UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

_____________________________ 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

STATE OF NEW YORK, ) 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ) 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ) 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ) 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND 

POWER COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

______________________________) 

CONSENT DECREE 

WHEREAS Plaintiff, the United States of America (“the United States”), on behalf of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has filed a Complaint alleging that 

Defendant, Virginia Electric and Power Company (“VEPCO”), commenced construction of 

major modifications of major emitting facilities in violation of the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (“PSD”) requirements at Part C of the Clean Air Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-

7492; 

WHEREAS on April 24, 2000, EPA issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to VEPCO 

with respect to certain alleged violations of PSD; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff, the State of New York, filed a complaint against VEPCO on July 

1 
20, 2000, alleging violations of the Act at VEPCO’s Mount Storm Power Station located in 

northeastern West Virginia; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff, the State of Connecticut, has issued VEPCO a notice of intent to 

sue, alleging violations of the Act and also has filed a complaint alleging violations of the Act at 

certain VEPCO electric generating units; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff, the State of New Jersey, has issued to VEPCO a notice of intent to 

sue, alleging violations of the Act and also filed a complaint alleging violations of the Act at 

certain VEPCO electric generating units; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Virginia is filing a Motion for Leave to 

Intervene and Complaint in Intervention alleging that VEPCO may have violated Virginia’s air 

pollution regulations found at 9 VAC 50-80-1700, et seq., “Permits for Major Stationary Sources 

and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas,” at one or 

more of its coal-fired generating units located in Virginia and that such violations may recur or 

other similar violations may occur in the future;; 

WHEREAS the Parties consent to intervention by the Commonwealth of Virginia; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff the Commonwealth of Virginia has a significant interest in this 

litigation by reason of its aforesaid Complaint as well as by reason of: (1) the fact that a 

significant portion of the relief provided by this Decree will involve facilities located within 

Virginia and regulated by the Commonwealth and no other State, and (2) the fact that such relief 

will directly impact the issuance to the affected facilities of permits under the Commonwealth’s 

program approved pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act; 

2
WHEREAS, Section 10.1-1186.4 of the Code of Virginia specifically authorizes the 

Attorney General of Virginia to seek to intervene in pending federal enforcement actions such as 

this one brought by the United States through the Environmental Protection Agency. 

WHEREAS Plaintiff the State of West Virginia is filing a Motion for Leave to Intervene 

and Complaint in Intervention alleging that VEPCO may have violated West Virginia’s air 

pollution regulations found at 45CAR14, “Permits for Construction and Major Modification of 

Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” at one 

or more of its coal-fired generating units located in West Virginia and that such violations may 

recur or other similar violations may occur in the future; 

WHEREAS the Parties consent to intervention by the State of West Virginia; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff the State of West Virginia has a significant interest in this litigation 

by reason of its aforesaid Complaint as well as by reason of: (1) the fact that a significant portion 

of the relief provided by this Decree will involve facilities located within West Virginia and 

regulated by the State of West Virginia and no other State, and (2) the fact that such relief will 

directly impact the issuance to the affected facilities of permits under the West Virginia program 

approved pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act; 

WHEREAS, Section 22-1-6 (d)(3) of the West Virginia Code specifically authorizes the 

Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to enforce the statutes or 

rules which the Department is charged with enforcing. 

WHEREAS VEPCO, a large electric utility, responded in a constructive way to 

Plaintiffs’ notices of intent to sue and the NOV and expended significant time and effort to 

develop and agree to the terms of settlement embodied in this Decree; 

3 
WHEREAS VEPCO asserts that installation and operation of the pollution controls 

required by this Decree will result in emission reductions beyond current regulatory 

requirements; 

WHEREAS the steam electric generating units at VEPCO’s Mount Storm Power Station 

qualified for alternative emission limitations under 40 CFR Section 76.10 because VEPCO 

demonstrated under the applicable standard that they were not capable of meeting the emissions 

limitations otherwise applicable under the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Nitrogen Oxides Emission 

Reduction Program; 

WHEREAS Plaintiffs and VEPCO disagree fundamentally over the nature and scope of 

modifications that may be made to steam electric generating units without implicating the New 

Source Review requirements (including PSD) under the Act and its regulations; 

WHEREAS nothing in this Decree resolves or is intended to resolve those disagreements; 

WHEREAS VEPCO has advised the United States and the Plaintiff States that VEPCO 

has entered into this Consent Decree in reliance on the expectation that EPA will continue to 

enforce the modification provisions of the Act’s New Source Review program in substantially 

the same manner as set forth in the complaints filed herein; 

WHEREAS VEPCO has been advised that the United States retains all of its discretion 

concerning whether and how to enforce the Clean Air Act against any person, nothing in this 

Consent Decree is intended to predict or impose enforcement activities on EPA or the United 

States, and that the obligations of VEPCO under this Consent Decree are not conditional on 

subsequent enforcement activities of the Federal government; 

4
WHEREAS the Plaintiffs allege that their Complaints state claims upon which the relief 

can be granted against VEPCO under Sections 113, 167, or 304 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413, 

7477, or 7604; 

WHEREAS VEPCO has not answered any of the Complaints in light of the settlement 

memorialized in this Decree; 

WHEREAS VEPCO has denied and continues to deny the violations alleged in the NOV 

and the Complaints; maintains that it has been and remains in compliance with the Act and is not 

liable for civil penalties or injunctive relief; and states that it is agreeing to the obligations 

imposed by this Decree solely to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation and to improve 

the environment; 

WHEREAS VEPCO intends to comply with any applicable Federal or State 

Implementation Plans that result from the NOx SIP Call (63 Fed. Reg. 57356 (1998)) separate 

and apart from the obligations imposed by this Decree, and such Federal or State Implementation 

Plans that may ultimately result from the NOx SIP Call are not intended to be enforceable under 

this Decree, and instead are enforceable in accordance with their own terms and the laws 

pertaining to them; 

WHEREAS the Plaintiffs and VEPCO agree that settlement of these actions is 

fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Parties and the public, and that entry of this 

Consent Decree without further litigation is the most appropriate means of resolving this matter; 

WHEREAS the Plaintiffs and VEPCO have consented to entry of this Decree without the 

trial or other litigation of any allegation in the complaints; 

NOW THEREFORE, without any admission of fact or law, and without any admission of 

5 
the violations alleged in the Complaints or NOV, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED as follows: 

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Solely for purposes of entry and enforcement of this Decree, the parties agree that this 

Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter herein and over the Parties consenting hereto 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, 1355, and 1367 and pursuant to Sections 113 and 167 of 

the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413 and 7477, and also pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7604(a). Venue is proper 

under Section 113(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). 

VEPCO consents to and shall not challenge entry of this Consent Decree or this Court’s 

jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Consent Decree. Except as expressly provided for herein, 

this Consent Decree shall not create any rights in any party other than the Plaintiffs and VEPCO. 

VEPCO consents to entry of this Decree without further notice. 

II. APPLICABILITY 

2. Scope. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to and be binding upon – 

consistent with Section XXVIII (“Sale or Transfers of Ownership Interests”) – the Plaintiffs and 

VEPCO, including VEPCO’s officers, employees, and agents solely in their capacities as such. 

Unless otherwise specified, each requirement on VEPCO under this Consent Decree shall 

become effective thirty days after entry of this Decree. 

3. Notice to those Performing Decree-Mandated Work. VEPCO shall provide a copy of this 

6 
Decree to all vendors, suppliers, consultants, or contractors performing any of the work 

described in Sections IV through IX. Notwithstanding any retention of contractors, 

subcontractors or agents to perform any work required under this Consent Decree, VEPCO shall 

be responsible for ensuring that all work is performed in accordance with the requirements of 

this Consent Decree. In any action to enforce this Consent Decree, VEPCO shall not assert as a 

defense the failure of its employees, servants, agents, or contractors to take actions necessary to 

comply with this Decree, unless VEPCO establishes that such failure is delayed or excused under 

Section XXVI (“Force Majeure”). 

III. DEFINITIONS 

4. Every term expressly defined by this Section shall have the meaning given that term 

herein. Every other term used in this Decree that is also a term used under the Act or the 

regulations implementing the Act shall mean in this Decree what such terms mean under the Act 

or those regulations. 

