536,271 Freight $409,250 (CC) X 5.0% $433,350

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $9,101,000 $9,637,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $252,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $261,000 3.6% Handling & erection $1,843,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $1,909,000 3.6% Electrical $435,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $451,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $301,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $312,000 3.6% Relocation $455,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $471,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,286,000 $3,404,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $12,387,000 $13,041,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,239,000 (DC) X 10.0% $1,304,000 Owner's cost $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% $652,000 Construction management $619,000 (DC) X 5.0% $652,000 Start-up and spare parts $248,000 (DC) X 2.0% $261,000 Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $50,000 No escalation Contingencies $2,477,000 (DC) X 20.0% $2,608,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $5,252,000 $5,527,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $654,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $688,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $18,293,000 $19,256,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $310,000 (DC) X 2.5%

Total fixed annual costs $310,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,363,000 3000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $1,363,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $1,673,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,876,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,876,000 Calculated from escalated costs

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,549,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA - Unit 3 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $7,651,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $8,102,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,214,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans $1,286,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $9,210,000 $9,753,000 Gross Receipt Tax $569,869 (CC) X 6.2% $603,467 Freight $460,500 (CC) X 5.0% $487,650

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $10,240,000 $10,844,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $328,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $340,000 3.6% Handling & erection $2,152,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $2,229,000 3.6% Electrical $585,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $606,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $396,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $410,000 3.6% Relocation $512,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $530,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,973,000 $4,115,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $14,213,000 $14,959,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,421,000 (DC) X 10.0% $1,496,000 Owner's cost $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% $748,000 Construction management $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% $748,000 Start-up and spare parts $284,000 (DC) X 2.0% $299,000 Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $50,000 No escalation Contingencies $2,843,000 (DC) X 20.0% $2,992,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $6,020,000 $6,333,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $750,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $789,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $20,983,000 $22,081,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $355,000 (DC) X 2.5%

Total fixed annual costs $355,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,725,000 6000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco-Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,725,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,080,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $2,151,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,151,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $5,231,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA - Unit 4 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA system scope: $7,651,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $8,102,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 Estimated cost based on 8/15/08 phone call with Nalco Mobotec $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,214,000 New transformer and electrical upgrades for new ROFA booster fans $1,286,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $9,210,000 $9,753,000 Gross Receipt Tax $569,869 (CC) X 6.2% $603,467 Freight $460,500 (CC) X 5.0% $487,650

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $10,240,000 $10,844,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $328,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $340,000 3.6% Handling & erection $2,152,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $2,229,000 3.6% Electrical $585,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $606,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $396,000 B&V cost estimate - see estimating notes $410,000 3.6% Relocation $512,000 (PEC) X 5.0% $530,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,973,000 $4,115,000

Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $14,213,000 $14,959,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,421,000 (DC) X 10.0% $1,496,000 Owner's cost $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% $748,000 Construction management $711,000 (DC) X 5.0% $748,000 Start-up and spare parts $284,000 (DC) X 2.0% $299,000 Performance test $50,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $50,000 No escalation Contingencies $2,843,000 (DC) X 20.0% $2,992,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $6,020,000 $6,333,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $750,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $789,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $20,983,000 $22,081,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs Maintenance labor and materials $355,000 (DC) X 2.5%

Total fixed annual costs $355,000

Variable annual costs Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,725,000 6000 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco-Mobotec pr o Total variable annual costs $2,725,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,080,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $2,151,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,151,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $5,231,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,101,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $2,225,000 5.9% Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems $200,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,510,000 $2,658,000 Gross Receipt Tax $155,306 (CC) X 6.2% $164,464 Freight $125,500 (CC) X 5.0% $132,900

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $2,791,000 $2,955,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $587,000 3.6% Handling & erection $1,702,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $1,763,000 3.6% Electrical $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $587,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $284,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $294,000 3.6% Relocation $113,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $117,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,233,000 $3,348,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 5.9% Buildings $0 N/A $0 5.9% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $7,095,000 $7,437,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $708,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $733,000 3.6% Owner's cost $355,000 (DC) X 5.0% $372,000 Construction management $1,012,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $1,048,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $213,000 (DC) X 3.0% $223,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $1,419,000 (DC) X 20.0% $1,487,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $3,807,000 $3,963,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $404,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $422,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $11,306,000 $11,822,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $213,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $338,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,053,000 1,313 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $51,000 112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $4,000 24 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,108,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,446,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,151,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,151,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,597,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,101,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $2,225,000 5.9% Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $189,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems $200,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,510,000 $2,658,000 Gross Receipt Tax $155,306 (CC) X 6.2% $164,464 Freight $125,500 (CC) X 5.0% $132,900

