United States Environmental Protection Agency 

February 2014

Pio Pico Energy Center

PSD Permit No. SD 11-01

Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Revised Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Permit for the Pio Pico Energy Center

 
2

1. Introduction – Summary of the Formal Public Participation Process

On November 13, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9 (Region 9) provided notice 

of, and requested public comment on, Region 9’s proposed revised particulate matter (PM) permit conditions and 

revised PM best available control technology (BACT) analysis1for the combustion turbines (CTs) for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application from Pio Pico, LLC (PPLLC or applicant) for the Pio 

Pico Energy Center (PPEC or Project). The public comment period on this proposed action (Proposed Revised 

Permit)2 began on November 13, 2013 and closed on December 17, 2013. 

As described in more detail below, during the public comment period Region 9 solicited comments only on 

Region 9’s revised PM BACT analysis for the PM emission limits for the Project’s CTs and the related proposed 

revisions to the PSD permit, issues which had been remanded to the Region by EPA’s Environmental Appeals 

Board (EAB or Board) in August 2013. Region 9 previously conducted a PSD permit decision-making process for 

this PSD permit in 2012, during which time we provided the opportunity for public comment on all issues 

related to the Region’s proposed PSD permit decision. We issued a final PSD permit decision for the Project in 

November 2012, which was appealed to and ultimately upheld by the Board in all respects except for the BACT 

analysis for the PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs. Accordingly, in our 2013 proposed action, Region 9 did 

not reopen the comment period for our PSD permit decision generally or solicit comment on any issues other 

than the revisions to the PM BACT analysis that addressed the permit’s PM emission limits for the CTs per the 

Board’s remand order. 

Region 9 announced the 2013 public comment period through public notices published in the U-T San Diego3

(in English only) on November 13, 2013 and November 15, 2013, La Prensa San Diego (in Spanish only). Region 

9 also distributed the English and Spanish public notices to the necessary parties in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 124, including notices sent by mail and email on November 13, 2013. Parties notified by Region 9 included 

agencies, organizations, and public members for whom contact information was obtained through a number 

of different methods, including requests made directly to Region 9 through Region 9’s website (or through 

other means) from parties seeking notification regarding permit actions in Region 9, California, within the San 

Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or District), San Diego County, or specific to the PPEC; 

appropriate contacts from the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) PPEC mailing list; and other parties known 

to Region 9 that may have an interest in this action, such as government and non-government stakeholders 

associated with air quality along the San Diego-Tijuana border. Region 9 provided notice to numerous 

government agencies in accordance with 40 CFR part 124, including, but not limited to, the CEC, the District, 

the City of San Diego, and Indian tribes in the area. 

The administrative record for our Proposed Revised Permit was made available at EPA Region 9’s office. 

Region 9 also made the Proposed Revised Permit, the Fact Sheet Addendum and certain other supporting 

documents available on Region 9’s website, at the District office in San Diego, CA and at the following public 

 

1

As with our original PM BACT analysis, our provided revised PM BACT limit and associated BACT analysis includes the consideration 

of particulate matter, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). We refer to particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.5 collectively as “PM” throughout this document as 

the value for each of these is expected to be equivalent by assuming all PM and PM10 is PM2.5. This is a conservative approach, as 

some particulate emissions may be larger than 2.5 micrometers. In addition, our analysis applies to total particulate matter – 

filterable and condensable. 

2 We note that EPA’s permitting regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 refer to proposed permits as “draft permits.” See 40 CFR 124.6. 

3

Formerly, the San Diego Union-Tribune.
3

libraries: the San Ysidro Public Library in San Diego, CA; the Chula Vista Public Library in Chula Vista, CA; the 

Otay Mesa-Nestor Library in San Diego, CA; the San Diego Central Library in San Diego, CA; and the National 

City Public Library in National City, CA. 

As part of our public participation process soliciting comment on the revisions made to the PM emission limits 

in our Proposed Revised Permit and our associated revised BACT analysis, EPA held a formal public hearing on 

December 17th, 2013 in San Ysidro, California. A court reporter was present at the hearing, as was a Spanish 

language interpreter for oral translation. EPA received oral and written comments from numerous individuals 

at the hearing. During the public comment period, EPA also received several comment letters by email. All 

timely comments received equal weight, regardless of the method used to submit them. 

2. Background Information

In public notices issued on June 20, 2012 and August 3, 2012, Region 9 requested public comment on its 

proposed PSD permit that would grant conditional approval, in accordance with the PSD regulations, to PPLLC 

to construct and operate the Project. Region 9 also provided a fact sheet/ambient air quality impact report 

(Fact Sheet) describing the basis for the permit conditions and other related information. The proposed PSD 

permit proposed requirements for the use of BACT to limit emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and 

particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) to the greatest extent feasible. Region 9 

determined that air pollution emissions from the Project would not cause or contribute to violations of any 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the pollutants regulated under the PSD permit for the 

Project. 

In addition to requesting public comment, the June 20, 2012 public notice announced a public hearing to be 

held on July 24, 2012, while the August 3, 2012 notice provided the opportunity for the public to request an 

additional public hearing. The public hearing scheduled for July 24, 2012 was held as planned and no requests 

for a public hearing were received in response to the August 3, 2012 public notice. 

During this 2012 public comment period, at which time the Region solicited comments on all matters 

pertaining to its proposed PSD permit decision for the Project, Region 9 received written comments regarding 

its proposed PSD permit. On November 19, 2012, after Region 9 carefully reviewed each of the comments 

submitted and considered the views expressed by all commenters, the pertinent Federal statutes and 

regulations, and additional material relevant to the application and contained in our administrative record, 

Region 9 made a decision pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 to issue a final PSD permit to PPLC for the Project, which 

was accompanied by a detailed Response to Comments document. 

In its notice announcing the November 19, 2012 permit decision, Region 9 explained that within 30 days after 

the service of notice announcing Region 9’s final permit decision, any person who filed comments on the 

proposed permit for the Project or participated in the public hearing for the Project had the opportunity to 

petition EPA’s EAB to review any condition of the final permit. In addition, any person who failed to file 

comments and failed to participate in the public hearing on the proposed permit decision could petition for 

review by the EAB of only those parts of the final permit decision that were different than the proposed 

permit decision. Three commenters filed petitions for review with the EAB. Collectively, the petitioners raised 

eleven issues for Board resolution. 
4

On August 2, 2013, the Board issued a decision remanding in part and denying review in part of the Region’s 

November 19, 2012 PSD permit decision for the Project. In re: Pico Pico Energy Center, PSD Appeal Nos. 12-04 

through 12-06, slip op. (EAB Aug. 2, 2013), 16 E.A.D. ___ (“In re Pio Pico”).4In its decision, the Board remanded 

to Region 9 the emission limits for particulate matter from the PPEC’s CTs. The Board directed Region 9 to 

prepare a revised BACT analysis for particulate matter for the CTs’ emission limits in accordance with the 

Board’s decision after consideration of all of the relevant information. The Board also directed Region 9 to 

reopen the public comment period to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the revisions to 

its PM BACT analysis for the CTs. The EAB denied review of all other issues, and also stated that it was not 

requiring, and would not accept, an appeal to the Board on the final permit decision following remand in this 

case. 

In response to the EAB’s remand decision, Region 9 prepared a revised particulate matter BACT analysis and 

BACT determination for the emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs in accordance with the Board’s order, which 

were included in our Fact Sheet Addendum (Addendum) accompanying the Proposed Revised Permit. Region 9 

also proposed to issue the permit with revisions to the PSD permit’s PM conditions for the CTs in conjunction 

with the revised BACT analysis and determination.5In accordance with the Board’s decision, Region 9 solicited 

comment on the proposed revised PM emission limits for the CTs in the Proposed Revised Permit and the 

accompanying revised PM BACT analysis. 

3. Region 9’s Response to Public Comments

Section 3.2 of this Response to Comments document summarizes the public comments received by EPA during 

the 2013 public comment period,6 which focused specifically on our proposed revisions to the PM emission 

limits for the PPEC’s CT’s and the associated revised PM BACT analysis and determination. This document also 

provides our responses to all significant public comments made during the 2013 public comment period,7

including an explanation of what changes have been made, if any, in the Final Permit as a result of those 

comments.8

In some instances, similar comments may be grouped together by topic into one comment summary, and 

addressed by one EPA response. The full text of all public comments and many other documents relevant to 

the permit are available through a link at our website, www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permitsissued.html#psd, or at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID # EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0978). 

 

4

This decision can be found on the Board’s website at the following address: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/PSD%20Permit%20Appeals%20(CAA)/A73AC96F4C0E14CE85257BBB006800F2/$ 

File/Pio%20Pico...36.pdf. 

5

Region 9 supplemented the administrative record for the PSD permit decision for the Project with these and related materials. 

6 We received one late comment from Bryn Anderson on December 18, 2013. We are not responding to this late comment, but it is 

available in the administrative record for this action. We note that this late comment did not raise any issues within the scope of the 

subject matter that is open for public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this time. 

7

As noted above, in November 2012, Region 9 issued a Response to Comments document as part of our November 2012 final PSD 

permit decision for the PPEC. That document addressed comments received in response to the extended public comment period 

that Region 9 offered in 2012 for our original proposed PSD permit decision for the Project, at which time Region 9 solicited 

comments on all topics relevant to our PSD permit decision for the PPEC. 

8

In many cases, commenters raised issues outside the scope of the matters open for public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time and Region 9 has noted that this is the case where applicable. This issue is discussed further in Section 3.1 

below. 
5

3.1 Scope of the Public Comment Period

Region 9 has reviewed all of the written and oral public comments received during the 2013 public comment 

period for our revised PM BACT analysis and the proposed revised PM emission limits for the Project’ CTs that 

were prepared in response to the Board’s remand. During the 2013 comment period, Region 9 received many 

comments related to the Project that do not pertain to the specific issues remanded to Region 9 upon which 

Region 9 solicited comment. As noted above, Region 9 reopened the public comment period specifically to 

receive comment on our revised PM BACT emission limits in the Proposed Revised Permit and the associated 

PM BACT analysis, in response to the EAB’s remand order. The Board’s order states: 

To correct the record inconsistencies identified above and the lack of adequate support and explanation 

for the new load-based PM emission limits, the Board remands this permit condition to the Region so 

that the Region may prepare a revised BACT analysis and make a new BACT determination for PM 

based on the exercise of its technical judgment after consideration of all of the relevant information. 

Specifically, on remand the Region should: (1) consider emission data and BACT limits from Panoche 

and CPV Sentinel in its BACT analysis and document whether the limits or emission rates observed at 

these facilities can or cannot be achieved at the Facility; (2) explain whether a two-tier load-based 

approach is typical for similar facilities, and if not, why such an approach is appropriate in this case. If a 

load-based approach continues to be the Region’s choice, the Region must: (1) provide a rationale 

explaining any specific load level selected; and (2) provide record support for the emission limits 

selected as BACT for high and low loads consistent with this decision. In addition, the Region is directed 

to reopen the public comment period to provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment 

on this analysis. 

In re Pio Pico, slip op. at 102.9Region 9 interprets the Board’s order to require Region 9 to reopen the public 

comment period only to solicit comment on its revised PM BACT analysis related to the PM emissions 

limitations in the PSD permit for the Project’s CTs. The Board’s order did not require the Region to re-evaluate 

other issues related to BACT or other issues related to the Project in general.10 Accordingly, Region 9 clearly 

indicated in our 2013 supplemental public notice and Addendum, and at the December 17th, 2013 public 

hearing, that we were taking comments only on our revised PM BACT analysis, which focused on the PM 

emission limits for the Project’s CTs. 

In our November 2013 supplemental public notice, we stated: 

This supplemental public notice requests public comment on the Region’s revised particulate matter 

BACT analysis for the combustion turbines for the Project and the related proposed revisions to the PSD 

permit’s particulate matter conditions. Region 9 is now taking comment solely on these matters, and a 

written response to these comments will be provided with Region 9’s final permit decision for the 

Project. Region 9 is not reopening the comment period generally or soliciting comment at this time on 

any issues other than those described in this paragraph. 

 

9

The conclusion of the Board’s order includes additional language consistent with this directive. In re Pio Pico, slip op. at 116. 