5. “30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate” for a Unit means and is calculated by (A) 

summing the total pounds of the pollutant in question emitted from the Unit during an Operating 

Day and the previous twenty-nine (29) Operating Days; (B) summing the total heat input to the 

Unit in mmBTU during the Operating Day and during the previous twenty-nine (29) Operating 

Days; and (C) dividing the total number of pounds of pollutants emitted during the thirty (30) 

Operating Days by the total heat input during the thirty (30) Operating Days, and converting the 

resulting value to lbs/mmBTU. A new 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate shall be 

calculated for each new Operating Day. In calculating all 30-Day Rolling Average Emission 

7
Rates VEPCO : 

A. shall include all emissions and BTUs commencing from the time the Unit is synchronized 

with a utility electric distribution system through the time that the Unit ceases to combust fossil 

fuel and the fire is out in the boiler, except as provided by Subparagraph B, C, or D; 

B. shall use the methodologies and procedures set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 75; 

C. may exclude emissions of NOx and BTUs occurring during the fifth and subsequent Cold 

Start Up Period(s) that occur in any 30-Day period if inclusion of such emissions would result in 

a violation of any applicable 30-Day Rolling Average Emissions Rate, and if VEPCO has 

installed, operated and maintained the SCR in question in accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications and good engineering practices. A “Cold Start Up Period” occurs whenever there 

has been no fire in the boiler of a Unit (no combustion of any fossil fuel) for a period of six hours 

or more. The emissions to be excluded during the fifth and subsequent Cold Start Up Period(s) 

shall be the less of (1) those NOx emissions emitted during the eight hour period commencing 

when the Unit is synchronized with a utility electric distribution system and concluding eight 

hours later or (2) those emitted prior to the time that the flue gas has achieved the SCR 

operational temperature as specified by the catalyst manufacturer; and 

D. may exclude NOx emissions and BTUs occurring during any period of malfunction (as 

defined at 40 C.F.R. 60.2) of the SCR. 

6. “30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency” means the percent reduction in the SO2 

Emissions Rate achieved by a Unit’s FGD over a 30 Operating Day period, as further described 

by the terms of this Decree. 

7. “Air Quality Control Region” means a geographic area designated under Section 107(c) 

8 
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(c). 

8. “Boiler Island” means a Unit’s (A) fuel combustion system (including bunker, coal 

pulverizers, crusher, stoker, and fuel burners); (B) combustion air system; (C) steam generating 

system (firebox, boiler tubes, and walls); and (D) draft system (excluding the stack), all as 

further described in “Interpretation of Reconstruction,” by John B. Rasnic U.S. EPA (November 

25, 1986) and attachments thereto. 

9. “Capital Expenditures” means all capital expenditures, as defined by Generally Accepted 

Accounting Principles (GAAP), as VEPCO applied GAAP to its Boiler Island expenditures for 

the calendar years 1995-2000. Excluded from “Capital Expenditure” is the cost of installing or 

upgrading pollution control devices and the cost of altering or replacing any portion of the Boiler 

Island if such alteration or replacement is required in accordance with good engineering practices 

to accomplish the installation or upgrading of a pollution control device to meet the requirements 

of this Decree. 

10. “CEMS” or “Continuous Emission Monitoring System,” for obligations involving NOx 

and SO2 under this Decree, shall mean “CEMS” as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 72.2 and 

installed and maintained as required by 40 C.F.R. Part 75. 

11. “Clean Air Act” or “Act” means the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671q, and its 

implementing regulations. 

12. “Completed,” when used in connection with Sections XI through XVII (Resolution of 

Certain Civil Claims) and with respect to a change or modification, means the time when the 

Unit subject to the change or modification has been returned to service and is capable of 

generating electricity. 

9 
13. “Connecticut” means the State of Connecticut. 

14. “Consent Decree” or “Decree” means this Consent Decree and its Appendices A through 

C, which are incorporated by reference ( Appendix A -- “Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Generating 

Units Constituting the VEPCO System”; Appendix B -- “Consent Decree Reporting Form”; and 

Appendix C -- “Mitigation Projects that Shall be Completed Under this VEPCO Consent 

Decree”). 

15. “Defendant” means Virginia Electric and Power Company or VEPCO. 

16. “Emission Rate” means the number of pounds of pollutant emitted per million BTU of 

heat input (“lb/mmBTU”), measured as required by this Consent Decree. 

17. “EPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

18. “ESP” means electrostatic precipitator, a pollution control device for the reduction of 

PM. 

19. “FGD” means a pollution control device that employs flue gas desulfurization technology 

to remove SO2 from flue gas. 

20. “Improved Unit” means, in the case of NOx, a VEPCO System Unit scheduled under 

this Decree to be equipped with SCR and, in the case of SO2, means a VEPCO System Unit 

scheduled under this Decree to be equipped with an FGD, or Possum Point Units 3 and 4 because 

of their conversion to natural gas, as listed in Appendix A of this Decree and any amendment 

thereto. A Unit may be an Improved Unit for one pollutant without being an Improved Unit for 

the other. 

21. “KW” means a kilowatt, which is one thousand Watts or one thousandth of a megawatt 

(MW). 

10 
22. “lb/mmBTU” means the number of pounds of pollutant emitted per million British 

Thermal Units of heat input. 

23. “MW” means megawatt or one million Watts. 

24. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards” means national air quality standards 

promulgated pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7409. 

25. “New York” means the State of New York. 

26. “New Jersey” means the State of New Jersey. 

27. “NOV” means the Notice of Violation issued by EPA to VEPCO, dated April 24, 2000. 

28. “NOx” means oxides of nitrogen, as further described by the terms of this Decree. 

29. “NSR” means New Source Review and refers generally to the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Non-Attainment provisions of Parts C and D of Subchapter I of the Act. 

30. “Operating Day” for a coal-fired Unit means any calendar day on which such a Unit 

burns fossil fuel. 

31. “Other Unit” means any Unit of the VEPCO System that is not an Improved Unit for the 

pollutant in question. A Unit may be an Improved Unit for NOx and an Other Unit for SO2 and 

vice versa. 

32. “Ozone Season” means the five-month period from May 1 through September 30 of any 

year after 2004. For the year 2004, “Ozone Season” means the period from May 31, 2004, 

through September 30, 2004. 

33. “Paragraph” means a provision of this Decree preceded by an Arabic number. 

34. “Parties” means VEPCO, the United States, Virginia, West Virginia, New York, New 

Jersey, and Connecticut. 

11 
35. “Plaintiffs” means the United States, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. 

36. “PM” means total particulate matter as further described by the terms of this Decree. 

37. “PM CEM” or “PM Continuous Emission Monitor” means equipment that samples, 

analyses, measures, and provides PM emissions data -- by readings taken at frequent intervals --

and makes an electronic or paper record of the PM emissions measured. 

38. “Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis” means the technical study, analysis, review, and 

selection of control technology recommendations (including an emission rate or removal 

efficiency) performed in connection with an application for a federal PSD permit, taking into 

account the characteristics of the existing facility. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent 

Decree, such study, analysis, review, and selection of recommendations shall be carried out in 

accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and guidance describing the process and 

analysis for determining Best Available Control Technology (BACT), as that term is defined in 

40 C.F.R. §52.21(b)(12), including, without limitation, the December 1, 1987 EPA 

Memorandum from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, regarding 

Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation. Nothing in this Decree shall be 

construed either to: (A) alter the force and effect of statements known as or characterized as 

“guidance” or (B) permit the process or result of a “Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis” to be 

considered BACT for any purpose under the Act. 

39. “ppm” means parts per million by dry volume, corrected to 15 percent O2. 

40. “Project Dollars” means VEPCO’s properly documented internal and external costs 

incurred in carrying out the dollar-limited projects identified in Section XXI (“Mitigation 

12 
Projects”) and Appendix C, as determined in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting 

Principles (GAAP) (subject to review by the Plaintiffs), and provided that such costs comply 

with the Project Dollars and other requirements for such expenditures and payments set forth in 

Section XXI (“Mitigation Projects”) and Appendix C. 

41. “PSD” means Prevention of Significant Deterioration, as that term is understood under 

Part C of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470 - 7492 and 40 C.F.R. Part 52. 

42. “PSD Increment” means the maximum allowable increase in a pollutant’s concentration 

over the baseline concentration within the meaning of Section 163 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7473 

and 40 C.F.R. § 51.166(c). 

43. “SCR” means a pollution control device that employs selective catalytic reduction to 

remove NOx from flue gas. 

44. “Seasonal System-Wide Emission Rate” for a pollutant means the total pounds of the 

pollutant emitted by the VEPCO System during the period from May 1 through September 30 of 

each calendar year, divided by the total heat input (in mmBTU) to the VEPCO System during the 

period from May 1 through September 30 of the same calendar year. VEPCO shall calculate the 

Seasonal System-Wide Emission Rates from hourly CEMS data collected and analyzed in 

compliance with the 40 C.F.R. Part 75. 

45. “Section” means paragraphs of this Decree collected under a capitalized heading that is 

preceded by a Roman Numeral. 

46. “SO2" means sulfur dioxide, as described further by the terms of this Decree. 

47. “SO2 Allowance” means the same as the definition of “allowance” found at 42 U.S.C. 

Section 7651a(3): “an authorization, allocated to an affected unit, by the Administrator [of EPA] 

13
under [Subchapter IV of the Act] to emit, during or after a specified calendar year, one ton of 

sulfur dioxide.” 

48. “Subparagraph” means any subdivision of a Paragraph identified by any number or letter. 