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $2,791,000 $2,955,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $587,000 3.6% Handling & erection $1,702,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $1,763,000 3.6% Electrical $567,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $587,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $284,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $294,000 3.6% Relocation $113,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $117,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $3,233,000 $3,348,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 5.9% Buildings $0 N/A $0 5.9% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $7,095,000 $7,437,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $708,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $733,000 3.6% Owner's cost $355,000 (DC) X 5.0% $372,000 Construction management $1,012,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $1,048,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $213,000 (DC) X 3.0% $223,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $1,419,000 (DC) X 20.0% $1,487,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $3,807,000 $3,963,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $404,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $422,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $11,306,000 $11,822,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $213,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $338,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,053,000 1,313 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $51,000 112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $4,000 24 gpm and 0.33 $/kgal Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $2,108,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $2,446,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,151,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,151,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $3,597,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,337,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $2,475,000 5.9% Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems $256,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,799,000 $2,964,000 Gross Receipt Tax $173,188 (CC) X 6.2% $183,398 Freight $139,950 (CC) X 5.0% $148,200

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $3,112,000 $3,296,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $746,000 3.6% Handling & erection $2,159,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $2,237,000 3.6% Electrical $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $746,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $360,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $373,000 3.6% Relocation $144,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $149,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $4,103,000 $4,251,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 5.9% Buildings $0 N/A $0 5.9% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $8,286,000 $8,681,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $879,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $911,000 3.6% Owner's cost $414,000 (DC) X 5.0% $434,000 Construction management $1,255,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $1,300,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $249,000 (DC) X 3.0% $260,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $1,657,000 (DC) X 20.0% $1,736,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $4,554,000 $4,741,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $476,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $497,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $13,316,000 $13,919,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $249,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $374,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $3,169,000 2,026 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $84,000 186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 37 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga l Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,258,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,632,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,356,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,356,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,988,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: Rotamix - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs Rotamix system scope: $2,337,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $2,475,000 5.9% Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix NOx monitoring system $220,000 B&V cost estimate - not included in Nalco-Mobotec proposal $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $242,000 B&V cost estimate - for reagent preparation, injection systems $256,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $2,799,000 $2,964,000 Gross Receipt Tax $173,188 (CC) X 6.2% $183,398 Freight $139,950 (CC) X 5.0% $148,200

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $3,112,000 $3,296,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $746,000 3.6% Handling & erection $2,159,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $2,237,000 3.6% Electrical $720,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $746,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $360,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $373,000 3.6% Relocation $144,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $149,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $4,103,000 $4,251,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 5.9% Buildings $0 N/A $0 5.9% Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $8,286,000 $8,681,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $879,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $911,000 3.6% Owner's cost $414,000 (DC) X 5.0% $434,000 Construction management $1,255,000 same cost as SNCR system estimate - 5/5/08 $1,300,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $249,000 (DC) X 3.0% $260,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $1,657,000 (DC) X 20.0% $1,736,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $4,554,000 $4,741,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $476,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $497,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $13,316,000 $13,919,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $249,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $374,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $3,169,000 2,026 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $84,000 186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 37 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga l Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,258,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,632,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $1,356,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $1,356,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $4,988,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 1 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $8,782,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $9,300,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,348,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,428,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $10,475,000 $11,093,000 Gross Receipt Tax $648,141 (CC) X 6.2% $686,379 Freight $523,750 (CC) X 5.0% $554,650

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $11,647,000 $12,334,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $819,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $848,000 3.6% Handling & erection $3,545,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $3,673,000 3.6% Electrical $1,002,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,038,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $585,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $606,000 3.6% Relocation $568,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $588,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $6,519,000 $6,753,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 Buildings $0 N/A $0 Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $19,237,000 $20,221,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,947,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $2,017,000 3.6% Owner's cost $962,000 (DC) X 5.0% $1,011,000 Construction management $1,631,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,690,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $577,000 (DC) X 3.0% $607,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $3,847,000 (DC) X 20.0% $4,044,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $9,064,000 $9,469,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,049,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $1,100,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $29,350,000 $30,790,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $577,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $702,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,785,000 1,142 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,413,000 3,112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $3,000 21 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga l Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,201,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,903,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $2,999,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,999,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $6,902,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 2 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $8,782,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $9,300,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,348,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,428,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $10,475,000 $11,093,000 Gross Receipt Tax $648,141 (CC) X 6.2% $686,379 Freight $523,750 (CC) X 5.0% $554,650