10 See, e.g., In re: Adcom Wire, d/b/a Adcom Wire Company, RCRA Appeal No. 92-2 (EAB May 24, 1994) (Order on Motion for 

Clarification) (following Board remand, it was proper for Region to limit scope of public comment to issue remanded by the Board). 
6

Our Addendum stated, among other things: 

Region 9’s initial analysis concluded that BACT for PM for the CTs is low sulfur Public Utilities 

Commission (PUC)-quality natural gas and good combustion practices. In the PSD permit issued on 

November 19, 2012,Region 9 set a fuel sulfur content limit for natural gas of 0.25 grains per 100 dry 

standard cubic feet (dscf) on a 12-month rolling average and a sulfur content of 1.0 grains per 100 dscf 

that is not be exceeded at anytime. These portions of the Region’s PM BACT determination for the CTs 

were not within the scope of the issues that the EAB directed the Region to address on remand; 

therefore, Region 9 is not reconsidering or revising its determination for this portion of the PM analysis. 

The PSD permit decision issued by Region 9 on November 19, 2012 also included two PM emission limits 

for the CTs: (1) a limit of 5.5 lb/hr and (2) a limit of 0.0065 lb/MMBtu that applied only at loads of 80% 

or higher. Consistent with the Board’s remand order, Region 9 has conducted a supplemental PM BACT 

analysis for the CTs to further examine the basis for these particular emission limits. This supplemental 

BACT analysis focused on BACT limits and emissions data from other facilities similar to the PPEC, 

including the Panoche Energy Center and the CPV Sentinel facility, and considered whether the limits or 

emission rates observed at these facilities can be achieved at the PPEC. Using this information, Region 9 

considered whether to revise the lb/hr and lb/MMBtu limits that were included in the November 19, 

2012 PSD permit for the Project. Consistent with the Board’s order, Region 9 also considered whether 

separate emission limits should be established at different load levels for each unit. 

Addendum at 5-6. At our December 17, 2013 public hearing, our hearing officer stated: 

EPA is soliciting comment at this time only on the revised particulate matter analysis and the proposed 

revised particulate matter conditions in the permit. At this time, EPA is not reopening the public 

comment period in general for the PSD permit for the Project or requesting public comment on any 

other issues related to the PSD permit or the Project. 

In our responses below, where commenters have raised issues outside the scope of the matters open for 

public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this time, we note that this is the case. In such 

cases, no further substantive response to the comment is required.11 However, given the public interest in 

Region 9’s PSD permit decision for the Project, as a matter of courtesy, we have, in some instances where 

issues raised were outside the scope of matters open for comment, provided the commenter with information 

relevant to the subject matter raised in the comment, solely for informational purposes with the intent of 

facilitating public understanding of our PSD permit decision for the PPEC. For example, many of the subjects 

raised in comments we received during the 2013 public comment period were previously addressed in full or 

to some degree during the 2012 PSD permit decision process for the Project (as discussed, for example, in our 

Fact Sheet, November 2012 Response to Comments document, and November 2012 final PSD permit 

decision), and we have in some instances noted where that is the case, for informational purposes. Our 

providing this type of information as a courtesy to the commenter and the public should not be interpreted as 

Region 9’s agreement to expand the scope of the matters on which we are accepting comment after remand, 

or otherwise construed as an acknowledgment by the Region that the issue raised is within the scope of the 

 

11 Region 9 did not receive any comments during the 2013 public comment period that specifically argued that Region 9’s 

interpretation of the EAB’s order as requiring the Region to take additional comments only on our revised PM BACT analysis for the 

CT’s emission limits and the related proposed revisions to the PSD permit was erroneous. 
7

2013 comment period or requires a substantive response or a re-evaluation of the basis for our permit 

decision. 

We reiterate that Region 9 fully considered all requirements of the PSD program in our 2012 decision-making 

process for this PSD permit. The EAB’s remand order was narrowly limited in scope, and the supplemental 

public comment period in 2013 was intended only to address the revised PM BACT analysis with respect to the 

PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs, as directed by the EAB. 

3.2 Comments and Responses on the Proposed Revised Pio Pico Energy Center PSD Permit

Comment A-1: 

The proposed PM2.5 limit remains much higher than the performance levels recorded for any other Southern 

California simple cycle gas turbines, as given in Table 7-5 of the Fact Sheet. The new proposed level of 0.0053 

lb/MMBtu is still 6.6 times higher than that of the best performing plant, El Cajon Energy, and 70% higher than 

the Orange Grove and Canyon Power Project turbines. The acceptable level should be the lowest level, not a 

level higher than any other recently sited peaker. 

Response A-1: 

While the commenter is correct that the performance tests for particulate matter (PM) for the simple cycle 

CTs cited above shows emissions results that are lower than Region 9’s proposed revised PM limits for the 

Project’s CTs, we disagree that the PM BACT limit for the PPEC’s CTs should be the lowest level shown in these 

performance tests or of any other recently sited peaker. As explained in detail below, the performance test 

data cited by the commenter do not provide sufficient evidence that the CTs at the PPEC could achieve these 

same rates over the entire operating life of the PPEC’s CTs or that these emission levels are reasonable values 

for the PM BACT limits for the PPEC’s CTs, particularly given all of the considerations in the detailed revised 

PM BACT analysis that we conducted. 

 

First, the performance test results referenced by the commenter (and by Region 9 in the original Fact Sheet 

that accompanied Region 9’s June 2012 proposed PSD permit decision for the PPEC) are for a different size of 

turbine and a different turbine model than those that will be used at the PPEC. The June 2012 Fact Sheet for 

the PPEC notes that the facilities referenced by the commenter employ GE LMS6000 turbines, whereas the 

PPEC facility will use GE LMS100 turbines. Region 9 explained in its Addendum, which incorporates Region 9’s 

revised PM BACT analysis for the PPEC’s CTs, that its revised analysis of stack test data focuses on data for the 

exact turbine model (GE LMS100) and size (100 MW) to be used at the PPEC. The commenter does not explain 

why the source test data from these different turbine models is necessary for further consideration in the 

Region’s PM BACT analysis given the fact that more representative emissions data -- for the same turbine 

model and size used at the PPEC -- is now available, and was already thoroughly considered in the Region’s 

revised PM BACT analysis.12 While the data cited by the commenter is data from gas turbines in southern 

California, the region in which the PPEC will be located, this fact does not provide a sufficient basis for not 

considering the other available test data referenced in the Addendum from identical turbines as those to be 

 

12 Table A-1 of the Addendum – Summary of Recent BACT Limits for Simple Cycle Combustion Turbines, Natural – did not include the 

El Cajon facility cited by the commenter. The El Cajon facility has the 50 MW GE LMS6000 turbine and has a PM limit of 3.0 lb/hr. As 

explained in our Addendum in Section 2.3, when using a lb/hr emission limit it is not possible to directly compare permit limits for 

units of varying sizes, because the lb/hr emission rate varies directly with the size of the CT – meaning that larger units have higher 

potential PM emissions, on a lb/hr basis, than smaller units. As such, for determining a lb/hr emission limit, we only further 

considered CTs of similar size (80-120 MW). Similarly, we do not believe further consideration of the 3.0 lb/hr limit at El Cajon is 

warranted. 
8

used at the PPEC, or for setting the PM BACT limit as the lowest emission rate from these individual stack 

tests. Further, the stack test data used in our Addendum evaluated the emissions from three power plants and 

two of those plants are located in southern California – the Walnut Creek Energy Center and CPV Sentinel. EPA 

considers this data, from identical CTs in the same region, to be more representative for determining BACT 

than the data referenced by the commenter for a different CT model.13 However, to take into account the data 

referenced by the commenter, we incorporated the lb/MMBtu test results cited by the commenter, which 

were included in Table 7-5 of the Fact Sheet, into the emissions analysis we performed in our revised PM BACT 

analysis and recalculated the results – see Table RTC-1 below.14 

Table RTC-1 PM Emissions analysis including emissions data from the Addendum and from Table 7-5 of the Fact Sheet 

 Test Average, lb/MMBtu

Average (Mean) 0.00300 

Standard Deviation 0.00146 

Relative Standard Deviation 49% 

Average + 2 Stan Dev + 20% 0.0057

Thus, when comparing PPEC’s CTs to the identical CTs previously considered and the test data cited by the 

commenter for other CTs in the same geographic region, the results indicate setting the PM BACT emission 

limit even higher – at 0.0057 lb/MMBtu – than EPA’s proposed revised limit of 0.0053 lb/MMBtu of PM. 

Also, given all of the data that is now available, we do not think it would be appropriate to perform this 

emissions analysis solely on the data referenced by the commenter. This data is not adequately representative 

of expected PM emissions on its own, considering the abundance of data in our analysis in the Addendum that 

included southern California CTs of the same model as PPEC’s proposed CTs. 

Second, in Region 9’s Addendum, we thoroughly discussed the basis for the proposed revised PM emission 

limits for the CTs, specifically including our consideration of the most representative stack test data (from the 

same turbine model), and explained, among other things, why it is not appropriate to set an ongoing PM BACT 

emission limit for the PPEC based on the results of the lowest individual stack test. The commenter has not 

addressed this analysis or explained why the data cited, from facilities that are using a different turbine as 

compared with the PPEC, would call into question any of the considerations in, or the ultimate conclusion of, 

our revised PM BACT analysis. 

In brief, in our analysis of appropriate PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CT’s in the Addendum, Region 9: (1) 

considered recent BACT/LAER determinations for simple cycle CTs15; (2) determined that the Pio Pico lb/hr PM 

limit from Region 9’s November 2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC is the lowest lb/hr limit for a similarly 

 

13 EPA believes stack test data for gas turbines from the same region may be beneficial for consideration because the sulfur content 

in fuel varies by region, and fuel sulfur content is one of the main contributors to PM emissions from gas turbines. 

14 Our emissions analysis method in the Addendum consists of adding 2 standard deviations plus 20% percent to the average of the 

test results under review. This method is the method that was proposed by the applicant in their letter dated August 15, 2013. As explained in 

the Addendum, regarding the applicant’s calculation method, Region 9 would typically only add 2 standard deviations to the average (98% 

confidence level) when reviewing stack test data and not add an additional 20%. However, in this case, given the many variables that cannot be 

adequately accounted for, as discussed in Section 2.4 of the Addendum, the applicant’s approach of adding an additional 20% is reasonable in this 

case. None of the commenters raised any issues concerning this method, and we continue to find it appropriate for use in this 

analysis. 

15 We note that Table A-1 of Region 9’s Addendum, which summarizes references BACT/LAER determinations for simple-cycle 

natural gas-fired CTs similar to those of the PPEC, includes such information for the Orange Grove and Canyon facilities. Addendum 

at 6, 13. 
9

sized simple-cycle CT16; (3) determined that the PPEC’s lb/MMBtu limit from the November 2012 decision is 

the lowest lb/MMBtu limit for a simple cycle CT; (4) reviewed stack test data for seventeen GE LMS100 

turbines at 3 facilities in California; (5) proposed lowering even further the PM emission limits for the PPEC’s 

CTs based on this available stack test data; and (6) determined that the new, lower proposed limits – 5.0 lb/hr 

and 0.0053 lb/MMBtu – should apply at all times. 

The Addendum further described issues that we considered when we reviewed the stack test data in this case, 

as follows: 

1. EPA must set a PM limit that is technically feasible to meet on an ongoing basis for the life of the 

equipment. The available data that we reviewed spans only 5 years – when CTs are expected to last 

more than 20-30 years. It is unclear how much PM emissions will vary as the equipment ages and 

therefore it would be inappropriate to rely heavily on this emissions data to set a limit that is 

achievable on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment. 

2. It is not appropriate to set the PM limit based on the lowest emission rate measured during a single 

source test because we must be able to account for inherent variability that the permittee cannot 

control. 

3. While we have data from more than a single source test, it is not representative of a multitude of 

operating conditions. Much of the data is from initial compliance demonstrations, which, for example, 

would not account for emissions variability that may result from potential SCR catalyst degradation 

over time or the presence of lubricating oils as maintenance is performed over the life of these CTs. 

4. The available data does not address our concerns related to potential spikes in sulfur content of the 

fuel, which the permittee cannot control. The permittee must be able to meet the emission limit even 

during short term spikes in fuel sulfur content (as allowed within the limits of the permit). 