49. “System-Wide Annual Emission Rate” for a pollutant shall mean the total pounds of the 

pollutant emitted by the VEPCO System during a calendar year, divided by the total heat input 

(in mmBTU) to the VEPCO System during the same calendar year. VEPCO shall calculate and 

analyze the System-Wide Annual Emission Rates from hourly CEM data collected in compliance 

with 40 C.F.R. Part 75. 

50. “Title V Permit” means each permit required under Subchapter V of the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 7661, et seq., for each electric generating plant that includes one or more Units that 

are part of the VEPCO System. 

51. “VEPCO System” means all the Units listed here and described further in Appendix A: 

Bremo Power Station Units 3 and 4 (in Fluvanna County, Virginia); Chesapeake Energy Center 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (near Chesapeake, Virginia); Chesterfield Power Station Units 3, 4, 5, and 6 

(in Chesterfield County, Virginia); Clover Power Station Units 1 and 2 (in Halifax County, 

Virginia); Mount Storm Power Station Units 1, 2, and 3 (in northeastern West Virginia); North 

Branch Power Station Units 1A and 1B (in northeastern West Virginia); Possum Point Power 

Station Units 3 and 4 (in Northern Virginia, about twenty-five miles south of Washington, D.C.); 

and Yorktown Power Station Units 1 and 2 (in Yorktown, Virginia). 

52. “Virginia” means the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

53. “Watt” means a unit of power equal to one joule per second. 

54. “West Virginia” means the State of West Virginia. 

14 
55. “Unit” means a generator, the steam turbine that drives the generator, the boiler that 

produces the steam for the steam turbine, the equipment necessary to operate the generator, 

turbine and boiler, and all ancillary equipment, including pollution control equipment or systems 

necessary for the production of electricity. 

IV. NOx EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROLS 

56. Unit-Specific SCR Installations and Performance Requirements. VEPCO shall install an 

SCR on each Unit listed below, no later than the date specified below and, commencing on that 

date and continuing thereafter, operate each SCR to meet a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission 

Rate for NOx of 0.100 lb/mmBTU for each listed Unit, except that VEPCO shall meet a 30-Day 

Rolling Average Emissions Rate of 0.110 lb/mmBTU for Mount Storm Units 1, 2 and 3: 

15
Units on Which VEPCO Shall Install an SCR 

ich VEPCO Must: 

tion of Fully 

R, and (B) Start 

eration that Meets 30-Day Rolling 

Average NOx Emission Rate 

Latest Date by wh 

(A) Complete Installa 

Operational SC 

Op 

Mount Storm Unit 1 Jan uary 1, 2008

Mount Storm Unit 2 January 1, 2008 

Mount Storm Unit 3 January 1, 2008 

Chesterfield Unit 4 January 1, 2013 

Chesterfield Unit 5 January 1, 2012 

Chesterfield Unit 6 January 1, 2011 

Chesapeake Energy Center Unit 3 January 1, 2013 

Chesapeake Energy Center Unit 4 January 1, 2013 

57. VEPCO also shall use best efforts to operate each SCR required under this Decree 

whenever VEPCO operates the Unit served by the SCR, in accordance with manufacturers’ 

specifications, good engineering practices, and VEPCO’s operational and maintenance needs. 

58. Year-Round Operation of SCRs. Beginning on January 1, 2008, and continuing 

thereafter, in accordance with the SCR installation schedule provided for in Paragraph 56 (Unit 

specific SCR Installation and Performance Requirements), every VEPCO System Unit served by 

an SCR required pursuant to Paragraph 56 shall operate year-round and achieve and maintain a 

NOx 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate of no more than 0.100 lb/mmBTU, except that 

16
Mount Storm Units 1, 2 and 3 shall achieve a NOx 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate of no 

more than 0.110 lb/mmBTU. 

59. VEPCO System: Interim Control of NOx Emissions: 2004 through 2007. Commencing 

in 2004 and ending on December 31, 2007, VEPCO shall control NOx emissions under the 

provisions of either Subparagraph (A) or (B) of this Paragraph. VEPCO may elect to comply 

with either Subparagraph in any calendar year and may change its election from year to year. 

VEPCO shall notify the Parties in writing on or before January 1 of each calendar year of 

whether it elects to comply with Subparagraph (A) or Subparagraph (B) for that year. If VEPCO 

fails to provide such notice by January 1 of any year, the last elected option for the prior calendar 

year shall be deemed to apply, and, if none, Subparagraph (B) shall be deemed to apply for such 

year. The requirements of this Paragraph shall terminate on December 31, 2007: 

(A) During the following three time periods, VEPCO shall control emissions of NOx 

by operating SCRs on VEPCO System Units of at least the mega-wattage capacities 

specified and shall achieve a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate for NOx of no 

greater than 0.100 lb/mmBTU at each such Unit, except that Mount Storm Units 1, 2 and 

3 shall achieve a NOx 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate of no more than 0.110 

lb/mmBTU, as follows: 

(i) May 31, 2004, through April 30, 2005: Operate SCR on combined 

capacity of at least 375 MW on any combination of VEPCO System Units, 

but at least one Unit so controlled shall be at the Chesterfield Station. 

(ii) May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006: Operate SCR on combined capacity 

of at least 875 MW on any combination of VEPCO System Units, but at 

17 
least one-half of the 875 MW so controlled shall be from a Unit or Units at 

the Chesterfield and/or Mt. Storm Stations. 

(iii) May 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007: Operate SCR on combined 

capacity of at least 1,450 MW on any combination of VEPCO System 

Units, but at least one-half of the 1,450 MW so controlled shall be from a 

Unit or Units at the Chesterfield and/or Mt. Storm Stations; or 

(B) During the Ozone Seasons of the years 2004 through 2007, actual NOx emissions 

from the VEPCO System shall not exceed a Seasonal System Wide Emission Rate 

greater than 0.150 lb/mmBTU. VEPCO’s compliance with this limit shall be achieved, in 

part, by operating an SCR at the Mt. Storm and Chesterfield Stations. 

60. VEPCO System NOx Limits 2003 and thereafter: Declining, System-Wide Tonnage 

Caps. Actual, total emissions of NOx from the VEPCO System in each calendar year, beginning 

in 2003 and continuing thereafter, shall not exceed the number of tons specified below: 

18
Calendar Year 

rmissible 

NOx Emissions (in 

Tons) from VEPCO 

System 

Total Pe 

2003 

2004 95,000 

2005 90,000 

2006 83,000 

2007 81,000 

2008 63,000 

2009 63,000 

2010 63,000 

2011 54,000 

2012 50,000 

2013 and each 30,250 

year thereafter 

104,000 

61. VEPCO System-Wide, Annual Average NOx Emission Rate. Commencing January 1, 

2013, and continuing thereafter, actual NOx emissions from the VEPCO System shall not exceed 

a System-Wide Annual Average Emission Rate of 0.150 lb/mmBTU. 

62. NOx Measurement and Calculation Procedures and Methods. In determining emission 

rates for NOx, VEPCO shall use those applicable monitoring or reference methods specified in 

40 C.F.R. Part 75. 

63. Evaluation of NOx Emission Limitations Based Upon Performance Testing. At any time 

after September 30, 2004, VEPCO may submit to the Plaintiffs a proposed revision to the 

applicable 30-Day Rolling Average Emissions Rate for NOx on any VEPCO System Unit 

19
equipped with SCR and subject to a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate. To make a 

successful petition, VEPCO must demonstrate that it cannot consistently achieve the Decreemandated NOx emissions rate for the Unit in question, considering all relevant information, 

including but not limited to the past performance of the SCR, reasonable measures to achieve the 

designed level of performance of the SCR in question, the performance of other NOx controls 

installed at the unit, and the operational history of the Unit. VEPCO shall include in such 

proposal an alternative 30-Day Rolling Average Emissions Rate. VEPCO also shall retain a 

qualified contractor to assist in the performance and completion of the petition for an alternate 

30-Day Rolling Average Emissions Rate for NOx. VEPCO shall deliver with each submission 

all pertinent documents and data that support or were considered in preparing such submission. 

If the Plaintiffs disapprove the revised emission rate, such disagreement is subject to Section 

XXVII (“Dispute Resolution”). VEPCO shall make any submission for any Unit under this 

Paragraph no later than fifteen months after the compliance date specified for that unit in 

Paragraph 56 (“Unit-Specific SCR Installations and Performance Requirements”). 

V. SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROLS 

64. Installation and Construction of, and Improvements to, plus Removal Efficiencies 

Required on, FGDs Serving: Clover Units 1 and 2, Mount Storm Units 1, 2, and 3, and 

Chesterfield Units 5 and 6. VEPCO shall construct or improve -- as applicable -- FGDs for each 

Unit listed below, to meet or exceed the Removal Efficiencies for SO2 specified below, in 

accordance with the schedules set out below. VEPCO shall operate each FGD so that each Unit 

shall continuously meet or exceed the SO2 removal efficiency specified for it, as a 30-Day 

20 
Rolling Average Removal Efficiency, during the time periods described (Phases I and II): 

Plant Name an 

Unit Number 

d ratio 

se I 

a 

Efficiency 

re 

Du 

Pha 

Remov 

n of 

l 

Requi ment 

Minim 

a 

Average 

Remo 

Efficiency (%) 

Phase 

30-D 

I 

um 

y Rolling 

val 

Dur 

Pha 

em 

Efficiency 

q 

R 

Re 

ation of 

se II 

oval 

uirement 

Phase II 

Minimum 

30-Day Rolling 

Average 

Removal 

Efficiency (%) 

Clover Unit 1 -Day 

Rolling 

ge 

/ 2003 

hereafter 

Meet 30 

Avera 

09/01 

and t 

by 

95.0 Same as Phase I Same as Phase I 

Clover Unit 2 0-Day 

g 

age by 

/ 2003 

hereafter 

Meet 3 

Rollin 

Aver 

09/01 

and t 

95.0 Same as Phase I Same as Phase I 

Mt. Storm Unit 1 eet 30-Day 

g 

verage by 

/ 2003 

hrough 

/31/04 

M 

Rollin 

A 

09/01 

and t 

12 

93.0 Jan. 1, 2005, 

and there after

95.0 

Mt. Storm Unit 2 0 

olling 

age by 

/ 2003 

d through 

12/31/04 

Meet 3 

R 

Aver 

09/01 

an 

-Day 93.0 . 05, and 

thereafter 

Jan 1, 20 95.0 

Mt. Storm Unit 3 Meet 30-Day 

Rolling 

Average by 

09/01/ 2003 

and through 

12/31/04 

93.0 Jan. 1, 2005, and 

thereafter 

95.0 

21
Chesterfield Unit 5 , 2012, 

and thereafter 

Oct. 12 95.0 Same as Phase I Same a Phase I 

Chesterfield Unit 6 Jan. 1, 2010, 

and thereafter 

95.0 Same as Phase I Same as Phase I 

65. Chesterfield FGD Construction. This Decree does not require VEPCO to begin: (A) 

physical construction on or begin significant equipment procurement for the FGD for 

Chesterfield Unit 6 prior to July 1, 2008, or (B) physical construction on or significant 

equipment procurement for the FGD for Chesterfield Unit 5 before January 1, 2010. 

66. Option of Compliance with an Emission Rate after an FGD Demonstrates SO2 30-Day 

Rolling Average Removal Efficiency of at least 95.0%. Once a Unit (and its FGD) listed in 

Paragraph 64 demonstrates at least 95 percent removal efficiency for SO2 for at least 180 

consecutive days of operation without FGD bypass as specified in Paragraph 67 (omitting days 

on which the Unit did not combust fossil fuel) on a 30-Day Rolling Average basis, then VEPCO 

-- at its option and with written, prior notice to the Plaintiffs -- shall meet the following emission 

rate for SO2 rather than the 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency specified in Paragraph 

64: 

Eligible to Make 180-Day 

Demonstration 

Plant and Unit 

Maximum SO2 30-Day Rolling 

Average Emission Rate 

VEPCO shall meet in Lieu of 

95.0%, 30-Day Rolling 

Average Removal Efficiency 

Clover Unit 1 0.130 

Clover Unit 2 0.130 

Chesterfield Unit 5 0.130 

Chesterfield Unit 6 0.130 

22
Mount Storm U nit 1 0.150 

Mount Storm Unit 2 0.150 

Mount Storm Unit 3 0.150 

67. Interim Mitigation of Mount Storm SO2 Emissions While FGDs are Improved. 

Notwithstanding the requirement to meet a specific percent removal or emission rate at Mount 

Storm Units 1, 2, or 3, in limited circumstances, VEPCO may operate such Units without 

meeting required Removal Efficiencies or Emission Rates in the case of FGD scrubber outages 

or downtime of the FGD scrubber serving each such Unit, if such operation complies with the 

following requirements. For this Paragraph, FGD outage or downtime “day” shall consist of a 

24-hour block period commencing in the hour the FGD ceases to operate, and continuing in 

successive 24-hour periods until the hour the FGD is placed back into operation. Any period of 

less than 24 hours of FGD downtime shall count as a full “day”. For the FGD serving Unit 3, 

because it has two separately operating absorber vessels, outage or downtime may be measured 

in “1/2 day” (12-hour) increments – one for each absorber – but otherwise on the same basis as a 

“day” is counted for outage or downtime on the FGDs serving Units 1 and 2. 

(A) In any calendar year from 2003 through 2004 for Mount Storm Unit 3, and in any 

calendar year from 2003 through 2004 for Mount Storm Units 1 and 2, VEPCO may 

operate Mount Storm Units 1, 2, or 3 in the case of outage or downtime of the FGD 

serving such Unit, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 

(i) VEPCO does not operate Mount Storm Units 1, 2, or 3 during FGD 

outages or downtime on more than thirty (30) “days”, or any part thereof, in any 

calendar year; in the case of Mount Storm Unit 3, operation during an outage or 

23 
downtime in either of the two FGD absorber vessels serving the Unit shall count 

as operation during a “1/2” day of FGD outage or downtime; 

(ii) All other available VEPCO System Units on-line at the Mount Storm 

Station and Clover Power Station are dispatched ahead of the Mount Storm Unit 

experiencing the FGD outage or downtime; 

(iii) For each of the first twenty (20) “days” in a calendar year, or part thereof, 

that a Unit operates under this Paragraph VEPCO surrenders to EPA (using the 

procedure Section VI, Paragraph 72) one SO2 Allowance, in addition to any 

surrender or possession of allowances required under Title IV or under any other 

provision of this Consent Decree, for each ton of SO2 actually emitted in excess 

of the SO2 emissions that would have occurred if coal containing 1.90 

lb/mmBTU sulfur had been burned; and 

(iv) For each “day”, or part thereof, that a Unit operates under this Paragraph 

beyond twenty (20) “days” in a calendar year, VEPCO shall surrender to EPA 

(using the procedure in Section VI, Paragraph 72) one SO2 Allowance, in addition 

to any surrender or possession of allowances required under Title IV or under any 

other provision of this Consent Decree, for each ton of SO2 actually emitted in 

excess of SO2 emissions that would have occurred if coal containing 1.70 

lb/mmBTU sulfur had been burned. 

(B) In any calendar year from 2005 through 2007, VEPCO may operate Mount Storm 

Units 1, 2, or 3 in the case of FGD outage or downtime, if all of the following conditions 

are satisfied: 

24 
(i) VEPCO does not operate Mount Storm Units 1 or 2 during FGD outages 

or downtime on more than thirty (30) “days”, or any part thereof, in any calendar 

year; and in the case of Mount Storm Unit 3, operation during an outage or 

downtime in either one of the two FGD absorber vessels serving the Unit shall 

count as operation during “1/2” day of FGD outage or downtime; 

(ii) All other available VEPCO System Units on-line at the Mount Storm

Station and Clover Power Station are dispatched ahead of the Mount Storm Unit 

experiencing the FGD outage or downtime; 

(iii) For each of the first ten (10) “days”, or part thereof, in a calendar year that 

a Unit operates under this Paragraph VEPCO surrenders to EPA (using the 

procedure in Section VI, Paragraph 72) one SO2 Allowance, in addition to any 

surrender or possession of allowances required under Title IV or under any other 

provision of this Consent Decree, for each ton of SO2 actually emitted in excess 

of the SO2 emissions that would have occurred if coal containing 1.90 lb/mmBTU 

sulfur had been burned; 

(iv) For each day that a Unit operates under this Paragraph from the eleventh 

through the twentieth “days”, or part thereof, in a calendar year, VEPCO shall 

surrender to EPA (using the procedure in Section VI, Paragraph 72) one SO2 

Allowance, in addition to any surrender or possession of allowances required 

under Title IV or under any other provision of this Consent Decree, for each of 

the tons of SO2 actually emitted that equal the mass emissions difference between 

actual emissions and those that would have occurred if coal containing 1.70 

25 
lb/mmBTU sulfur had been used.; and 

(v) For each day that a Unit operates under this Paragraph beyond twenty (20) 

“days”, or part thereof, in a calendar year, VEPCO shall surrender to EPA (using 

the procedure Section VI, Paragraph 72) one SO2 Allowance, in addition to any 

surrender or possession of allowances required under Title IV or under any other 

provision of this Consent Decree, for each ton of SO2 actually emitted in excess 

of SO2 emissions that would have occurred if coal containing 1.50 lb/mmBTU 

sulfur had been burned; 

(C) In any calendar year from 2008 through 2012, VEPCO may operate Mount Storm 

Units 1, 2, or 3 in the case of FGD outages or downtime, if all of the following conditions 

are satisfied: 

(i) VEPCO does not operate Mount Storm Units 1, 2, or 3 during FGD 

outages or downtime on more than ten (10) “days”, or part thereof, in any 

calendar year; in the case of Mount Storm Unit 3, operation during an outage or 

downtime in either of the two FGD absorber vessels serving the Unit shall count 

as “1/2” day of operation during an FGD outage or downtime; 

(ii) All other available VEPCO System Units on-line at the Mount Storm 

Station and Clover Station are dispatched ahead of the Mount Storm Unit 

experiencing the FGD outage or downtime; and 

(iii) VEPCO surrenders to EPA (using the procedure of Section VI, Paragraph 

72) one SO2 Allowance, in addition to any surrender or possession of allowances 

required under Title IV or under any other provision of this Consent Decree, for 

26 
each ton of SO2 actually emitted in excess of SO2 emissions that would have 

occurred if coal with 1.50 lb/mmBTU sulfur had been burned. 