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $11,647,000 $12,334,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $819,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $848,000 3.6% Handling & erection $3,545,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $3,673,000 3.6% Electrical $1,002,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,038,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $585,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $606,000 3.6% Relocation $568,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $588,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $6,519,000 $6,753,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 Buildings $0 N/A $0 Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $19,237,000 $20,221,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $1,947,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $2,017,000 3.6% Owner's cost $962,000 (DC) X 5.0% $1,011,000 Construction management $1,631,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,690,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $577,000 (DC) X 3.0% $607,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $3,847,000 (DC) X 20.0% $4,044,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $9,064,000 $9,469,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,049,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $1,100,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $29,350,000 $30,790,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $577,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $702,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $1,785,000 1,142 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $1,413,000 3,112 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $3,000 21 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga l Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $3,201,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $3,903,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $2,999,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $2,999,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $6,902,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 3 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $9,988,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $10,577,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,456,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,542,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $11,789,000 $12,484,000 Gross Receipt Tax $729,444 (CC) X 6.2% $772,448 Freight $589,450 (CC) X 5.0% $624,200

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $13,108,000 $13,881,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $1,048,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,086,000 3.6% Handling & erection $4,311,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $4,466,000 3.6% Electrical $1,305,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,352,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $756,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $783,000 3.6% Relocation $656,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $680,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $8,076,000 $8,367,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 Buildings $0 N/A $0 Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $22,255,000 $23,382,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $2,300,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $2,383,000 3.6% Owner's cost $1,113,000 (DC) X 5.0% $1,169,000 Construction management $1,966,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $2,037,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $668,000 (DC) X 3.0% $701,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $4,451,000 (DC) X 20.0% $4,676,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $10,598,000 $11,066,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,217,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $1,276,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $34,070,000 $35,724,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $668,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $793,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,722,000 1,741 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,810,000 6,186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 32 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga l Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $5,537,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $6,330,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $3,480,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $3,480,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $9,810,000PNM SJGS BART Analysis - Cost Analysis (Draft) Escalated to Fourth Quarter 2010 Dollars Technology: ROFA & Rotamix - SJGS Unit 4 Date: 2/8/2011

Cost Item $ Remarks/Cost Basis

CAPITAL COST Estimate Escalation Escalation Direct Costs in 2008 Dollars Taken from 2008 BART 4th Qrtr 2010 Percentage Purchased equipment costs ROFA-Rotamix system scope: $9,988,000 Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 $10,577,000 5.9% ROFA fan ROFA ports with boiler tube bends ROFA ductwork Instrumentation for ROFA Rotamix fan Rotamix ports with boiler tube bends Reagent and water storage tanks Reagent, water pump skids Rotamix injection lances Instrumentation for Rotamix Contingency for combustion system modifications $125,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $132,000 5.9% NOx monitoring system $220,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $233,000 5.9% Electrical system upgrades $1,456,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,542,000 5.9%

Subtotal capital cost (CC) $11,789,000 $12,484,000 Gross Receipt Tax $729,444 (CC) X 6.2% $772,448 Freight $589,450 (CC) X 5.0% $624,200

Total purchased equipment cost (PEC) $13,108,000 $13,881,000

Direct installation costs Foundation & supports $1,048,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,086,000 3.6% Handling & erection $4,311,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $4,466,000 3.6% Electrical $1,305,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $1,352,000 3.6% Piping included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Insulation included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Painting included Nalco-Mobotec proposal, 2/1/2008 included 3.6% Demolition $756,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $783,000 3.6% Relocation $656,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $680,000 3.6%

Total direct installation costs (DIC) $8,076,000 $8,367,000

Air preheater modifications $1,071,000 B&V cost estimate $1,134,000 5.9% Site preparation $0 N/A $0 Buildings $0 N/A $0 Total direct costs (DC) = (PEC) + (DIC) $22,255,000 $23,382,000