5. PM emissions vary even on identical turbine models due to different operating conditions at the time 

of each stack test. The available data demonstrate enough variability that it is impractical to set a BACT 

limit based simply on average emissions from stack test data – as the limit must be met at all times 

under all conditions. This variability is demonstrated by test averages ranging from 0.64 lb/hr to 4.97 

lb/hr and 0.00092 lb/MMBtu to 0.00533 lb/MMBtu, as well as by high relative standard deviations of 

59% and 52%, respectively.17,18

 

16 The Addendum also explains that when looking at lb/hr emission limits it is not possible to directly compare permit limits for units 

of varying sizes, because the lb/hr emission rate varies directly with the size of the CT – meaning that larger units have higher 

potential PM emissions, on a lb/hr basis, than smaller units. Addendum at 7.

17 The Addendum explained that relative standard deviation is a measure of the reliability of the data. The closer the value is to 0%, 

the greater the reliability. Addendum at 10 n.11. 

18 The data referenced by the commenter includes a lb/MMBtu stack test result – 0.0008 lb/MMBtu – that is even lower than the 

range referenced here. This further illustrates the variability of stack test data. Also, in Table RTC-1 we calculated the relative 

standard deviation of the lb/MMBtu test data to be 49% when including the data referenced by the commenter in our emissions 

analysis. While this value is slightly closer to 0% than 52% we do not believe this changes our determination that the data is highly 

variable or otherwise demonstrates that our proposed revised PM emission limits should be lowered; as noted above, our new 

analysis including the data cited by the commenter showed even higher PM results that the PM analysis we conducted that is 

described in the Addendum. 
10

Given all the considerations in this detailed analysis supporting our revised PM BACT determination, 

specifically including the general considerations regarding the use of limited stack test data to set PM BACT 

limits, we do not believe that the limited stack test data from El Cajon, Orange Grove, and Canyon Power 

referenced by the commenter indicate that our proposed revised PM BACT limits for the CTs at the PPEC 

should be lowered further, or otherwise call into question our revised PM BACT analysis or determination. The 

stack test data reviewed in the Addendum demonstrate that PM emissions even from turbines identical to 

those to be used at the PPEC can vary greatly. Therefore, further consideration of the emission reports from El 

Cajon, Orange Grove, and Canyon Power, which employ different-sized turbines, would not result in a more 

representative analysis of expected emissions for the turbines at the PPEC for purposes of determining 

appropriate PM BACT requirements, and is unnecessary. Nevertheless, as discussed above, we conducted an 

additional analysis that incorporated the data cited by the commenter into our previous analysis using the 

method developed in our Addendum, and determined it did not demonstrate that a lower emission limit 

would be appropriate. 

Comment A-2: 

The revised permit conditions focus on particulate matter emissions and operating conditions. But they do not 

address the unprecedented number of hours that Pio Pico will be allowed to operate, exposing people in the 

region to air pollutants and increasing our planet’s risk of runaway climate change. For example, the proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting conditions required that Pio Pico shall keep records of excessive emissions. But 

because these turbines will be running an unprecedented number of hours, people in this area are going to 

suffer more air pollution than they otherwise would have, whether or not emission levels designated as 

excessive, simply because the turbines will be operating so many hours. The proposed revised permit 

conditions do not impose any limits on the unprecedented number of hours Pio Pico can operate, even though 

that would help reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gases. 

Response A-2:

As explained in detail in Sections 2 and 3.1 above, and in the November 2013 public notice and Addendum for 

this action, Region 9 requested comment during the November-December 2013 public comment period 

specifically on Region 9‘s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs and associated revised PM 

BACT analysis, which were prepared in response to the EAB remand order, and was narrowly focused on the 

issue of the PM emission limits for the CTs. 

In 2012, Region 9 provided public notice and an opportunity for public comment on all issues relating to its 

proposed PSD permit for the PPEC, as well as a public hearing to accept comment on all such issues. The 

Region carefully considered and responded to such comments, and issued its final PSD permit decision for the 

PPEC in November 2012. After an administrative appeal of the Region’s final permit decision, in August 2013, 

the EAB upheld all aspects of the Region’s decision except the PM emission limits for the CTs and the PM BACT 

analysis concerning those limits. 

The Region’s 2013 public notice made clear that Region 9 was not reopening the comment period for the PPEC 

PSD permit generally or soliciting comment on any issues other than those issues remanded by the EAB. 

These issues were described in the notice and in detail in the Addendum. Region 9 noted in the Addendum 

that its PM control technology determination and other aspects of its PM BACT analysis and determination for 

the CTs other than the PM emission limits were not within the scope of the Board’s remand and were not 

being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. 
11

The comment described immediately above does not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM 

emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and 

therefore appears to raise issues that are outside the scope of the subject matter that is open for public 

comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how her 

comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration 

at this time. To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that the emission limits for PM BACT should also 

include a limit on the hours of operation, the commenter fails to explain the rationale behind this argument, 

and we disagree that a specific limit on the number of hours that PPEC can operate is necessary for PM BACT 

purposes in this case. 

We note that in our November 2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC, Region 9 established a permit 

condition– Condition X.D.1 – that contains a limit on fuel use at the PPEC, which is similar to a limit on the 

hours of operation and generally has the same effect. In this case, the limit on fuel use limits operation of the 

PPEC to about 50% of its otherwise maximum capacity. The commenter does not explain what is meant by an 

“unprecedented number of hours.” To the extent the commenter believes the PPEC is permitted to operate 

8,760 hours per year (24 hours a day, 365 days a year), that is not the case. The fuel use limit restricts the 

operation of the source to a level below 8,760 hours per year – about half of its otherwise maximum capacity. 

In addition, compliance with the PM BACT emission limits is determined based on the results of stack testing. 

This will result in determining PM emissions on, approximately, a 9-hour average. Limiting the hours of 

operation for the PPEC would not change how compliance with the PM BACT emission limits will be 

determined, and further lowering the capacity of the source – to a level unspecified by the commenter – 

would not change our analysis for determining the PM emission rates achievable by the PPEC. 

Comment A-3:

Commenters state that at the time Region 9 initially analyzed Pio Pico’s impacts, the proposal was for 20 

years. Since then, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has resubmitted an application before the California 

Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking for a 25-year agreement, 5 years longer than initially proposed and 

analyzed. This additional 5 years of pollution should be considered when evaluating cumulative impacts on 

sensitive receptors. This additional 5 years should be considered in the BACT analysis, as cleaner alternatives 

would now be preventing an additional 5 years of pollution, making those cleaner alternatives more costeffective per ton of pollution. 

The only BACT measure that could significantly mitigate environmental justice and public impacts of this 

project for sensitive receptors would be an alternative technology for providing dispatchable energy, such as 

an energy storage facility. 

Response A-3: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. As discussed above, Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its control technology determination and 

other aspects of its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were 

not within the scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. 

This comment does not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs 

or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore appears to raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is open for public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. 
12

To the extent that the commenter could be suggesting that the CT’s PM BACT emission limits or our revised 

PM BACT analysis pertaining to such limits should also consider the life of the project, we do not see the 

relevance of that consideration to our analysis concerning these emission limits, and the commenter does not 

explain its relevance. Similarly, considerations regarding impacts on sensitive receptors and “cleaner 

alternatives” are outside the scope of our revised PM BACT analysis, which focuses specifically on technical 

data and information pertaining to appropriate and achievable PM emission limits for simple-cycle CTs, and 

the commenter does not explain the relevance of these issues to our revised analysis. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes, as well as the impacts of the PPEC, were discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the 

PPEC, and our evaluation of the PPEC’s potential impacts on sensitive subpopulations were also discussed in 

Region 9’s Environmental Justice (EJ) Analysis for its PSD permit for the Project. These analyses were available 

for comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012.19 We also note 

that EPA’s PSD permit is independent of the agreement for which SDG&E is seeking approval from the CPUC. 

The PSD permit does not limit how far into the future the PPEC may operate. 

Comment A-4:

The BACT analysis for this project did not consider other technologies that could provide cleaner dispatchable 

energy, such as an energy storage facility that would store energy generated at the relatively cleaner Otay 

Mesa Generating Station (OMGS), a combined cycle plant. Additionally, SDG&E’s fossil-fuel-centric Request for 

Offers (RFO) precluded competitive bidding by cleaner resources such as energy storage and solar, which have 

both experienced major price declines since the RFO’s 2009 issuance. 

Expert testimony of multiple parties before the CPUC argues that energy storage is a superior solution than 

Pio Pico, as storage would offer superior functionality and grid services at a lower cost and with far less 

pollution than the LMS 100 gas turbine units comprising Pio Pico, and SDG&E is already required by the CPUC 

to procure 165 MW of cost-effective energy storage by 2020. 

From an air quality perspective, the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA) and Sierra Club explain 

storage is a less polluting option than Pio Pico: 

Storage will not contribute to any air quality impacts on the day with the highest peak demand in ten 

years (in San Diego, generally the hottest day), when, as CAISO and SDG&E presume, wildfires take out 

both major power lines and generate particulate matter and other air pollution. Second, even when the 

extreme contingency does not occur, storage can be used to reduce reliance on “electricity generation 

sources with higher emissions of greenhouse gases” as well as other air emissions.

From an energy performance perspective, CEJA and Sierra Club argue storage would offer many practical 

benefits over Pio Pico, in part due to the limited utilization of an LMS 100 peaking unit (Pio Pico’s gas turbine 

technology) as compared with energy storage, and in part due to ramping capability: 

Compared to an LMS 100, which may be utilized at 20-40 percent of capacity, energy storage’s multiple 

 

19 To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that Region 9 revisit the Environmental Justice Analysis for its PSD permit decision 

for the PPEC in the commenter’s reference to the evaluation of cumulative impacts to sensitive receptors, the commenter is referred 

to our response to comment A-16 below. 
13

uses and values allow approximately 95 percent utilization because in addition to peak capacity, other 

services such as regulation and spinning reserves can be provided all year. Energy storage also has 

superior performance compared to an LMS 100. Storage requires less than one second to ramp to full 

capacity, and by taking in energy and then discharging it, has twice the ramping range of its nameplate 

capacity. 

From a cost perspective, CEJA and Sierra Club argue that storage is now considered cost-effective, and even 

the Commission data shows storage would be less expensive than Pio Pico: 

Commission staff estimate the 2020 capital cost of 50 MW of battery storage with two hours of storage 

capacity at $1,056/kW and with three hours of storage capacity at $1,406/kW. Commission staff 

estimates the 2020 capital cost of LMS100 units at $1,535/kW. 

Fulfillment of the Commission’s storage requirement as a cost-effective “Best Available Control Technology” 

should be examined by the EPA.

Response A-4: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its PM control technology determination and other aspects of 

its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were not within the 

scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. This comment 

does not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs or the 

associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore appears to raise issues that are 

outside the scope of the subject matter that is open for public comment and further consideration by Region 9 

at this time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that were 

remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is 

required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was available for 

comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. 

Comment A-5:

Several commenters expressed concerns that the PPEC will not meet EPA’s proposed standards of 

performance for greenhouse gas emissions from new natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, as 

follows: 

The currently permitted limit of 1,328 lb/MWh far exceeds the proposed standard of 1,000 lb/MWh. Given the 

threat of climate change it is reckless to permit a major source of greenhouse gases (GHGs). As the 

increasingly rapid threat of climate change and its impact on public health has been well documented, it 

would be reckless to permit a new major source of GHGs. 

While it is not the stated intention of Region 9 to reevaluate Pio Pico’s carbon pollution impacts, the agency 

should reexamine this issue, as the EPA Environmental Appeals Board made its decision on appeals to the Pio 

Pico PSD permit before the September 2013 release of the U.S. EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards for 

new power plants. These standards would apply to Pio Pico and the current operational request for Pio Pico 
14

would not comply with these standards. 

The California Environmental Justice Alliance and Sierra Club argued before the CPUC that these greenhouse 

gas performance rules will limit Pio Pico operations and further decrease its benefit to ratepayers as compared 

with energy storage: 

EPA’s Proposed Rule requires that combustion turbines meet CO2 rates of less than 1,100 lb/MWh or 

1,000 lb/MWh depending on their heat input. Because Pio Pico has a maximum heat input of 903 

MMBtu/hr, it falls in the “large” (>850) category and is subject to a 1,000 lb/MWh performance 

standard. In any case, Pio Pico’s currently permitted greenhouse gas limit of 1,328 lbs CO2/MWh far 

exceeds either standard. A proposed exemption from this limit for “peaking units” only applies to units 

that sell less than one-third of their output to the grid. Depending on its operations, Pio Pico would not 

qualify for this exemption because it has operating fuel limits of 3,914,556 MMBtu (HHV). This is equal 

to about 4,337 hours per year, or a capacity factor of about 50 percent. 