68. Calculating 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency of a VEPCO System FGD. 

The SO2 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency for a VEPCO System FGD shall be 

obtained and calculated using SO2 CEMS data in compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 (from both 

the inlet and outlet of the control device) by subtracting the outlet 30-Day Rolling Average 

Emission Rate from the inlet 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate on each day the boiler 

operates, dividing that difference by the inlet 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate, and then 

multiplying by 100. A new 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency shall be calculated for 

each new Operating Day. In the case of FGDs serving Chesterfield Units 5 and 6 or Mount 

Storm Units 1, 2, or 3, if any flue gas emissions containing SO2 did not pass through the inlet of 

the Unit’s scrubber on a day when the Unit operated, VEPCO must account for, report on, and 

include any such emissions in calculating the FGD Removal Efficiency for that day and for 

every 30-Day Rolling Average of which that day is a part. 

69. Commencing within 30 days after lodging of this Decree, VEPCO shall use best efforts 

to operate each such FGD at all times the Unit the FGD serves is in operation, provided that such 

FGD system can be operated consistent with manufacturers’ specifications, good engineering 

practices and VEPCO’s operational and maintenance needs. In calculating a 30-Day Rolling 

Average Removal Efficiency or a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate for a Mount Storm 

Unit, VEPCO need not include SO2 emitted by Unit while its FGD is shut down in compliance 

with Paragraph 67 (“Interim Mitigation of Mount Storm SO2 Emissions While FGDs are 

Improved”). 

27 
70. SO2 Measurement Methods. VEPCO shall conduct all emissions monitoring for SO2 in 

compliance with 40 C.F.R. Part 75. 

VI. ANNUAL SURRENDER OF SO2 ALLOWANCES 

71. Annual Surrender. On or before March 31 of every year beginning in 2013 and 

continuing thereafter, VEPCO shall surrender 45,000 SO2 Allowances. In each year, this 

surrender of SO2 Allowances may be made either directly to EPA or by first transferring the SO2 

Allowances to another person in the manner provided for by this Decree. 

72. Surrender Directly to EPA. If VEPCO elects to make an annual surrender directly to 

EPA, VEPCO shall, on or before March 31, 2013, and on or before March 31 of each year 

thereafter, submit SO2 Allowance transfer request forms to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation’s 

Clean Air Markets Division directing the transfer of 45,000 SO2 Allowances held or controlled 

by VEPCO to the EPA Enforcement Surrender Account or to any other EPA Account to which 

the EPA may direct. As part of submitting these transfer requests, VEPCO shall irrevocably 

authorize the transfer of these Allowances and VEPCO shall also identify – by name of account 

and any applicable serial or other identification numbers or plant names – the source and location 

of the Allowances being surrendered, as well as any information required by the transfer request 

form. 

73. Alternate Method of Surrender. If VEPCO elects to make an annual surrender of SO2 

Allowances to a person other than EPA, VEPCO shall include a description of such transfer in 

the next report submitted to Plaintiffs pursuant to Section XIX (“Periodic Reporting”) of this 

Consent Decree. Such report shall: (A) provide the identity of the third-party recipient(s) of the 

28 
SO2 Allowances and a listing of the serial numbers of the transferred allowances; (B) include a 

certificate in compliance with Section XIX from the third-party recipient(s) stating that it (they) 

will not sell, trade, or otherwise exchange any of the allowances and will not use any of the 

allowances to meet any obligation imposed by any environmental law. No later than the next 

periodic report due 12 months after the first report of the transfer, VEPCO shall include in the 

Section XIX reports to Plaintiffs a statement that the third-party recipient(s) permanently 

surrendered the allowances to EPA within one year after VEPCO transferred the allowances to 

the third-party recipient(s). VEPCO shall not have finally complied with the allowance 

surrender requirements of this Paragraph until all third-party recipient(s) shall have actually 

surrendered the transferred allowances to EPA. 

74. Changes to Decree-Mandated SO2 Allowance Surrenders Beginning in 2013, and every 

year thereafter: 

(A) If changes in Title IV of the Act or it implementing regulations decrease the 

number of SO2 Allowances that are allocated to the VEPCO System Units for the year 

2013 or any year thereafter, or if other applicable law either: (A) awards fewer than 

127,363 SO2 Allowances to the VEPCO System or (B) directs non-reusable surrender of 

SO2 Allowances by VEPCO, then the number of SO2 Allowances that VEPCO must 

surrender in such a year under this Section shall decrease by the same amount; 

(B) If changes to Title IV of the Act or its implementing regulations result in (i) a 

reduction of SO2 Allowances to the VEPCO System and (ii) any amount of SO2 

Allowances being auctioned-off, and the national SO2 Allowance pool reflects a 

nationwide reduction in SO2 Allowances of less than 35.6% from the 2010 national pool, 

29 
then the number of SO2 Allowances that VEPCO must surrender in such year under this 

Section of this Decree shall decrease as follows: 

45,000 – (127,363 x the percent reduction of the National pool) 

Thus, if the national pool of SO2 Allowances is reduced by greater than 35.6% from the 

2010 national pool of SO2 allowances, then VEPCO is not required to surrender any SO2 

Allowances under this Decree. But in no event shall VEPCO keep in excess of 82,363 

SO2 Allowances allocated in any year after 2012 to the VEPCO System. 

(C) If changes to Title IV of the Act or its implementing regulations result in an 

increase of SO2 Allowances to VEPCO, then VEPCO’s annual obligation to surrender 

such Allowances under this Decree shall increase by the amount of such increase. 

75. Use of SO2 Allowances Related to VEPCO System Units Scheduled for FGDs under the 

Decree. For all SO2 Allowances allocated to Mount Storm Unit 1 on or after January 1, 2003, 

Mount Storm Unit 2 on or after January 1, 2003, Chesterfield Unit 5 on or after October 1, 2012, 

and Chesterfield Unit 6 on or after January 1, 2010, VEPCO may use such SO2 Allowances only 

to (A) meet the SO2 Allowance surrender requirements established for the VEPCO System under 

this Decree; (B) meet the limits imposed on VEPCO under Title IV of the Act; or (C) meet any 

federal or state future emission reduction programs that use or rely on Title IV SO2 Allowances 

for compliance, in whole or in part. However, if VEPCO operates a FGD serving Mount Storm 

Unit 1, Mount Storm Unit 2, Chesterfield Unit 5, or Chesterfield Unit 6 either: (A) earlier than 

required by a provision of this Decree or (B) at a 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency 

greater than, or a 30-Day Rolling Average Emissions Rate less than that required by this Decree, 

then VEPCO may use for any lawful purpose SO2 Allowances equal to the number of tons of 

30
SO2 that VEPCO removed from the emission of those Units in excess of the SO2 tonnage 

reductions required by this Decree, so long as VEPCO timely reports such use under Section 

XIX. 

76. Other Limits on Use of SO2 Allowances. VEPCO may not use the same SO2 Allowance 

more than once. VEPCO may not use the SO2 Allowances surrendered under this Section for 

any other purpose, including, but not limited to, any sale or trade of such Allowances for use by 

any person other than VEPCO or by any Unit not part of the VEPCO System, except as provided 

by Paragraph 73 (“Alternate Method of Surrender”). Other than the limits stated in this Decree 

on use of SO2 Allowances or limits imposed by law, this Decree imposes no other limits on how 

VEPCO may use SO2 Allowances. 

77. No Entitlement Created. This Consent Decree does not entitle VEPCO to any allocation 

of SO2 Allowances under the Act. 

VII. PM EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROLS 

78. Use of Existing PM Pollution Control Equipment. Commencing within 30 days after 

lodging of this Decree, VEPCO shall operate each ESP and baghouse within the VEPCO System 

to maximize PM emission reductions through the procedures established in this Paragraph. 