Indirect Costs Engineering $2,300,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $2,383,000 3.6% Owner's cost $1,113,000 (DC) X 5.0% $1,169,000 Construction management $1,966,000 ROFA + Rotamix cost $2,037,000 3.6% Start-up and spare parts $668,000 (DC) X 3.0% $701,000 Performance test $100,000 (DC) X Engineering estimate $100,000 No escalation Contingencies $4,451,000 (DC) X 20.0% $4,676,000 Total indirect costs (IC) $10,598,000 $11,066,000

Interest During Construction (IDC) $1,217,000 [(DC)+(IC)] X 7.41% 1 years (project time length X 1/2) $1,276,000

Total Capital Investment (TCI) = (DC) + (IC) + (IDC) $34,070,000 $35,724,000

ANNUAL COST Direct Annual Costs Fixed annual costs

Operating labor $125,000 1 FTE and 124,862 $/year Estimated level Maintenance labor and materials $668,000 (DC) X 3.0%

Total fixed annual costs $793,000

Variable annual costs Reagent $2,722,000 1,741 lb/hr and 420 $/ton Nalco Mobotec prop. Auxiliary and ID fan power $2,810,000 6,186 kW and 0.061 $/kWh Nalco Mobotec prop. Water $5,000 32 gpm and 0.33 $/1,000 ga l Nalco Mobotec prop. Total variable annual costs $5,537,000

Total direct annual costs (DAC) $6,330,000

Indirect Annual Costs

Cost for capital recovery $3,480,000 (TCI) X 9.74% CRF at 7.41% interest & 20 year life Total indirect annual costs (IDAC) $3,480,000 Calculated from escalated cost s

Total Annual Cost (TAC) = (DAC) + (IDAC) $9,810,000

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 5

CALPUFF Modeling Stack Parameter TablesSJGS Unit 1, Heat Input (HHV) =3,707 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Visibility Modeling Baseline CaseBaseline Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,323,494 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,223.3 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 NA NANOxControl Technologies1. SNCR 1,323,904 70 121.42 0.01 0.23 852.6 0.18 667.3 0.015 55.6 0.011 40.5 5 15.9Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Baseline upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.5. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.6. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.7. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).8. SO3emissions for the baseline cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 1Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 9Black & VeatchPrint Date: 2/9/2011, 6:08 PMSJGS Unit 2, Heat Input (HHV) =3,688 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Visibility Modeling Baseline CaseBaseline Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 1,316,710 70 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,217.0 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 NA NANOxControl Technologies1. SNCR 1,317,120 70 121.42 0.01 0.23 848.2 0.18 663.8 0.015 55.3 0.011 40.3 5 15.9Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Baseline upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.5. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.6. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.7. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).8. SO3emissions for the baseline cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 2Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 9Black & VeatchPrint Date: 2/9/2011, 6:08 PMSJGS Unit 3, Heat Input (HHV) =5,758 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Visibility Modeling Baseline CaseBaseline Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,055,753 56 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,900.1 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 NA NANOxControl Technologies1. SNCR 2,056,389 56 121.42 0.01 0.23 1,324.3 0.18 1,036.4 0.015 86.4 0.011 62.9 5 24.8Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Baseline upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.5. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.6. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.7. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).8. SO3emissions for the baseline cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 3Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 9Black & VeatchPrint Date: 2/9/2011, 6:08 PMSJGS Unit 4, Heat Input (HHV) =5,649 MBtu/hrStack Outlet ConditionsFlow(acfm)Stack Velocity(ft/s)Temperature(°F)Pressure(in, wg)NOx(lb/MBtu)NOx(lb/hr)SO2(lb/MBtu)SO2(lb/hr)PM(lb/MBtu)PM(lb/hr)SO3(lb/MBtu)SO3(lb/hr)NH3Slip(ppm)NH3Slip(lb/hr)Visibility Modeling Baseline CaseBaseline Upgrades (LNB/OFA, PJFF) 2,016,837 55 121.42 0.01 0.33 1,864.2 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 NA NANOxControl Technologies1. SNCR 2,017,473 55 121.42 0.01 0.23 1,299.3 0.18 1,016.8 0.015 84.7 0.011 61.7 5 24.3Notes1. Emission levels (lb/MBtu) shown are on a 24-hour average basis.2. Emission in (lb/hr) is calculated based on the emission level (lb/MBtu) and design basis heat input.3. Emission levels on a 24-hour average basis are assumed to be similar to the annual average basis.4. Baseline upgrades emissions for visibility modeling purpose are based on information provided by PNM, 4/19/2007.5. Stack velocity is calculated based upon volumetric flowrate and 6.10 m stack diameter.6. All flow conditions are based on the coal as shown in the Design Basis document.7. All SO3emissions are reported as Sulfuric Acid Mist (H2SO4).8. SO3emissions for the baseline cases are determined using the National Park Service calculation formula.Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) - San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Unit 4Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Engineering AnalysisStack Outlet Conditions for Visibility Modeling (24-hour Average Emission Rates) Rev. 9Black & VeatchPrint Date: 2/9/2011, 6:08 PM