Once finalized, the Proposed Rule will apply to Pio Pico. Section 111(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act defines a 

“new source” as any stationary source that commences construction or modification after publication 

of proposed new standards of performance under section 111 that will be applicable to the source. 

Under this definition, any new fossil fuel-fired electric generating unit that commences construction 

after September 20, 2013 is a “new source” and will be subject to the CO2 emission standard that EPA 

ultimately promulgates. The statute uses the date a standard is proposed to define which sources are 

subject to the standard. Since Pio Pico has not yet commenced construction, it is subject to the New 

Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) once the rule is finalized. To comply with the NSPS Pio Pico will 

need to limit operations to less than one-third of capacity or operate in a manner such that its 

emissions fall under the 1,000 lbs/MWh standard. These limits, which are appropriately designed to 

limit excessive carbon pollution from inefficient facilities like Pio Pico, render the PPTA unreasonable by 

reducing future operational benefit to ratepayers. 

It would be imprudent to issue a PSD permit to a project that would not meet the U.S. EPA’s own proposed 

standards and would be even more expensive as compared to BACT alternatives. 

It is now well documented that global greenhouse gas levels have been increasing significantly and more 

rapidly than expected, and that climate change is a threat to public health. In fact, the American Public Health 

Association and the California Department of Public Health have identified climate change as one of the most 

serious public health threats facing our nation, warning that the impacts are occurring sooner than expected 

and disproportionately threaten disadvantaged communities. Settling for business as usual is not a responsible 

or reasonable option. The serious implications of GHGs and climate change should be considered in the BACT 

analyses, and it must be acknowledged in all regulatory processes of major sources of GHGs. 

Response A-5: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs 

or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that are outside 

the scope of the subject matter that is open for public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this 

time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to 

Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. 
15

To the extent that the commenters are suggesting that EPA’s recent proposal of New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for carbon pollution from new electric generating units warrants Region 9’s reopening the 

GHG BACT analysis for the PPEC at this time, we disagree. Region 9’s November 2012 final PSD permit decision 

for the PPEC included a detailed analysis and determination concerning GHG BACT and associated permit 

limits for the PPEC after consideration of numerous comments on the issue during the 2012 public comment 

period. This GHG BACT determination was the subject of an administrative appeal and extensive briefing 

before the EAB. After a thorough examination of the Region’s GHG BACT analysis and determination and 

careful consideration of the arguments made by the parties to the appeal proceeding, the Board upheld 

Region 9’s GHG BACT determination in August 2013. The proposed NSPS to which the commenter is referring 

were not proposed until well after the Region’s final decision on GHG BACT for this facility, and after the Board 

upheld Region 9’s determination in this regard. We reiterate that PSD permits are time-sensitive because new 

source construction cannot begin prior to the PSD source’s receiving a final permit, and because PSD permit 

applications must be granted or denied within one year of application completeness. CAA 165(a), (c), 42 USC 

7475(a), (c). Furthermore, the proposed NSPS cited by the commenter are not applicable at this time. Given 

the narrow scope of the Board’s remand, and the need for finality in our PSD permit decision process for the 

PPEC, as with other issues that are outside the scope of the EAB’s remand, Region 9 is not reopening its GHG 

BACT analysis or determination at this late stage in the PSD permitting process for the PPEC.20

 

We note for clarification purposes that on January 8, 2014, EPA’s proposed NSPS for carbon pollution from 

new electric generating units were published in the Federal Register and could influence the ultimate emission 

requirements for this source. The definition of BACT in PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12) states “in no event 

shall application of best available control technology result in emissions of any pollutant which would exceed 

the emissions allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61.” Although it is possible that 

this facility may be within the source category that is ultimately covered by the final NSPS, the proposed NSPS 

emission limits are not applicable at this time, and are not a controlling floor for BACT purposes since the 

proposed NSPS is not a final action and the proposed standard may change. Once finalized, the NSPS will be an 

independent requirement that will apply to any source subject to the NSPS that commences construction after 

the date the NSPS is proposed. Thus, this facility may ultimately be subject to, and may need to comply with, 

the NSPS after it is finalized, even if the emission limits in the final PSD permit are higher than the standards in 

the final NSPS. 

Comment A-6:

Demand response is another lower emissions resource available to SDG&E and already approved by the CPUC. 

In fact, the CPUC found that SDG&E underutilizes its existing Demand Response programs, as CEJA and Sierra 

Club explain: 

SDG&E has access to significant demand response resources it chooses not to deploy. In fact, SDG&E 

has consistently underutilized its existing demand response programs. In its demand response 

rulemaking, R.13-09-11, the Commission found that “historically, SCE and SDG&E underutilized demand 

response programs and dispatched their power plants to meet peak demand far more frequently in 

comparison to demand response programs. The demand response programs were not utilized to their 

full Resource Adequacy capacity even during extremely hot weather conditions. 

Opportunity for maximizing utilization of SDG&E’s demand response programs as a less expensive and cleaner 

 

20 Cf. In the Matter of Spokane Regional Waste-To-Energy Project, 3 E.A.D. 68, 70-71 and n.3 (Adm’r Jan. 2, 1990) (upholding PSD 

permit issuer’s declining to reconsider control technology determination after Administrator’s remand focusing on narrow issue of 

emission limits where potentially applicable NSPS proposed after remand order). 
16

alternative to Pio Pico should be examined in the BACT analysis. 

Response A-6: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its PM control technology determination and other aspects of 

its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were not within the 

scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. This comment 

does not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs or the 

associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raises issues that are outside the 

scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this 

time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to 

Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was available for 

comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. 

Comment A-7:

Particulate emissions will also be generated by the gas turbine’s cooling tower. Full dry cooling is a readily 

available alternative to the wet cooling tower and should be used at Pio Pico Energy Center. For example, six 

LMS100 turbines, the type of turbine used at Pio Pico, were recently installed by the Los Angeles Department 

of Water and Power (LADWP) with full dry cooling systems at the Haynes Generating Station. Installing full dry 

cooling at Pio Pico would eliminate particulate emissions from one aspect of its gas turbine operation. Full dry 

cooling would also remove the public health risk of Legionnaire’s Disease that accompanies wet cooling 

towers. In addition, full dry cooling would eliminate the wastewater that will be produced by Pio Pico’s cooling 

system. According to the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Environmental Assessment (EA), Pio Pico is not 

going to be able to recycle all of the wastewater and will have to truck the portion that can’t be recycled to a 

City of San Diego industrial wastewater disposal facility, causing yet more air pollution and GHGs. These could 

be avoided if the EPA revised Pio Pico’s permit conditions to require full dry cooling. 

In addition, the revised permit conditions’ approval of a partial dry cooling system with a wet cooling tower 

component is an enormous waste of water in an arid area that is dependent on imported drinking water. 

According to the CEC’s EA, Pio Pico will require 58 million gallons of water each year to operate its cooling 

system. The EA states that although Pio Pico hopes to eventually use recycled water in its cooling system, 

delivery of recycled water to the Pio Pico project has been delayed indefinitely and interim use of drinking 

water for cooling and other process uses would likely occur for an extended amount of time, possible for the 

project’s full operational life. Where will this water come from? The EA asserts that 70 to 95% of the drinking 

water in the area where Pio Pico would be built is supplied by the Colorado River Aqueduct and State Water 

Project. 

Surely the highest and best use for drinking water that begins as snow in the Colorado Rockies and Sierra 

Nevada Mountains is not to cool a natural gas peaker plant in Otay Mesa. In summary, the EPA could greatly 

improve this proposed permit by further revising it to require full dry cooling, which would truly be the Best 

Available Control Technology. Doing so would reduce both direct and indirect air and greenhouse gas 

emissions. It would also reduce Pio Pico’s consumption of imported drinking water by 58 million gallons per 

year. 
17

Response A-7: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. This comment, which concerns the project’s cooling system, does not address Region 9’s proposed 

revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those 

limits, and therefore raises issues that are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public 

comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how her 

comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration 

at this time. Therefore, no further response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9 considered the use of a dry cooling system in its PM BACT 

analysis for the PPEC’s cooling system, and determined that it was not cost effective at a cost of $109,275 per 

ton of PM removed. See Section 7.2 of the Fact Sheet. This analysis was available for comment when Region 9 

took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. In our November 2012 final PSD permit 

decision for the PPEC, the Region determined that the partial dry cooling system with associated wet cooling 

tower is BACT for PM emissions from the PPEC’s cooling system. 

Comment A-8:

Several commenters identified the potential health effects – respiratory illnesses, such as asthma – associated 

with particulate matter as a reason for opposing the issuance of the PSD permit for the PPEC, and provided 

details such as the following. Power plants make our neighborhoods sick. Over time, residents might 

experience school absences, lost workdays, hospital admissions, asthma diagnoses, and in some severe cases 

even death. Much like slavery or the Holocaust, preventable and unnecessary human suffering, loss, and even 

death could be avoided by stopping a gas-fired power plant. The commenters assert that Pio Pico should not 

open because they are worried about their own health problems and health problems for children and others 

with respiratory issues. 

Response A-8: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. This comment does not address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs or 

the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raises issues that are outside 

the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this 

time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to 

Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is required. 

We note the following for informational purposes. Region 9 carefully considered the air quality impacts of the 

PM emissions and other emissions from the Project regulated under the PSD program when we issued our 

proposed and final PSD permit decisions for the PPEC in 2012. See Section 8.4 of the Fact Sheet, and the 

responses to comments 44, 45, and 53-63 in Region 9’s November 2012 Response to Comments (RTC) for its 

PSD permit decision for the PPEC (November 2012 RTC). As part of our 2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC, 

Region 9 determined that the proposed project would comply with all the applicable requirements under the 

PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for demonstrating that the project would not cause or contribute to a 

violation of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 
18

Comment A-9:

Several commenters oppose the issuance of the PSD permit because they believe that the area is already 

overburdened with particulate matter emissions. The commenters’ concerns are as follows: 

The area does not currently meet California’s standards for PM10 and PM2.5 (24-hour). The addition of the 

PPEC will raise particulate matter emissions even higher than the unhealthy levels already occurring. Because 

the area already has levels of particulate matter above the acceptable standard, additional pollution should 

not be allowed. For example, the PPEC pollution is equivalent to 129,584 gasoline powered cars or nearly 70 

million gallons of gasoline. Using the California Communities Health Screening Tool, commenters note that the 

area – particularly the 92154 zip code – has some of the dirtiest air in all of California, if not the nation. The 

PPEC will result in irreversible damage to the community. 

Further, Pio Pico would contribute significantly to regional air pollution and climate change and continue the 

trend of concentrating the region’s unwanted and unnecessary polluting activities in the South County. The 

USEPA reports Pio Pico will emit NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 in significant amounts. This pollution will harm local 

residents in San Diego County who are already burdened by poor air quality and by the worsening impacts of 

climate change. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment lists the zip code of the 

project site as in the top 20% of communities in California that are disproportionately burdened by multiple 

sources of pollution. The American Lung Association’s 2013 State of the Air report gives both San Diego and 

Imperial counties “F” grades for particle pollution and high ozone days. The San Diego region was ranked 23rd 

in the nation for the worst short-term (24-hour) particle pollution. Given this well documented pollution 

burden locally and regionally, the EPA should take extra precaution to ensure to protect public health is not 

further deteriorated. Adding more pollution to the region, when cleaner, cost-effective options are readily 

available, would be irresponsible. 

Given this assessment and the fact that the area already fails to meet California PM10 and 24-hour PM2.5

standards, and is a nonattainment air basin for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, it would be irresponsible to 

permit additional pollution. Our air is dirty enough and we don't need anyone dumping emissions from gas 

fired power generation station into our air. Regardless of whether we need it or not we simply cannot afford 

the pollution. That’s what it boils down to: the environment can’t tolerate any more. Without full 

consideration of the cumulative impacts on this population, Region 9 should not issue the permit. 