VEPCO shall (A) commence operation no later than two hours after commencement of 

combustion of any amount of coal in the controlled System Unit, except that this requirement 

shall apply to Bremo Power Station Units 3 and 4 commencing two hours after cessation of oil 

injection to the boiler, and provided that, for all ESP-equipped Units, “combustion of any 

amount of coal” shall not include combustion of coal that is the result of clearing out a Unit’s 

coal mills as the Unit is returned to service; (B) fully energize each available portion of each 

31 
ESP, except those ESP fields that have been out of service since at least January 1, 2000, 

consistent with manufacturers’ specifications, the operational design of the Unit, and good 

engineering practices, and repair such fields that go out of service consistent with the 

requirements of this Paragraph; (C) maintain power levels delivered to the ESPs, consistent with 

manufacturers’ specifications, the operational design of the Unit, and good engineering practices; 

and (D) continuously operate each ESP and baghouse in compliance with manufacturers’ 

specifications, the operational design of the Unit, and good engineering practices. Whenever any 

element of any ESP that has been in service at any time since January 1, 2000 fails, does not 

perform in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications and good engineering practices, or 

does not operate in accordance with the standards set forth in this Paragraph, VEPCO shall use 

best efforts to repair the element no later than the next available Unit outage appropriate to the 

repair task. The requirements of this Paragraph do not apply to Possum Point Units 3 and 4 until 

January 1, 2004, and do not apply at all when those Units burn natural gas. 

79. ESP and Baghouse Optimization Studies and Recommendations. VEPCO shall complete 

an optimization study, in accordance with the schedule below, for each VEPCO System Unit 

served by an ESP or baghouse (except Possum Point Units 3 and 4, in light of their conversion to 

natural gas), which shall recommend: the best available maintenance, repair, and operating 

practices that will optimize ESP or baghouse availability and performance in accordance with 

manufacturers’ specifications, the operational design of the Unit, and good engineering practices. 

These studies shall consider any ESP elements not in service prior to January 1, 2000, to the 

extent changes to such elements may be required to meet a PM Emission Rate of 0.030 

lb/mmBTU. Any operating practices or procedures developed and approved under this 

32
Paragraph shall become a part of the standard specified in (D) of Paragraph 78 (“Use of Existing 

PM Pollution Control Equipment”), above, and shall be implemented in compliance with that 

Paragraph. VEPCO shall retain a qualified contractor to assist in the performance and 

completion of each study. VEPCO shall submit each completed study to the United States for 

review and approval. (The United States will consult with the other Plaintiffs before completing 

such review). VEPCO shall implement the study’s recommendations within 90 days (or any 

longer time period approved by the United States) after receipt of approval by the United States. 

If VEPCO seeks more than 90 days to implement the recommendations contained in the study, 

then VEPCO shall include, as part of the study, the reasons why more than 90 days are necessary 

to implement the recommendations, e.g., the need to order or install parts or equipment, retain 

specialized expertise, or carry out training exercises. VEPCO shall maintain each ESP and 

baghouse as required by the study’s recommendations and shall supplement the ESP operational 

standard in (D) of Paragraph 78 to include any operational elements of the study and its 

recommendations. The schedule for completion and submission to the United States of the 

optimization studies shall be as follows: 

Number and Choice of VEPCO System 

Units on Which VEPCO Shall Complete and 

Submit Optimization Studies 

Number of Months After Lodging of the 

Decree that VEPCO Shall Submit 

Optimizations Studies to the U.S. 

Four Units (including at least one Unit at 

Mount Storm or Chesterfield) 

12 Months 

Three More Units (including at least two at any 

one or more of the following VEPCO stations – 

Mount Storm, Chesterfield, and Bremo, if not 

already done) 

24 Months 

33
o located 

or more of the following VEPCO 

stations – Mount Storm, Chesterfield, and 

Two More Units (including at least tw 

at any one 

Bremo, if not already done) 

36 Months 

Two More Units 48 Months 

Two More Units 60 Months 

All Other Units 72 Months 

80. Alternative to Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis. Within 270 days after VEPCO 

receives the United States’ approval of the ESP optimization study for a VEPCO System Unit, 

VEPCO may elect to achieve for any Unit the objectives of, and thereby avoid, the Pollution 

Control Upgrade Analysis otherwise required by this Section by certifying to the United States, 

in writing, that: (A) the ESP shall continue to be operated and maintained in compliance with the 

approved optimization plan, pursuant to Paragraphs 78 and 79 of this Section, respectively, and 

(B) that the enforceable PM emission limit for this Unit shall be 0.030 lb/mmBTU, either 

commencing immediately or on and after the date required by this Decree for completion of 

FGD installations or improvements at that Unit (or after installation of any other FGD system 

VEPCO chooses to install at a Unit prior to 2013). Otherwise, VEPCO shall comply with 

Paragraph 82 (Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis, Construction of PM Controls, Compliance 

with New Emission Rate”), below. 

81. PM Emission Rate Determination. The methods specified in this Paragraph shall be the 

reference methods for determining PM Emission Rates along with any other method approved by 

EPA under its authority to establish or approve such methods. The PM Emission Rates 

established under Paragraph 80 of this Section shall not apply during periods of “startup” and 

“shutdown” or during periods of control equipment or Unit malfunction, if the malfunction meets 

34 
the requirements of the Force Majeure Section of this Consent Decree. Periods of “startup” shall 

not exceed two hours after any amount of coal is combusted (except that for Bremo Power 

Station Units 3 and 4, this two-hour period begins upon cessation of injection of oil into the 

boiler). Periods of “shutdown” shall only commence when the Unit ceases burning any amount 

of coal (or in the case of Bremo Power Station Units 3 and 4, when any oil is introduced into the 

boiler). Coal shall not be deemed to be combusted if it is burned as a result of clearing out a 

Unit’s coal mills as the Unit is returned to service. The reference methods for determining PM 

Emission Rates shall be those specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A, Method 5 or Method 

17, using annual stack tests. VEPCO shall calculate PM Emission rates from the annual stack 

tests in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 60.8(f) and 40 C.F.R. 60.48a(b). The annual stack-testing 

requirement of this Paragraph shall be conducted as described in Paragraph 95 and may be 

satisfied by: (A) any annual stack tests VEPCO may conduct pursuant to its permits or applicable 

regulations from the States of Virginia and West Virginia if such tests employ reference test 

methods allowed under this Decree, or (B) installation and operation of PM CEMs required 

under this Decree. 

82. Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis of PM, Construction of PM Controls, Compliance 

with New Emission Rate. For each VEPCO System Unit served by an ESP -- other than Possum 

Point Units 3 and 4 and those Units that meet the requirements of Paragraph 80 (“Alternative to 

Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis”) -- VEPCO shall complete a Pollution Control Upgrade 

Analysis and shall deliver the Analysis and supporting documentation to the United States for 

review and approval (after consultation with the other Plaintiffs). Notwithstanding the definition 

of Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis (Paragraph 38), VEPCO shall not be required to consider 

35 
in this Analysis: (A) the replacement of any existing ESP with a new ESP, scrubber, or 

baghouse, or (B) the installation of any supplemental pollution control device similar in cost to a 

replacement ESP, scrubber, or baghouse (on a total dollar-per-ton-of-pollution-removed basis). 

83. VEPCO shall retain a qualified contractor to assist in the performance and completion of 

each Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis. Within one year of the United States’ approval of the 

work and recommendation(s) made in the Analysis (or within a longer period of time properly 

sought by VEPCO and approved by the United States), VEPCO shall complete all 

recommendation(s). If VEPCO seeks more than one year from the date of the United States’ 

approval of the Analysis to complete the work and recommendations called for by the Analysis, 

VEPCO must state the amount of additional time required and the reasons why additional time is 

necessary. Thereafter, VEPCO shall operate each ESP in compliance with the work and 

recommendation(s), including compliance with the specified Emission Rate. The schedule for 

completion and submission to the United States of the Pollution Control Upgrade Analyses for 

each Unit subject to this Paragraph shall be 12 months after the United States approves the ESP 

optimization study for each Unit pursuant to Paragraph 79 (unless VEPCO has elected to use the 

alternative to the Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis under Paragraph 80 for the Unit). 

84. Performance Testing of Equipment Required by Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis. 

Between 6 and 12 months after VEPCO completes installation of the equipment called for by 

each approved Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis, VEPCO shall conduct a performance test 

demonstration to ensure that the approved PM emission limitation set forth in the Analysis can 

be consistently achieved in practice, including all requirements pertaining to proper operation 

and maintenance of control equipment. If the performance demonstration shows that the 

36 
approved control equipment cannot consistently meet the required PM emission limitation, 

VEPCO shall revise the Pollution Control Upgrade Analysis and resubmit it to the United States 

for review and approval of an alternative emissions limitation. 

85. Installation and Operation of PM CEMs. VEPCO shall install, calibrate, operate, and 

maintain PM CEMs, as specified below. Each PM CEM shall be comprised of a continuous 

particle mass monitor measuring particulate matter concentration, directly or indirectly, on an 

hourly average basis and a diluent monitor used to convert results to units of lb/mmBTU. 

VEPCO may select any type of PM CEMS that meets the requirements of this Consent Decree. 