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 6

Summary of 2001 to 2003 CALPUFF Results and Visibility and Associated $/dv Summary

## Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80
Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80 

# Table 1 Baseline Visibility Modeling Results

98th Percentile for Each Year (dv) Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

Baseline

## Class I Are a 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximu m Arches 1.61 1.49 1.27 1.45 1.61 Bandelier 0.91 1.35 1.14 1.13 1.35 Black Canyon 0.84 0.98 0.96 0.92 0.98 Canyonlands 2.13 1.60 1.60 1.78 2.13 Capitol Reef 1.62 0.71 0.98 1.10 1.62 Grand Canyon 0.84 0.64 0.57 0.68 0.84 Great Sand Dunes 0.57 0.61 0.51 0.56 0.61 La Garita 0.74 0.79 0.77 0.77 0.79 Maroon Bells 0.50 0.47 0.43 0.47 0.50 Mesa Verde 3.35 3.21 3.58 3.38 3.58 Pecos 0.88 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.92 Petrified Forest 0.77 0.54 0.50 0.60 0.77 San Pedro 1.30 1.77 1.47 1.51 1.77 West Elk 0.73 0.76 0.69 0.73 0.76 Weminuche 1.03 1.32 1.14 1.16 1.32 Wheeler Peak 0.68 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.75 Overall 1.12 3.58

1 

## SNCR @ 0.23 lb/MBtu NOx for all Units. 

# Table 2 SNCR Reduction Visibility Modeling Results

98th Percentile Im p act for Each Year ( dv ) 1 

# Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

SCNR

### Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv) Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class I Area) (see Note 2)

Class 1 Area Baseline SNCR Control Run 3 

### Baseline to SNCR Baseline to SNCR 

### Arches 1.69 1.61 0.09 $198,611,764.71 

### Bandelier 1.56 1.35 0.21 $81,163,461.54 

### Black Canyon 1.15 0.98 0.17 $98,725,146.20 

### Canyonlands 2.26 2.13 0.13 $130,868,217.05 

### Capitol Reef 1.81 1.62 0.19 $88,387,434.55 

### Grand Canyon 0.97 0.84 0.13 $127,893,939.39 

### Great Sand Dunes 0.71 0.61 0.10 $162,326,923.08 

### La Garita 0.94 0.79 0.16 $108,916,129.03 

### Maroon Bells 0.56 0.50 0.06 $267,968,253.97 

### Mesa Verde 3.80 3.58 0.22 $78,520,930.23 

### Pecos 1.09 0.92 0.18 $95,920,454.55 

### Petrified Forest 0.82 0.77 0.05 $351,708,333.33 

### San Pedro 2.01 1.77 0.25 $68,348,178.14 

### West Elk 0.91 0.76 0.16 $106,848,101.27 

### Weminuche 1.48 1.32 0.16 $104,209,876.54 

### Wheeler Pea k 0.89 0.75 0.14 $117,236,111.11

Notes: 1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data. 2. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):

Baseline to SNCR. $16,882

3. SNCR @ 0.23 lb/MMBtu of NOx for all Units. (98th Percentile, see Note 1) 

### Table 3 SJGS Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results) Variable Ammonia Background and Nitrate Repartitioning

Maximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv)

Maximum Cost Effectiveness

## 02/09/11 

# Attachment 7

98th Percentile CALPUFF ResultsPNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning 2001

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning 2002

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning 2003

Consent Decree Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - M onthly Varying NH3 Background 2001