Response A-9: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that the area in which the PPEC would be located is currently designated 

as attainment (or unclassifiable) for the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, and, as discussed above, Region 9 carefully 

considered the air quality impacts of the PM emissions and other emissions from the Project regulated under 

the PSD program when we issued our proposed and final permit decisions for the PPEC in 2012. See Section 

8.4 of the Fact Sheet, and responses to comments 44, 45, and 53-63 of the November 2012 RTC. As part of our 
19

2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC, Region 9 determined that the proposed project would comply with all 

the applicable requirements under the PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for demonstrating that the 

project will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. We also note that the Clean Air Act PSD 

requirements applicable to Region 9’s PSD permit for the Project do not address the project’s compliance with 

California’s ambient air quality standards or compliance with any NAAQS for which the area has been 

designated nonattainment. Separate processes conducted pursuant to State law address these issues.21 

Comment A-10:

Please deny the Pio Pico Permit or reduce the emissions allowed to a level that does not add to the burden of 

PM and GHG in the region. 

Response A-10:

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its PM control technology determination and other aspects of 

its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were not within the 

scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. This comment 

does not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs or the 

associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore appears to raise issues that are 

outside the scope of the subject matter that is open for public comment and further consideration by Region 9 

at this time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that were 

remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. 

To the extent the commenter is suggesting we should impose more stringent limits on PM emissions from the 

CTs, she has not explained why the PM limits proposed in our revised BACT analysis are not appropriate or 

what level of PM emissions would be more appropriate when considering the applicable criteria for 

determining PM BACT emission limits, thus this comment does not provide a basis for reconsidering these PM 

emission limits. 

We note for informational purposes that the area in which the PPEC would be located is currently designated 

as attainment (or unclassifiable) for the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, and, as discussed above, Region 9 carefully 

considered the air quality impacts of the PM emissions and other emissions from the Project regulated under 

the PSD program when we issued our proposed and final permit decisions for the PPEC in 2012. See Section 

8.4 of the Fact Sheet, and responses to comments 44, 45, and 53-63 of the November 2012 RTC. As part of our 

PSD permit decision for the PPEC, Region 9 determined that the proposed project would comply with all the 

applicable requirements under the PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for demonstrating that the project 

will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. 

Comment A-11:

Background monitoring for PM2.5 is needed for the Pio Pico area rather than using data from the Chula Vista 

monitor. Region 9 cannot determine whether NAAQS may be exceeded without better information on the 

background levels in the vicinity of the proposed plant. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) 

has done some PM10 monitoring at Donovan prison and has plans to site a permanent regional monitoring 

station there. 

 

21 To the extent that these commenters are suggesting that Region 9 revisit the EJ Analysis for its PSD permit decision for the PPEC in 

these comments, the commenters are referred to our response to comment A-16 below. 
20

The 5-year PM10 trend data, posted online at the SDAPCD website, show that 24-hour maximum PM10 levels at 

Donovan are consistently higher than levels in Chula Vista – the location of the monitoring station used in the 

permit’s particulate matter (PM) analysis. Donovan levels average 1.47 times the Chula Vista levels or about 

50% higher over the years 2008 to 2012. Using the Chula Vista monitoring station with less pollution than at 

the actual project site undermines the integrity of the analysis by skewing the data to make the project appear 

to be impacting an area that is less vulnerable, with fewer cumulative impacts than reality. In order to gain an 

accurate understanding of the cumulative impacts near the project site and how the project would further 

impair the area, additional monitoring data is needed from the proposed project site or from the proposed 

Donovan station. 

PM10 and PM2.5 impact the residents of San Ysidro, the neighbors in Mexico, and it’s incumbent upon the EPA 

to ask the sponsor of the project to prove that the level of PM10 and PM2.5 is below the standard that the EPA 

has set. Based on the documentation to date, the sponsor has not proven this. 

It has been shown that PM10 and PM2.5 for people who are living next to emission sources of PM10 and PM2.5

in Solana Beach is severely dangerous to a person’s health and welfare, particularly if they’re young or 

particularly if they’re old. And we have the documentation for that.22 And we have scientists in Solana Beach, 

Dr. Jack Hegenauer, and another scientist from San Diego State, who have made this their work study to prove 

that. So, we have to look very closely at this project as potentially violating the standard of PM10 and PM2.5 for 

the safety and health and welfare of the people in the immediate area. 

In addition, estimation of cumulative impacts should include sources on the Tijuana side of the border, such as 

Rodriguez Airport, that may contribute to background levels of PM2.5 in the Otay Mesa region. 

Commenters ask EPA to deny the PSD permit for the PPEC and instead protect public health by requiring that 

additional air pollution monitoring be performed in the local area. The commenters state that at the very least 

EPA ought to delay its decision and collect more data on the impacts the PPEC would have on both Mexican 

and US residents, especially ultrafine particulate matter.

Response A-11: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

We note the following for informational purposes. The area in which the PPEC will be located is currently 

designated as attainment (or unclassifiable) for the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS and Region 9 carefully considered 

the air quality impacts of the PM emissions and other emissions from the Project regulated under the PSD 

program when we issued our proposed and final permit decisions for the PPEC in 2012. See Section 8.4 of the 

Fact Sheet, and responses to comments 44, 45, and 53-63 in the November 2012 RTC. As part of our 2012 PSD 

permit decision for the PPEC, the Region determined that the proposed project would comply with all the 

 

22 One particular commenter at the public hearing, Lane Sharman, made several references to “documentation” but did not submit 

any documentation to EPA Region 9 at the hearing or otherwise. 
21

applicable requirements under the PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for demonstrating that the project 

will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. In addition we also note, on page 55 of the November 

2012 RTC, EPA explained that the PSD NAAQS analysis for the PPEC appropriately considered only receptors 

within the United States, as the NAAQS apply only within the geographic boundaries of the United States, and 

that the Region is not aware of any CAA provision that requires analysis of impacts in Mexico in this PSD 

permitting process. To the extent that these commenters are raising environmental justice issues or 

suggesting that Region 9 revisit the EJ Analysis for its PSD permit decision for the PPEC in these comments, the 

commenters are referred to our response to comment A-16 below. 

Comment A-12:

Some commenters oppose the power plant because it is located in an area that does not meet the federal 8-

hour ozone standard. 

Response A-12: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that the PSD permit for the PPEC does not address ozone emissions 

because the PSD program does not apply to pollutants that are designated as nonattainment for a NAAQS – in 

this case the 8-hr ozone NAAQS. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District is responsible for 

addressing those emissions for this project. 

Comment A-13:

Several commenters assert that there is not a need for the PPEC project. Their concerns are as follows: 

The commenters assert that existing power plants are sufficient to meet demand and southern California has 

continued to have reliable power for industrial and residential purposes despite the shutdown of San Onofre 

nuclear power plant. The commenters argue that the project could be replaced through conservation, energy 

efficiency, and/or renewable energy. For example, if the $1.6 billion spent on the project were used for 

rooftop solar it could generate 350 MW of clean, renewable power. The funds required to build this project is 

equivalent to 70,000 residential rooftop solar power systems. 

While it is extremely important that the EPA does everything it can to reduce the projected impact of Pio Pico 

in terms of air pollution and climate change, there is a larger picture. None of the air or climate pollution this 

project will produce is necessary or inevitable. Pio Pico is not needed to keep the lights on. We can get all the 

power our society needs through other means, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. Commenters 

look forward to the day when the EPA no longer is asked to review air permits for such unnecessary, polluting 

projects and can focus the talent and dedication of its staff on other work. 
22

This plant uses outdated technology and will hook this region into unclear air for at least 25 years. We need to 

be consulting renewable energy projects, not fossil fuel plants. The EPA is taking a step backwards in its quest 

to uphold the Clean Air Act. 

EPA should deny the permit to Pio Pico regardless of the efficiency or lack of efficiency of the BACT. We must 

move away from fossil fuels and toward a clean energy future. Moving away from fossil fuels will not be easy, 

but if we want to reduce climate change, we must do so. 

It’s very distressing that the closure of San Onofre Generating Station is being used as a reason to build more 

power plants that are going to harm the health of our community and eventually represent a safety hazard. 

We don’t need this power in San Diego or in southern California. That’s been demonstrated over and over. 

The CPUC found last year that this plant wasn’t needed. We’re at the point where we no longer have to use 

nuclear power and fossil fuel power to jeopardize our safety and jeopardize our health. 

Response A-13: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that the issue of the need for the PPEC was addressed by Region 9 in the 

November 2012 RTC at response to comment 64. The EAB upheld the Region’s approach in this regard. 

Comment A-14:

Numerous commenters believe that alternatives to the project should be considered. Particularly, 

commenters are interested in: 

· Energy storage with renewables - the CPUC now recognizes energy storage as a cost-effective 

technology and is requiring SDG&E to procure 160 MW of storage by 2020; 

· Cleaner cost-effective technologies; 

· Solar, including distributed solar, and wind power; 

· A new energy structure with a transition to clean energy, stopping fossil fuel use, and reducing 

consumption instead of generating more pollution; 

· Demand response; 

· Combined heat and power; and 

· Energy efficiency. 

Commenters explain that it goes against logic to continue with old power plant technology when we are able 

to produce power without the particulate matter you seem to be interested in. The commenters state that 

these alternatives are sensible and would not make the health conditions worse and request that EPA give 

better alternatives a fair chance. 
23

Knowledge of greenhouse gases, natural gas extraction, air quality, and the health effects of power plants in 

communities all indicate that renewable energy is the only answer to our energy needs. We have the smart, 

creative people and the money to develop renewable energy storage. This should be our energy future. Please 

uphold the Clean Air Act. Please protect our children’s health and future, as well as, our precious ecology. 

Commenters urge the EPA to consider cleaner, cost-effective technologies as an alternative to the project. 

Response A-14: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. As discussed above, Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its control technology determination and 

other aspects of its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were 

not within the scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. 

These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs 

or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that are outside 

the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this 

time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to 

Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is required. 

We note the following for informational purposes. Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology 

for BACT purposes were discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was 

available for comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. In 

addition, the issue of the need for the PPEC was addressed by Region 9 in the November 2012 RTC at response 

to comment 64, and the EAB upheld the Region’s approach in this regard. 

Comment A-15:

Commenters identified that they oppose the project because it is too costly and will cost ratepayers $1.6 

billion. Ratepayers can’t afford to generate energy with the option that is most costly to their wallets, their 

health, their infrastructure, and their climate stability. Rather than rushing to lock the public into paying 

billions of dollars for decades more of expensive, polluting gas plants that may not be needed, they ask the 

EPA to deny the Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for Pio Pico Energy Center and instead protect 

public health and our climate by requiring that cleaner alternatives like energy storage and renewables be 

used. It appears the project is to be essentially for the profit of SDG&E, which is a horrible reason for wreaking 

particulate pollution upon the area. 

Response A-15: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. As discussed above, Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its control technology determination and 

other aspects of its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were 

not within the scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. 

These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs 

or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that are outside 

the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this 

time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to 

Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is required. 
24

We note the following for informational purposes. Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology 

for BACT purposes were discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was 

available for comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. In 

addition, the overall cost of a project to ratepayers is generally outside the scope of considerations under the 

PSD program. 

Comment A-16:

Commenters identified a variety of environmental justice concerns related to the project and the existing 

pollution burden in the region: 

· The American Lung Association’s 2013 State of the Air report gives both San Diego and Imperial 

counties “F” grades for particle pollution and high ozone days. The San Diego region was ranked 23rd in 

the nation for the worst short-term (24-hour) particle pollution. 

· The project will contribute to regional air pollution and climate change and continue the trend of 

concentrating the region’s unwanted and unnecessary polluting activities in the South County. 

· The project will effect a 2/3 Latino population that is already burdened with toxic waste 

· This area is identified by the California EPA as one of the 20% most at-risk zip codes in the state for 

pollution burden. 

· This community is tired of dirty projects being dumped here. 

· The population of the U.S. area within a 6-mile radius of the proposed Pio Pico site, as measured in the 

2010 census, is 80% nonwhite. 

· The prison population is estimated at 74% nonwhite, and consists of individuals who cannot change 

their place of residence to avoid exposure to local sources of air pollutants. 

· A sensitive receptor population is not adequately considered is the youth detention center, less than a 

mile away. As is true of the inmate population at the Donovan correctional facility, their exposure is 

involuntary. The prison population at Donovan includes individuals who are elderly and/or sick. There 

are approximately 4336 men at Donovan, 500 more at the East Mesa Reentry Facility, and capacity for 

290 youth at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. 