VEPCO shall maintain, in an electronic database, the hourly average emission values of all PM 

CEMS in lb/mmBTU. During Unit startups, VEPCO shall begin operating the PM CEMs in 

accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 78(A) (“Use of Existing PM Pollution 

Control Equipment”), and VEPCO shall thereafter use reasonable efforts to keep each PM CEM 

running and producing data whenever any Unit served by the PM CEM is operating. VEPCO 

shall submit to EPA for review and approval a plan to install, calibrate and operate each PM 

CEM. VEPCO shall thereafter operate each PM CEM in accordance with the approved plan. 

86. Installation of PM CEMs – First Round (Three Units). On or before December 1, 2003, 

VEPCO shall designate which three VEPCO System Units will have PM CEMs installed, in 

accordance with this Paragraph. No later than 12 months after entry of this Decree (or a longer 

time period approved by the United States, not to exceed 18 months after entry of this Decree) 

VEPCO shall install, calibrate, and commence operation of the following: 

(A) PM CEMs in the stacks that service at least two of the following VEPCO System 

Units: Mount Storm Units 1, 2, and 3, and Clover Units 1 and 2; and 

37 
(B) at least one additional PM CEM at any other ESP-equipped Unit in the VEPCO 

System, as selected by VEPCO. 

If VEPCO seeks more than 12 months after entry of the Decree to complete installation and 

calibration of the PM CEMs, then VEPCO shall include a full explanation of the reasons why it 

requires more than 12 months after entry of the Decree to complete installation and calibration. 

87. Consultation Before the First Round of PM CEMs. Prior to installing any PM CEMs, 

VEPCO and the United States shall meet, consult, and agree to adequate mechanisms for treating 

potential emission limitation exceedances that may occur during installation and calibration 

periods of the PM CEMs that may exceed applicable PM emission limitations. VEPCO and the 

United States shall invite the States of Virginia and West Virginia to participate in these 

discussions. 

88. Option for Consultation Both Before and After Installation of the First or Second Round 

of PM CEMs. Either before the first or second round of PM CEMs installations, or after such 

PM CEMs are installed and producing data, or both, the United States and VEPCO shall meet, 

upon the request of either, to examine further the data that may or may not be generated by the 

PM CEMs. This issue should be addressed in light of the regulatory or permit-based mass 

emission limit set for the Unit before it was equipped with a PM CEM or any PM emission 

limitation established or to be established under this Section of the Decree, and the parties should 

take appropriate and acceptable actions to address any issues concerning periodic short term Unit 

process and control device upsets and/or averaging periods. In the event VEPCO or the United 

States call for such a meeting, the United States and VEPCO shall invite the States of Virginia 

and West Virginia to participate. 

38 
89. Demonstration that PM CEMs Are Infeasible. No earlier than 2 years after VEPCO has 

installed the first round of PM CEMs, VEPCO may attempt to demonstrate that it is infeasible to 

continue operating PM CEMs. As part of such demonstration, VEPCO shall submit an 

alternative PM monitoring plan for review and approval by the United States. The plan shall 

explain the basis for stopping operation of the PM CEMs and propose an alternative-monitoring 

plan. If the United States disapproves the alternative PM monitoring plan, or if the United States 

rejects VEPCO’s claim that it is infeasible to continue operating PM CEMs, such disagreement 

is subject to Section XXVII (“Dispute Resolution”). 

90. “Infeasible to Continue Operating PM CEMs” – Standard. Operation of a PM CEM shall 

be considered “infeasible” if, by way of example, the PM CEMS: (A) cannot be kept in proper 

condition for sufficient periods of time to produce reliable, adequate, or useful data; or (B) 

VEPCO demonstrates that recurring, chronic, or unusual equipment adjustment or servicing 

needs in relation to other types of continuous emission monitors cannot be resolved through 

reasonable expenditures of resources; or (C) chronic and difficult Unit operation issues cannot be 

resolved through reasonable expenditure of resources; or (D) the data produced by the CEM 

cannot be used to assess PM emissions from the Unit or performance of the Unit’s control 

devices. If the United States determines that VEPCO has demonstrated infeasibility pursuant to 

this Paragraph, VEPCO shall be entitled to discontinue operation of and remove the PM CEMs. 

91. PM CEM Operations Will Continue During Dispute Resolution or Proposals for 

Alternative Monitoring. Until the United States approves an alternative monitoring plan or until 

the conclusion of any proceeding under Section XXVII (“Dispute Resolution”), VEPCO shall 

continue operating the PM CEMs. If EPA has not issued a decision regarding an alternative 

39 
monitoring plan within 90 days VEPCO may initiate action under the Dispute Resolution 

provisions (Section XXVII) under this Consent Decree. 

92. Installation and Operation of PM CEMs – Second Round (6 Units). Unless VEPCO has 

been allowed to cease operation of the PM CEMs under Paragraph 89 (“Demonstration that PM 

CEMs Are Infeasible”), then VEPCO shall install, calibrate, and commence operation of PM 

CEMs that serve at least 6 more Units. In selecting the VEPCO System Units to receive PM 

CEMs under this second round, VEPCO must assure that Mount Storm Units 1, 2, and 3 and 

Clover Units 1 and 2 all receive PM CEMs if they have not already received PM CEMs under 

the first round. VEPCO may select the other VEPCO System Units to receive the required PM 

CEMs. The options for consultation regarding first round PM CEMs under Paragraphs 87 and 

88 shall also be available for second round PM CEMs. VEPCO shall install PM CEMs that 

serve two VEPCO System Units in each of the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 under this second 

round of PM CEMs. 

93. Common Stacks. Installation of a PM CEM on Mount Storm Units 1 and 2 or on 

Yorktown Units 1 and 2 shall count as installation of PM CEMs on 2 units in recognition of the 

common stack that serves these Units. VEPCO and the United States shall agree in writing on 

the method for apportioning emissions to the Units served by common stacks. 

94. Data Use. Data from PM CEMs shall be used by VEPCO, at minimum, to monitor 

progress in reducing PM emissions. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to or shall alter 

or waive any applicable law (including, but not limited to, any defense, entitlements, challenges, 

or clarifications related to the Credible Evidence Rule (62 Fed. Reg. 8314 (Feb. 27, 1997))) 

concerning the use of data for any purpose under the Act, generated either by the reference 

40 
methods specified herein or otherwise. 

95. Other Testing and Reporting Requirements. Commencing in 2004, VEPCO shall 

conduct a stack test for PM on each stack servicing each Unit in the VEPCO System (excluding 

Possum Point Units 3 and 4 in 2004, and in any subsequent year in which such Units have not 

burned coal). Such PM stack testing shall be conducted at least once per every four successive 

“QA Operating Quarters" (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 72.2) and the results of such testing shall be 

submitted to the Plaintiffs as part of the periodic reporting under Section XIX (“Periodic 

Reporting”) and Appendix B. Following installation of each PM CEM, VEPCO shall include all 

data recorded by PM CEMs, including submission in electronic format, if available, in the 

reports required by Section XIX. 

VIII. POSSUM POINT UNITS 3 & 4: 

FUEL CONVERSION, INSTALLATION OF CONTROLS 

96. Fuel Conversion. VEPCO shall cease all combustion of coal at Possum Point Units 3 and 

4 prior to May 1, 2003, in preparation for the conversion of Possum Point Units 3 and 4 to 

operate on natural gas, and shall not operate these Units again until that fuel conversion is 

complete and the Units are firing natural gas. VEPCO shall continuously operate such 

equipment to control NOx emissions in compliance with State permitting requirements. VEPCO 

also shall limit the combined emissions from Possum Point Units 3 and 4 to 219 tons of NOx in 

any 365 days, rolled daily, and determined as follows: Add the total NOX emissions from 

Possum Point Units 3 and 4 on any given day, occurring after entry of this Decree, to the total 

NOX emissions from those two Units for the preceding 364 consecutive days occurring after 

41
entry of the Decree; the sum of those emissions may never exceed 219 tons. If VEPCO exceeds 

this 219-ton limit, VEPCO shall install and operate SCR at BACT levels within 3 years of the 

exceedance at either Yorktown Unit 1 (173 MW), or Yorktown Unit 2 (183 MW), or Bremo Unit 

4 (170 MW). VEPCO may select which of these Units receives the SCR so long as the 

following are true for the Unit: 

(A) An SCR is not required under regulatory requirements for the Unit; 

(B) VEPCO had not planned to install an SCR on such Unit to help comply with any 

requirement as of the day of exceedance at Possum Point; and 

(C) The Unit is not required to meet an emission rate that would call for installation of 

SCR. 

If these conditions are not met for any of the three listed Units, then VEPCO shall install the 

required SCR at the next largest Unit (in MW) within the VEPCO System that meets the 

conditions of subparagraphs (A) through (C). 