SNCR - Nox @ 0.23 lb/MBtu Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 44 1.61 72.81 19.83 3.28 0.84 0.54 2.71 100 BAND 42 0.91 42.35 53.31 1.92 0.49 0.46 1.49 100 BLCA 20 0.84 53.56 41.60 2.14 0.55 0.46 1.70 100 CANY 63 2.13 73.54 22.85 1.60 0.41 0.34 1.27 100 CARE 27 1.62 59.78 35.30 2.16 0.55 0.54 1.68 100 GRCA 11 0.84 44.44 53.10 1.09 0.28 0.22 0.87 100 GRSA 10 0.57 82.01 11.72 2.88 0.74 0.39 2.25 100 LAGA 14 0.74 33.33 61.80 2.16 0.55 0.48 1.68 100 MABE 7 0.50 45.94 50.47 1.61 0.41 0.29 1.27 100 MEVE 153 3.35 76.19 8.88 6.33 1.62 2.11 4.87 100 PECO 30 0.88 49.12 47.72 1.41 0.36 0.28 1.11 100 PEFO 13 0.77 88.60 7.79 1.58 0.40 0.38 1.24 100 SAPE 85 1.30 76.93 16.40 2.88 0.74 0.83 2.22 100 WEEL 16 0.73 43.95 54.37 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 WEMI 42 1.03 90.48 1.83 3.42 0.87 0.73 2.67 100 WHPE 20 0.68 81.21 12.88 2.65 0.68 0.51 2.07 100

PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - M onthly Varying NH3 Background 2002

SNCR - Nox @ 0.23 lb/MBtu Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 30 1.49 41.03 53.51 2.38 0.61 0.62 1.85 100 BAND 50 1.35 41.58 51.66 2.97 0.76 0.73 2.29 100 BLCA 26 0.98 39.93 57.72 1.06 0.27 0.17 0.84 100 CANY 50 1.60 44.84 50.30 2.09 0.53 0.62 1.62 100 CARE 13 0.71 40.05 57.91 0.90 0.23 0.19 0.73 100 GRCA 10 0.64 52.99 45.29 0.76 0.19 0.14 0.63 100 GRSA 10 0.61 35.16 60.88 1.78 0.45 0.33 1.39 100 LAGA 22 0.79 33.99 59.77 2.77 0.71 0.62 2.14 100 MABE 6 0.47 36.12 61.24 1.17 0.30 0.23 0.93 100 MEVE 157 3.21 78.44 9.96 4.96 1.27 1.54 3.84 100 PECO 34 0.92 50.34 47.87 0.80 0.20 0.16 0.63 100 PEFO 8 0.54 36.19 60.97 1.27 0.32 0.21 1.04 100 SAPE 95 1.77 41.15 53.49 2.34 0.60 0.59 1.83 100 WEEL 20 0.76 42.88 51.47 2.54 0.65 0.48 1.99 100 WEMI 60 1.32 40.77 57.10 0.93 0.24 0.23 0.73 100 WHPE 17 0.75 38.81 59.44 0.78 0.20 0.15 0.62 100

PNM SJGS BART Modeling - All Units Nitrate Repartitioning - M onthly Varying NH3 Background 2003

SNCR - Nox @ 0.23 lb/MBtu Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 24 1.27 75.89 21.42 1.18 0.30 0.26 0.94 100 BAND 49 1.14 82.29 12.61 2.23 0.57 0.55 1.74 100 BLCA 18 0.96 45.73 49.82 1.94 0.50 0.50 1.52 100 CANY 43 1.60 74.16 20.85 2.18 0.56 0.51 1.74 100 CARE 21 0.98 49.83 47.77 1.05 0.27 0.25 0.84 100 GRCA 8 0.57 94.24 0.81 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 10 0.51 27.65 70.10 0.98 0.25 0.24 0.77 100 LAGA 14 0.77 54.10 42.54 1.49 0.38 0.34 1.16 100 MABE 6 0.43 33.03 63.63 1.46 0.37 0.34 1.16 100 MEVE 156 3.58 82.06 0.90 7.26 1.85 2.36 5.58 100 PECO 40 0.91 47.63 48.61 1.70 0.43 0.30 1.33 100 PEFO 6 0.50 90.98 5.08 1.76 0.45 0.31 1.41 100 SAPE 90 1.47 84.37 8.84 2.95 0.75 0.79 2.30 100 WEEL 14 0.69 33.89 61.30 2.10 0.54 0.53 1.64 100 WEMI 54 1.14 37.46 59.26 1.46 0.37 0.30 1.15 100 WHPE 22 0.74 37.08 59.00 1.77 0.45 0.29 1.40 100