· Southwest of the plant, there are at least eight neighborhoods within 1 mile of the border with 30,000 

residents. 

· Southeast of the plant, there are seven neighborhoods with 38,000 residents less than 1 mile from the 

border and less than 2 miles from the plant. 

Given the well-documented burden locally and regionally, the EPA should take extra precautions to ensure 

public health is not further deteriorated. Adding more pollution when cleaner options are available is 

irresponsible. Stop discrimination against the poor. Placing the plant at this location is an injustice for the 

community. 

Nelson Mandela said that poverty is manmade, and likewise, the health, the well-being in our communities is 

also manmade. And in this case, we have the ability to change economic inequity, health inequities. And this 

power plant represents a huge step in the wrong direction if we really want equity. 

This permit process is for particulate matter and is a very narrow part of the process. However, sometimes, 

government structures, science, our permit process is imperfect. That’s why we need government agencies 

and government representatives to look at the bigger picture and act beyond what they may be called for 

within the narrow part of their permit process. 
25

You guys know the numbers better and the facts than anybody else. The future of this community is in your 

hands. The future of the children and the senior citizens are in your hands. They’ve done everything in the 

South Bay. Why? Because of social economics. Because they believe the people here in this area have no say, 

they’re second class citizens. 

All of this adds up to an environmental justice profile that includes low-income people of color on two sides of 

the border exposed to already excessive levels of ozone and living in an area that has rightfully been called a 

dumping ground for the fossil fuel energy industry. This corner of the region deserves more careful 

consideration of potential bad community agents. 

Response A-16: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. 

We note that Region 9 has previously considered in detail environmental justice issues associated with this 

PSD permit decision, and offered the public the opportunity to comment on such issues as part of the notice 

and comment process that we provided in 2012 for our PSD permit decision for the PPEC. Along with our 

proposed PSD permit for the PPEC, Region 9 prepared an EJ Analysis for our PSD permit decision for this 

project, which was available for public comment in 2012 along with the proposed permit. We received, 

considered and responded to several public comments related to environmental justice, including 

considerations regarding potential impacts to residents of nearby correctional facilities, when we issued our 

final permit decision in November 2012 – see responses to comments 54-63 in the November 2012 RTC. 

Region 9 explained in detail in these responses in the November 2012 RTC why its public participation process 

and substantive consideration of environmental justice issues with respect to its PSD permitting action for the 

Project were appropriate and consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” as well as its public 

participation responsibilities under the PSD procedural regulations 40 CFR Part 124. 

We further note that, as discussed in detail in the Addendum, Region 9 determined that it would not reopen 

the public comment period for the EJ Analysis following the EAB’s remand, in response to a suggestion in the 

EAB’s opinion that the Region consider doing so in light of some confusing language the Region had used when 

accepting late comments on the EJ Analysis in 2012 from one commenter on its proposed permit decision for 

the PPEC. The Board had upheld the Region’s decision to accept late comments from this commenter on the EJ 

Analysis while not reopening the comment period generally under the specific circumstances presented in this 

case. See Addendum at 2-3. In the Addendum, Region 9 explained its decision not to reopen the comment 

period on the EJ Analysis following the EAB’s remand as follows: 

Region 9 has carefully considered the Board’s suggestion in this regard, and has determined that it will 

not reopen the public comment period to take additional comment on the EJ Analysis for its PSD 

permit decision for the PPEC, for the following reasons. 
26

First, the Region previously extended the public comment period to all members of the public for all 

issues related to its proposed PSD permit decision for the PPEC. The public comment period opened on 

June 20, 2012 and was extended until September 5, 2012. This afforded a substantial length of time 

during which the public could comment on the EJ Analysis, which was posted in the electronic docket 

for the Region’s proposed permit decision for the PPEC starting on June 20, 2012. Second, only one 

commenter, the individual who was allowed to submit late comments on the EJ Analysis, submitted 

comments on the EJ Analysis for the PPEC. Region 9 thoroughly considered, and provided a detailed 

response to, all comments on the EJ Analysis submitted by this individual. Third, the Region provided 

the public with an additional method of commenting on the EJ Analysis when it held a public hearing 

for its proposed PSD permit decision for the PPEC on July 24, 2012. No one offered any oral comments 

at this public hearing, and the only set of written comments that was submitted at the public hearing – 

which was also submitted to the Region via email – did not concern the EJ Analysis. Fourth, no 

commenters other than the individual who was allowed to submit a late comment requested 

additional time to comment specifically on the EJ Analysis, or approached the Region with a situation 

similar to that of this individual, or otherwise submitted a request for additional time to comment 

following the original extension of the public comment period. Fifth, PSD permits are time-sensitive 

because new source construction cannot begin prior to receiving a final permit, and because PSD 

permit applications must be granted or denied within one year of application completeness. CAA 

165(a), (c), 42 USC 7475(a), (c). Offering the public an additional opportunity to comment on the EJ 

Analysis at this time could result in additional delay in the Region’s issuing a final permit decision in this 

matter given the Region’s need to take additional time to consider and appropriately respond to any 

such comments. Last, the Region is aware of no other information indicating that reopening the public 

comment period to take additional late comments on the EJ Analysis is necessary, given the 

opportunities for public comment on the EJ Analysis that have already been provided. Considering all 

of these factors, the Region has determined that offering further opportunity for public comment on 

the EJ Analysis for its PSD permit decision for the PPEC is not warranted. 

Addendum at 2-3. None of the parties commenting on the Region’s current action has specifically addressed 

the Region’s clearly stated rationale supporting its decision not to take further comment on the EJ Analysis or 

otherwise demonstrated that this decision is unreasonable given the circumstances of this case and the 

rationale discussed above. To the extent that the commenters are suggesting that Region 9 should revisit the 

EJ Analysis or otherwise reopen its consideration of environmental justice concerns, Region 9 declines to do so 

at this late stage in the PSD permit decision process for the PPEC, due to the fact that Region 9 has already 

issued a final decision on the PSD permit, which was upheld by the EAB except for the one specific PM 

emission limit issue that is the subject of the current action, and for all of the reasons stated in the Addendum 

as described above. 

We also note the following for informational purposes. As discussed above, the area in which the PPEC will be 

located is currently designated as attainment (or unclassifiable) for the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS and Region 9 

carefully considered the air quality impacts of the PM emissions and other emissions from the Project 

regulated under the PSD program when we issued our proposed and final permit decisions for the PPEC in 

2012. See Section 8.4 of the Fact Sheet, and responses to comments 44, 45, and 53-63 in the November 2012 

RTC. As part of our 2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC, the Region determined that the proposed project 

would comply with all the applicable requirements under the PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for 

demonstrating that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. In addition, the PSD 

permit for the PPEC does not address ozone emissions because the PSD program does not apply to the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS as the area is designated nonattainment for that pollutant. The San Diego County Air Pollution 
27

Control District is responsible for addressing those emissions for the Project. However, the issue of ozone 

nonattainment in the area was considered and discussed in our EJ Analysis. See response to comment 54 in 

our November 2012 RTC at page 59. 

Comment A-17:

Commenters are very concerned about the health impacts the construction of the Pio Pico power plant would 

have on Tijuana communities. The commenters’ concerns are as follows: 

Tijuana residents will get Pio Pico’s pollution but none of its power. Although the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) says the project poses no significant health risk in the short or long-term for members of 

the public in the border region, analyses performed by the Environmental Health Coalition question this 

conclusion. The area on the U.S. side of the border for the proposed power plant is already in violation of 

California’s particulate matter standards even without the additional power plant. 

The commenters argue that the PPEC does not violate Mexico’s standards because Mexico has more lenient 

standards than the U.S. However, they believe that, regardless of existing regulations, if research suggests that 

pollution could seriously affect the health of nearby residents, additional data should be collected on the 

impacts that the PPEC would have on both Mexican and U.S. residents, especially ultrafine particulate matter. 

The communities that will be impacted by Pio Pico’s pollution are the same communities that are being 

impacted by the channelization of the Alamar River in Tijuana, where an important riparian forest is being 

destroyed and replaced with concrete and roadways that will bring in more truck traffic. 

Residences in Tijuana stand just over a mile to the south and southeast of Pio Pico, right in the pathway of the 

area’s most prominent wind patterns. These winds could carry the Pio Pico’s toxic air emissions into these 

Tijuana neighborhoods and harm the health of the families living there. 

The Tijuana population was not considered at all in the EJ analysis. Supplemental analysis is needed to assess 

impacts of the proposed plant on these populations. Region 9 should take extra precaution to ensure 

additional health and environmental impacts are not incurred as a result of Pio Pico. 

About two years ago, the United States located seven monitoring stations or sited seven monitoring stations, 

air monitoring stations in Tijuana because they suspected that Tijuana was polluting San Diego's air. Over time 

and after doing certain studies, they realized that this wasn't so, that Tijuana was receiving San Diego's 

pollution and even pollution from Los Angeles. This is public knowledge. This is widely known in Tijuana. What 

I am getting at is that you have to be responsible for this pollution. You have to be accountable for the 

pollution into Tijuana. And if you have a plant on the U.S. side in San Diego, without considering the health of 

the people of Tijuana would be a lack of vision, a lack of accountability, a lack of honesty, frankly. So, 

approving this plant would mean to act deliberately against the health of the residents of Tijuana. 

Commenters ask for criteria to be universally applied in the Pio Pico approval process, i.e. for EPA’s standards 

to be applied such that they protect human health throughout the affected area, regardless of nationality or 

on which side of the border impacted people reside. 

Response A-17: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 
28

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

However, for informational purposes, we refer the commenters to our responses to comments A-11 and A-16 

above for additional information relevant to their comments. 

Comment A-18:

Several commenters oppose the issuance of the PSD permit for the PPEC because it will further contribute to 

climate change. Commenters’ concerns are as follows23: 

The PPEC will cause increased environmental impacts of climate change – forest fires, sea level rise, drought, 

and heat waves. Climate change depends that we move beyond fossil fuels. 

One specific commenter pointed to chart he produced related to GHGs emissions. The commenter stated that 

the chart illustrates that emissions of GHGs are going up when they’re supposed to be going down. This power 

plant is going to accelerate the effect of GHGs. But it’s more than that. That increase of GHGs is also economic 

chaos. It’s going to be more cost for all of us, in this case, 1.6 billion dollars worth that all of us have to pay. 

Pio Pico will alter the carbon dioxide cycle. It will disrupt our ozone layer. 

Every scientific academy and society in the world has warned against manmade climate change. It’s the 

Department of Defense’s No. 1 concern. The World and American Meteorological Societies, the Center for 

Disease Control, the American Medical Association, the World Bank Group, the UN, and many more have all 

warned us about it. Margaret Thatcher warned us about it 25 years ago. And, yet, here we are, having 

changed almost nothing. 

Manmade extreme weather is not something that may happen in the distinct future. It’s happening now. It 

happened 10 years ago when 35,000 people died in western Europe from an unprecedented heat wave. It 

happened three years ago when 56,000 people died in Russia from extreme heat and wildfires. It happened 

last year when the U.S. suffered its worst natural disaster ever. Most of our country was in severe drought. It 

was Sandy and Katrina and Haiyan and countless other disasters. 

We are at a crossroads. We can blindly continue our path of destruction or make sound, safe, and reasonable 

choices. We can choose health and economic vitality with renewables or we can literally poison people locally 

while contributing to mankind’s demise. It’s that clear. To know evil and do nothing about it is the true evil. 

Now you know. Choose the better path. 

 

Commenters are worried about their children having to live in a world that’s already being destroyed by 

climate change with super storms, droughts, wild fires, and rising sea levels. A gas-fired power plant is only 

going to make that worse. 

 

23 One commenter, Jack Shu, provided oral comments related to climate change at the public hearing and used a chart while making 

these comments. However, the commenter did not provide a copy of this chart to EPA Region 9. 
29

Response A-18: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our Response to Comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenters do not explain how their comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s November 2012 final PSD permit decision for the PPEC 

includes GHG BACT emission limits for the facility. 

Comment A-19:

The air basin already has nonattainment status for the federal 8-hour ozone standard and a new, more 

stringent ozone 8-hour standard of 60 ppb is now under consideration by U.S. EPA. Reportedly, U.S. EPA will 

propose the new standards in December of 2013 and finalize them in 2014. The new standards would thus be 

in effect during the majority of the operating life of the peaker plant. A supplemental analysis should be done 

of the effect of the existing high ozone levels on sensitive receptors and environmental justice communities. 

Response A-19: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

However, for informational purposes, we refer the commenter to our response to comment A-16 above for 

additional information relevant to these comments.

Comment A-20:

Supplemental modeling with meteorology data that reflect expected changes in the climate in the San Diego 

region would provide a more realistic picture of the impacts that may be expected from this plant over its 

lifetime, as the southern California climate becomes hotter and drier. For example, more ground-level ozone 

will be produced during hotter weather, a process that will be enhanced by NOX emissions from Pio Pico. This 

should be considered in Region 9’s analysis. It is also unclear from the current analysis what are the impacts of 

changing temperatures, precipitation levels, and wind patterns on the movement and longevity of particulate 

matter in the atmosphere and how that will impact nearby sensitive receptors. More modeling of these 

changes is needed to make a PSD determination. 

Response A-20: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 
30

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

For informational purposes, we note that Region 9 carefully considered the air quality impacts from this 

project when we issued our proposed and final PSD permit decisions for the PPEC in 2012. See Section 8.4 of 

the Fact Sheet, and responses to comments 44, 45, and 53-63 of the November 2012 RTC. As part of our 2012 

PSD permit decision for the PPEC, the Region determined that the proposed project would comply with all the 

applicable requirements under the PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for demonstrating that the project 

would not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. 

Comment A-21:

Each ton of GHG that is emitted from this plant will remain in the Earth’s atmosphere for years, decades, or 

centuries. Nitrous oxide, for example, has an average atmospheric lifetime of 114 years. Unlike other air 

pollutants, GHG emissions are cumulative and continue to harm the planet over the entire lifetime of the 

emission source, and far beyond. This fact should be taken into account in determination of the cost 

effectiveness of BACT for GHG. The 623,299 mass tons of GHG expected from this project -- already 2,493 

times the major source threshold level -- should be multiplied by the expected lifetimes of these gases in the 

atmosphere to obtain a more realistic metric for the climate change impact of this project. The quantity of 

GHG to be avoided by any given BACT measure can then be evaluated against the cost of preventing these 

climate damaging emissions. 

Response A-21: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how these comments are relevant to the issues that 

were remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further 

response is required. 

For informational purposes, we note that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was available for 

comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012 and included 

consideration of other greenhouse gas emissions in addition to carbon dioxide. See Fact Sheet at 21, footnote 

16. 

Comment A-22:

Oppose permit. 

Response A-22: 

Region 9 acknowledges this comment, but cannot provide a detailed response as the comment does not 

identify a basis for opposing the permit or otherwise address the specific issues that are the subject of the 
31

current notice and comment period as discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 

above. 

Comment A-23:

The December 5, 2013 Presidential Memo mandates that federal agencies will obtain 20% of the energy they 

consume from renewable sources. 

In EPA’s National 2010-2015 Strategic Plan, Goal 1, is Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air 

Quality”. So, in your own guidelines, your goal is to protect this San Diego area and to deny Pio Pico. 

Please follow your own EPA’s mission and protect our human health and the environment. 

Response A-23: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how his comments are relevant to the issues that were 

remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is 

required. 

Comment A-24:

Please send the people to the hearing who will make the decision so they too can hear from people who will 

be impacted. 

Response A-24:

As explained in Section 1, all timely comments on our PSD permits receive equal weight regardless of the 

method used to submit them. PSD public hearings provide an opportunity for the public to provide oral 

comments as well as written comments. Applicable PSD regulations require the presence of a Presiding Officer 

at PSD public hearings, who is responsible for orderly conduct of the hearing, but do not specifically require 

the presence of the EPA official who is responsible for making EPA’s final permit decision at the public hearing. 

The Air Division Director at EPA Region 9 is the official responsible for issuance or denial of the PSD permit for 

the PPEC. In this case, Region 9 did not believe that it was necessary for the Air Division Director to attend the 

public hearing for this decision. A transcript of the oral comments made at the December 17, 2013 hearing is 

available, and the Air Division Director’s decision to issue or deny the permit gives equal consideration to all 

commenters who submitted comments during the public comment period regardless of the method in which 

they commented. 

We note, however, that EPA staff members who have been directly involved in the PSD permit decisionmaking process for the PPEC attended the public hearing, and were also available to answer questions from 

the public before and after the public hearing. 

Comment A-25:

I am a concerned resident who just found out about this project tonight from the local news. Will there be 

another public hearing? Maybe with the supporters of the project since there were none at tonight's event? 
32

Response A-25: 

It is not clear whether the commenter is asking whether EPA will be holding another public hearing on its PSD 

permit decision for the PPEC, or whether the commenter is suggesting that such a hearing should be held. 

In public notices issued on June 20, 2012 and August 3, 2012, that were distributed via newspaper, mail, and 

email, and on our website, Region 9 requested public comment on our proposed PSD permit to grant 

conditional approval, in accordance with the PSD regulations, to PPLLC to construct and operate the Project. In 

addition to requesting public comment, the June 20, 2012 public notice announced a public hearing to be held 

on July 24, 2012, while the August 3, 2012 notice provided the opportunity for the public to request an 

additional public hearing. The public hearing scheduled for July 24, 2012 was held as planned. No one offered 

any oral comments at the July 24, 2012 public hearing, and the only set of written comments that was 

submitted at the public hearing was also submitted to the Region via email. In addition, no requests for a 

public hearing were received in response to our August 3, 2012 notice. 

Following the EAB’s limited remand, in November 2013, Region 9 provided a public comment period that was 

public noticed via newspaper, mail, and email, and on our website, for our proposed revised PM emission 

limits and associated revised BACT analysis and determination, and the Region also held a public hearing on 

December 17, 2013 to receive such comments. 

As the lengthy process for issuing this PSD permit decision is coming to a close, and only one specific issue – 

the PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs and associated BACT analysis-- was remanded to Region 9 and 

remains pending for further consideration, and PSD permits are time-sensitive,24 Region 9 will not be holding 

additional public meetings or public hearings for this PSD permit decision. The commenter has not 

demonstrated that there is a need for Region 9 to schedule an additional public hearing concerning this 

decision, given the opportunities for comment that have already been provided and the notices concerning 

such opportunities that were given the to the public, consistent with PSD regulatory requirements. We note 

that while numerous public comments were submitted during the November-December 2013 public comment 

period, very few of them addressed the PM emission limit issue that remains open for consideration. 

It is not clear whether the commenter is also suggesting that those stakeholders in support of the project 

should attend public hearings for PSD permit decisions. While all members of the public are welcome to 

attend and participate in our public hearings for PSD permits, PSD public hearing requirements do not require 

the attendance of project supporters at such hearings. 

Comment A-26:

I write to oppose the proposed new Pio Pico gas peaker power plant. We need to change the way in which we 

produce energy, NOW. We need to begin transitioning to clean alternative resources NOW. We need to stop 

polluting our air with the by-products of fossil fuel combustion, NOW. And we need to reduce energy 

consumption through energy conservation instead of generating more pollution in order to satisfy our 

appetite for waste. 

Response A-26: 

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

 

24 PSD permits are time-sensitive because new source construction cannot begin prior to the PSD source’s receiving a final permit, 

and because PSD permit applications must be granted or denied within one year of application completeness. CAA 165(a), (c), 42 

USC 7475(a), (c). 
33

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how his comments are relevant to the issues that were 

remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is 

required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was available for 

comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. 

Comment A-27:

I’m here today sharing, representing the youth group of the Chilpancingo Colectivo for Environmental Justice 

in Tijuana, and I want to share this picture of Jarana and the letter she wrote to Santa. She is 11, and she can’t 

cross into the U.S. But she lives in Tijuana, and her house is only 2 miles away from the proposed Pio Pico 

plant. She also lives very close to the industrial city of Otay, and her community suffers ongoing pollution from 

the maquiladoras, from factories. And additionally, she is also affected by the channelization of the Alamar 

River with concrete where a forest is being destroyed due to the roads. She is currently paying with her own 

health for the development of the region. 

And she wrote in her letter, “Santa, I ask that they don’t build the Pio Pico electrical plant only 2 miles away 

from my home. We want green energy. Jarana Yasmine.” 

[Note: This commenter submitted a picture to the record, which is included in administrative record for this 

action.] 

Response A-27:

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. As discussed above, Region 9 noted in the Addendum that its control technology determination and 

other aspects of its PM BACT analysis and determination for the CTs other than the PM emission limits were 

not within the scope of the Board’s remand and were not being reconsidered or revised as part of this action. 

These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs 

or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that are outside 

the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by Region 9 at this 

time. The commenter does not explain how her comments are relevant to the issues that were remanded to 

Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was available for 

comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. We also refer the 

commenter to our responses to comments A-11 and A-16 above for additional information relevant to these 

comments. 

Comment A-28:

The commenter hopes that EPA will consider all of what was said at the public hearing. He states he can go 

through everything that was already stated at the hearing and he can recap what all the witnesses have 
34

already told EPA about the reasons why this permit should be reconsidered. The commenter hopes that EPA 

would not just take the information that we hear at the public hearing, go back to our offices, go through a 

checklist, and say this is what they told us, this is why it doesn't apply, and move on. I would hope that you 

would -- the Appeals Board would open this up for additional public comments for you to consider what you 

hear tonight. And I would urge you to do so. Consider the comments from the information -- and the 

information that you hear and to make reasoned judgment as to why you think, if you think, that this permit 

should be reissued, please let us know why because what you are hearing tonight is actually quite important. 

Response A-28:

As discussed in detail in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in response to comment A-2 above, Region 9 fully considered 

all requirements of the PSD program in our 2012 decision-making process for this PSD permit, which 

culminated in the Region’s issuance of a final PSD permit decision for the PPEC in November 2012. This 

process entailed an extensive public participation process that offered the public the opportunity to comment 

in writing or orally at a public hearing on any topic relevant to the Region’s PSD permit decision. After the 

Region carefully reviewed and responded to the comments received and issued its final decision, several 

petitions for review of this decision were filed with the EAB. On August 2, 2013, the EAB issued a decision 

denying review of all issues raised concerning the Region’s November 2012 final PSD permit decision for the 

PPEC other than the BACT analysis for the PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs. 

The Board’s order directed Region 9 to prepare a revised BACT analysis for particulate matter for the PPEC 

CTs’ emission limits in accordance with the Board’s decision, including a new BACT determination concerning 

the emission limits, after consideration of all of the relevant information. The Board also directed Region 9 to 

reopen the public comment period to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the revisions to 

its PM BACT analysis for the CTs. Because the EAB’s remand order was narrowly limited in scope, the Region 

made clear that supplemental public comment period in 2013 offered by Region 9 was intended to address 

only the revised PM BACT analysis with respect to the PM emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs that it prepared in 

response to the EAB’s order. See Sections 2 and 3.1 and response to comment A-2 above. The Board also 

stated that it was not requiring, and would not accept, any further petitions for reviewing concerning this 

permit decision. 

The commenter appears to be suggesting that Region 9 should reopen its PSD permit decision at this very late 

stage in the PSD permit decision process for the PPEC in order to consider comments submitted during the 

2013 comment period on topics outside the scope of the PM emission limits and associated PM BACT analysis 

that were remanded to Region by the EAB. Region 9 declines to do so. Region 9 has already provided an 

extended opportunity for public participation in this matter and issued a final decision on all aspects of the 

PSD permit decision other than the PM BACT limits, and the EAB has upheld that decision. Further, PSD 

permits are time-sensitive because new source construction cannot begin prior to the PSD source’s receiving a 

final permit, and because PSD permit applications must be granted or denied within one year of application 

completeness. CAA 165(a), (c), 42 USC 7475(a), (c). 

It is not clear whether the commenter is also suggesting that the Region or the Board also offer additional 

opportunities for comment or hold additional public meetings or public hearings on its PSD permit decision for 

the PPEC. The commenter has not demonstrated that this is necessary and Region 9 declines to do so for the 

reasons explained immediately above and in response to comment A-25 above. We also reiterate that the EAB 

stated in its decision that it would not consider further appeals of this matter. 
35

Comment A-29

My name is Eddy Meyer. I’m a senior field representative for Congressman Juan Vargas and the acting 

director. Congressman Vargas represents the entire California/Mexico border region. 

First of all, I’d like to thank the EPA for being here tonight and hosting this event and also the community 

members who came out tonight. I came here tonight to listen to what the community had to say about this 

project. The border in San Diego is a source of carbon dioxide – a high source of carbon dioxide, methane 

gases, nitrous oxide with over 17 million vehicles crossing the border yearly and in addition another 1 million 

commercial vehicles crossing through Otay Mesa. That number is growing. So any project that could 

potentially add to the existing emissions is of great concern to us. 

Response A-29:

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how his comments are relevant to the issues that were 

remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is 

required. 

However, for informational purposes, we note that Region 9 carefully considered the air quality impacts from 

this project when we issued our proposed and final PSD permit decisions for the PPEC in 2012. As part of our 

2012 PSD permit decision for the PPEC, the Region determined that the proposed project would comply with 

all the applicable requirements under the PSD permitting program in 40 CFR 52.21 for demonstrating that the 

project would not cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. In addition, Region 9’s analysis of the 

appropriate control technology for BACT purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the 

PPEC. This analysis was available for comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for 

the PPEC in 2012. The final PSD permit for the PPEC includes, among other requirements, BACT limits for GHGs 

and nitrogen oxides. 

Comment A-30:

There in an initiative in San Diego to have a Community Energy District under State law. We have a State law in 

California called Community Choice Aggregation. And if the plant is built as is, it will also have a secondary 

economic impact in addition to having a primary economic impact of being a more economically impactful 

plant from health and welfare standpoint and from a cost to the rate payers and everything else. However, it 

could be done using storage, as we’ve said before. And that storage would be in line with helping get the 

Community Energy District off the ground, because then that would be a source of energy that would be 

compatible with the goals of the Community Energy District. 

On the other hand, if this plant gets built and it’s not needed, as an emission-producing plant, it would impair 

the ability of the Community Energy District to get off the ground because San Diego Gas and Electric has the 

right to charge the new customers of the Community Energy District for the energy that they built but nobody 

needs to use. 
36

So there is a very severe economic impact to the entire region, not just an environmental impact, for this plant 

being built as an emission-producing plant. 

Response A-30:

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 and in our response to comment A-2 above, the scope of the current notice 

and comment period for our PSD permit is limited to the PM emission limit issues remanded to Region 9 by 

the EAB. These comments do not appear to address Region 9’s proposed revised PM emission limits for the 

PPEC’s CTs or the associated revised PM BACT analysis concerning those limits, and therefore raise issues that 

are outside the scope of the subject matter that is subject to public comment and further consideration by 

Region 9 at this time. The commenter does not explain how his comments are relevant to the issues that were 

remanded to Region 9 and therefore subject to consideration at this time. Therefore, no further response is 

required. 

We note for informational purposes that Region 9’s analysis of the appropriate control technology for BACT 

purposes was discussed in detail in Region 9’s PSD Fact Sheet for the PPEC. This analysis was available for 

comment when Region 9 took comment on its proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012. In addition, the 

issue of the need for the PPEC was addressed by Region 9 in the November 2012 RTC at response to comment 

64. The EAB upheld the Region’s approach in this regard. 

Comment A-31:

I just have a process question. Can the EPA take independent action to deny the permit at this point or is there 

further process with regards to the hearing process and what action can the EPA take at this point? Is there's a 

timeline to that? 

Response A-31:

The public participation process that Region 9 offered following the EAB’s remand concerning its revised PM 

emission limits for the PPEC’s CTs and associated revised BACT analysis concluded on December 17, 2013. 

The scope of this public comment period is discussed in Sections 2 and 3.1 above and in our response to 

comment A-2 above. Please also see our responses to comments A-25 and A-28 concerning our response to 

inquiries about offering additional public participation opportunities at this time. 

After the conclusion of this 2013 public participation process, Region 9 reviewed the public comments 

received during this supplemental public comment period, and considered and responded as appropriate to 

these comments, and considered the pertinent Federal statutes and regulations and additional material 

relevant to the application and contained in our administrative record, in reaching our final decision to issue a 

PSD permit for the PPEC following the remand action. PSD regulations do not impose a specific timeline for 

issuance of a final permit decision following a public comment period, but EPA strives to move forward with its 

PSD permit decisions in a timely manner. We again note that PSD permits are time-sensitive because new 

source construction cannot begin prior to the PSD source’s receiving a final permit, and because PSD permit 

applications must be granted or denied within one year of application completeness. CAA 165(a), (c), 42 USC 

7475(a), (c). As discussed above, EPA’s EAB has stated that it is not requiring, and will not accept, appeals of 

the Region’s PSD permit decision for the PPEC following the Board’s remand. EPA’s issuance of the final PSD 

permit decision for the PPEC at this time constitutes final agency action by EPA on PPLLC’s PSD permit 

application for the PPEC. 
37

Comment A-32:

The public hardly knows about this project. Very few people can come out and give testimony. So I hope the 

EPA doesn't make this process, if it wants to continue with -- with public testimony, so hard for people to 

make that -- give that testimony. So if I could implore the EPA to be much more participant oriented than to 

have meetings like this in which, frankly, to many people, is not inviting, to have three minutes. There should 

be sit-down discussions at community centers, at the community's meetings, not the EPA's meetings. That 

would be a way to engage the community. That's the way the government should be engaging with the 

communities, not in its own kind of format. So this kind of format is very bureaucratic. 

It is culturally, I think, wrong to insert this kind of culture into communities. So I would implore the EPA to do 

that as well as make the information much more readily available in some way through -- through either all 

kinds of media formats or contracting with community organizations to provide information rather than have 

the EPA direct the mic. 

Response A-32:

Region 9 believes that the process it followed to notify the public about its PSD permit action for the Project 

and elicit public participation in its decision-making process was reasonable and provided appropriate 

opportunities for meaningful participation by affected communities. 

Regulatory requirements at 40 CFR Part 124 govern the public participation process for EPA’s PSD permit 

decisions including the timing and methods for providing notice to the public of EPA’s PSD permit actions and 

the framework for holding public hearings, and require that EPA designate a Presiding Officer to be 

responsible for the orderly conduct of any PSD public hearings. With respect to public outreach and 

participation for PSD permits beyond the requirements in 40 CFR Part 124, EPA has considerable discretion to 

determine what may be appropriate in a particular situation. In this case, Region 9 prepared an EJ Analysis and 

took numerous actions to facilitate input from the community regarding its PSD permit decision for the 

Project. Region 9’s enhanced public participation process, described below, met and went beyond the specific 

regulatory requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 124 for PSD permit proceedings, and clearly demonstrated a 

commitment on Region 9’s part to ensuring meaningful participation by affected communities in the decision 

making process. 

In June 2012 and August 2012, Region 9 provided notice of its proposed PSD permit for the Project, as well as 

notice of a public hearing scheduled for July 24, 2012 (or the opportunity to request an additional public 

hearing), through a public notice issued in both English and Spanish. Region 9 distributed both the Englishlanguage and Spanish-language versions of the notice using a number of methods designed to reach the 

community in the area, including publishing the notices in the San Diego Union-Tribune (in English only) on 

June 20, 2012 and August 3, 2012, in La Prensa San Diego (in Spanish only), and on Region 9’s website. Region 

9 also distributed the public notices by email or mail to the necessary parties in accordance with 40 CFR Part 

124, as described above in our Introduction in Section 2 above. The public notice solicited public comment on 

all issues relevant to Region 9’s proposed PSD permit action and provided the public with a clear explanation 

of how to obtain additional information about Region 9’s action, including the fact that detailed materials 

relating to Region 9’s action were being made available at numerous locations in the communities near the 

Project site as well as on Region 9’s website and at Region 9’s office in San Francisco. The public notice also 

included the name, phone number, mailing address and email address of a contact person so that members of 

the public could contact Region 9 directly to ask questions or obtain additional information. 
38

Region 9 sent a copy of its public notice, the Proposed Permit, and Fact Sheet to the SDAPCD in San Diego, CA, 

and, although not required by Part 124, Region 9 also distributed these documents to numerous locations in 

communities near the Project site to facilitate review by members of nearby communities: the San Ysidro 

Library in San Diego, CA; Otay Mesa Nestor Library in San Diego, CA; Civic Center Branch Library in Chula Vista, 

CA; National City Public Library in National City, CA; and Central Library in San Diego, CA. 

Region 9 also posted key documents in the administrative record for its Proposed Permit on the Region 9 

website, including the Proposed Permit, Fact Sheet, permit application and other key supporting information. 

Although Part 124 does not specifically require this approach, EPA determined that it would facilitate 

community involvement by making key information more immediately accessible to the public. 

In addition, in order to facilitate community understanding, Region 9 prepared a Public Information Sheet, 

which included an overview of the proposed PSD permit, Project emissions, and air quality impacts. This 

document (in both English and Spanish) was also made available on EPA’s online docket for review by the 

public on June 20, 2012. 

Region 9 held a public hearing in San Diego on July 24, 2012. While Spanish translation is not required by Part 

124, EPA determined that it would be appropriate to provide Spanish translation services at the hearing, and 

to translate the public notice and certain other documents relating to the Proposed Permit, in order to 

facilitate public involvement by Spanish-speaking members of nearby communities. EPA did not receive any 

oral public comments at this hearing. We received one set of written comments at the hearing, which was also 

transmitted to us via email. While our August 3, 2012 public notice provided the opportunity for the public to 

request an additional public hearing, no requests for a public hearing were received in response to our August 

3, 2012 notice. 

Later, in responding to the EAB’s order to revise the PM BACT analysis for the PPEC’s PM emission limits and 

reopen the public comment period on this particular issue, Region 9 generally followed the same methods 

described above for facilitating notice of our proposed action, requesting input from the public, and holding a 

public hearing.25 That process is described in detail in Section 1 above. This process resulted in numerous 

comments from the public in writing and at the public hearing. 

In addition, prior to issuing our proposed PSD permit for the PPEC in 2012, Region 9 had determined that 

there may be minority or low-income populations potentially affected by our proposed action on the PPEC 

PSD permit application, and determined that it would be appropriate to prepare a separate EJ Analysis for this 

particular action. We prepared the analysis and made it available as part of the administrative record for the 

Proposed Permit at the time we issued our Proposed Permit for comment in 2012, so that the public could 

comment on the analysis if desired during the public comment period. The EJ Analysis was posted on Region 

9’s online docket during the public comment period, and was briefly discussed in the Region’s Fact Sheet and 

Public Information Sheet for the Project. 

Region 9 believes that all of these efforts, which went beyond the required public notice and participation 

procedures in 40 CFR Part 124 and served to ensure that the public documents, public notices, and public 

 

25 For this supplemental public comment period, EPA did not provide an additional information sheet similar to the one described for 

the initial public comment period in 2012 given the limited scope of the issue under consideration. The public notice for this 

comment period was very detailed, given the particular circumstances of the Order from the EAB. The public notice was still made 

available in English and Spanish. 
39

hearings relating to its proposed PSD permitting action for the Project were concise, understandable, and 

readily accessible to the public, were appropriate actions to facilitate public participation for its PSD permit 

decision for the PPEC. 

We appreciate the commenter’s input on the process used by EPA for this action and will consider this 

information when determining our public outreach efforts in the future. 

4. Final Revised PSD Permit No. SD 11-01

After careful review of the comments submitted and consideration of the views expressed by the 

commenters, the pertinent Federal statutes and regulations, and additional material relevant to the 

application and contained in our administrative record, Region 9 is issuing a decision pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 

to issue a final PSD permit to PPLC for the Project. Region 9’s consideration of the comments received during 

the November-December 2013 public comment period did not result in any changes to the proposed revised 

PSD permit conditions for the PPEC that Region 9 announced in November 2013. Thus, these revised permit 

conditions are being included in the final PSD permit for the PPEC. Region 9 is also making a few administrative 

amendments to the final PSD permit with our final decision. These changes are described in a memorandum 

to the file – Administrative Amendments to Pio Pico Energy Center PSD Permit No. SD 11-01 – that is part of 

the administrative record for this action. In addition, for purposes of clarity, we have created an unofficial 

version of the final PSD permit for the PPEC that shows the changes that have been made to the final permit 

we are now issuing as compared with the final PSD permit for the PPEC that we issued in November 2012. 

That is, this unofficial redline/strikeout version of the permit includes the revisions related to the PM emission 

limits in the permit that were proposed in November 2013 as well as the administrative changes that we are 

making to the permit as discussed immediately above.