97. Return to Combustion of Coal After Gas Conversion. If VEPCO uses coal rather than 

natural gas to operate Possum Point Units 3 or 4 on or after May 1, 2003, VEPCO shall install 

controls on such Unit(s) and meet the following requirements for NOx, SO2, and PM emissions, 

on or after May 1, 2003: 

(A) For NOx, the more stringent of: (i) a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate of 

0.100 lb/mmBTU or (ii) the NOx emission rate that would be LAER at the time 

that VEPCO returns to firing Possum Point Units 3 or 4 with coal; 

(B) For SO2, a 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency of at least 95.0%; and 

(C) For PM, an Emission Rate of no more than 0.030 lb/mmBTU. 

42 
98. Measurements At Possum Point. The applicable methods and rules specified in other 

portions of this Decree for measuring emission rates and removal efficiencies for NOx, SO2, and 

PM also apply to the emission standards, as applicable, established under Paragraph 96 and 97 

(“Fuel Conversion” and “Return to Combustion of Coal After Gas Conversion”) for Possum 

Point Units 3 and 4. 

IX. INSTALLING ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ON VEPCO SYSTEM UNITS 

99. If, prior to November 1, 2004, this Consent Decree is modified to require that VEPCO: 

(A) Install additional NOx or SO2 pollution control devices on a VEPCO System Unit 

not scheduled for installation of such control device as part the original Decree; 

(B) Commence full-time (year-round) operation of such control device no later than 

January 1, 2008; and 

(C) Operate the control device and the Unit it serves in compliance with a 

performance standard of 0.100 lb/mmBTU 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate for 

NOx or a 95.0% 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency for SO2; 

then the modification of the Consent Decree shall also provide that such Unit be treated as an 

Improved Unit as to the pollutant that has been controlled in compliance with this Section. 

100. Reference Methods. The reference and monitoring methods specified in other portions of 

this Decree for measuring all emission rates and removal efficiencies for NOx, SO2, and PM also 

apply to the emission standards established under this Section. 

43
X. PERMITS 

101. Timely Application for Permits. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Consent 

Decree, in any instance where otherwise applicable law or this Consent Decree require VEPCO 

to secure a permit to authorize constructing or operating any device under this Consent Decree, 

VEPCO shall make such application in a timely manner. Such applications shall be completed 

and submitted to the appropriate authorities to allow sufficient time for all legally required 

processing and review of the permit request. Failure to comply with this provision shall allow 

Plaintiffs to bar any use by VEPCO of Section XXVI (“Force Majeure”) where a Force Majeure 

claim is based upon permitting delays. 

102. New Source Review Permits. This Consent Decree shall not be construed to require 

VEPCO to apply for or obtain a permit pursuant to the New Source Review requirements of 

Parts C and D of Title I of the Act for any work performed by VEPCO within the scope of the 

resolution of claims provisions of Sections XI through XVII (Resolution of Certain Civil 

Claims).103. Title V Permits . Whenever VEPCO applies for a Title V permit or a revision to 

such a permit, VEPCO shall send, at the same time, a copy of such application to each Plaintiff. 

Also, upon receiving a copy of any permit proposed for public comment as a result of such 

application, VEPCO shall promptly send a copy of such proposal to each Plaintiff, thereby 

allowing for timely participation in any public comment opportunity. 

104. Title V Permits Enforceable on Their Own Terms. Notwithstanding the reference to Title 

V permits in this Decree, the enforcement of such permits shall be in accordance with their own 

terms and the Act. The Title V permits shall not be directly enforceable under this Decree, 

though any term or limit established by or under this Decree shall be enforceable under this 

44
Decree regardless of whether such term has or will become part of a Title V Permit, subject to 

the limits of Section XXX (“Conditional Termination of Enforcement, Continuation of Terms, 

and First Resort to Title V Permit”). 

105. Consent Decree Requirements To Be Proposed for Inclusion in Title V Permits. 

Whenever VEPCO applies for Title V Permit(s), or for amendment(s) to existing 

Title V Permit(s), for the purpose of including the requirements of this Decree in such 

permits, VEPCO shall include in such application all performance, operational, 

maintenance, and control technology requirements specified by or created under this 

Consent Decree, not only for particular Units in the VEPCO System but also for the 

VEPCO System itself – including, but not limited to, emission rates, removal 

efficiencies, allowance surrenders, limits on use of emission credits, and operation, 

maintenance and optimization requirements, unless otherwise limited by Sections XI 

through XVII. VEPCO shall notify all Plaintiffs of any applicable requirement within 

its Title V permit application that may be more stringent than the requirements of this 

Consent Decree. 

106. Methods to be Used in Applying for Title V Permit Provisions Applicable to the 

VEPCO System. VEPCO shall include provisions in any Title V permit 

application(s) submitted in accordance with Paragraph 105 (“Consent Decree 

Requirements To Be Proposed for Inclusion in Title V Permits”) that comply with 

this Consent Decree’s NOx VEPCO System Declining Tonnage Cap (Section IV, 

Paragraph 60), the VEPCO System-Wide Annual Average Emission Rate for NOx 

(Section IV, Paragraph 61), and the Annual Surrender of SO2 Allowances from the 

45 
VEPCO System (Section VI, Paragraphs 71). In making such application, VEPCO 

shall use either the provisions listed below or any other method agreed to in advance 

by written stipulation of all the Parties and filed with this Court: 

(A) For the VEPCO System declining NOx cap in Section IV, Paragraph 61 (“VEPCO 

System NOx Limits 2002 and thereafter: Declining, System-Wide Tonnage Caps”), each 

Unit in the VEPCO System shall be limited in perpetuity to a specified portion of the 

NOx annual emissions cap that ultimately descends to 30,250 tons, provided the total of 

the VEPCO System declining tonnage caps for NOx submitted for inclusion in the Title V 

permits shall be no greater for any year than the tonnage specified for each calendar year 

for the VEPCO System). The NOx emission tons shall be allocated to each Unit within 

the VEPCO System. No Unit shall exceed its allocation except that VEPCO can trade 

NOx emissions tons between Units within the VEPCO System in order to comply with 

any given Unit-specific allocation. Compliance with the NOx Annual System-Wide 

Annual Average Emissions cap shall be determined each year by whether each Unit holds 

a sufficient number of NOx emission tons allocated to it in the Title V permit, or acquired 

by it through trades with other Units in the VEPCO System, to cover the Unit’s actual, 

annual NOx emissions; and 

(B) For the System-Wide, Annual Average NOx Emissions Rate specified in Section 

IV, Paragraph 61, (“VEPCO System-Wide, Annual Average NOx Emission Rate”) 

VEPCO shall prepare a VEPCO System-Wide NOx emissions BTU-weighted averaging 

plan for all the Units in the VEPCO System, and in doing so, shall use all the appropriate 

methods and procedures specified at 40 C.F.R. § 76.11 in preparing such a plan. As part 

46
of that plan, VEPCO shall prepare an “alternative contemporaneous allowable annual 

emissions limitation” (in lb/mmBTU) for each Unit in the VEPCO System, as described 

by 40 C.F.R. § 76.11. After this allocation and establishment of an “alternative 

contemporaneous allowable annual emissions limitation,” VEPCO’s compliance with 

Paragraph 61 (“VEPCO System-Wide, Annual Average NOx Emission Rate”) shall be 

determined in the manner described by 40 C.F.R. § 76.11, as applicable, and shall be 

based on whether each Unit meets the applicable “alternative contemporaneous allowable 

annual emissions limitation” for the NOx emissions BTU weighted averaging plan; 

provided, however, that if any Unit(s) does not meet such emissions limitation, such 

Unit(s) shall still be in compliance if VEPCO shows that all the Units in the emissions 

averaging plan, in aggregate, do not exceed the BTU-weighted NOx System-Wide 

Emissions Rate; and 

(C) For the Annual Surrender of SO2 Allowances required by Section VI, the annual 

SO2 Allowance surrender requirement of 45,000 SO2 Allowances shall either be divided 

up and allocated to specific Units of the VEPCO System or assigned to a single VEPCO 

System Unit – as VEPCO elects. 

XI. RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN CIVIL CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

107. Claims Based on Modifications Occurring Before the Lodging of Decree. Entry of this 

Decree shall resolve all civil claims of the United States under either: (i) Parts C or D of 

Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act or (ii) 40 C.F.R. Section 60.14, that arose from any 

47 
modification commenced at any VEPCO System Unit prior to the date of lodging of this Decree, 

including but not limited to, those modifications alleged in the U.S. Complaint in this civil action 

or in the EPA NOV issued to VEPCO on April 24, 2000. 

108. Claims Based on Modifications after the Lodging of Decree. Entry of this Decree also 

shall resolve all civil claims of the United States for pollutants regulated under Parts C or D of 

Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act and regulations promulgated as of the date of the lodging of 

this Decree, where such claims are based on a modification completed before December 31, 

2015 and: 

A) commenced at any VEPCO System Unit after lodging of this Decree or 

B) that this Consent Decree expressly directs VEPCO to undertake. 

The term “modification” as used in this Paragraph shall have the meaning that term is given 

under the Clean Air Act statute as it existed on the date of lodging of this Decree. 

109. Reopener. The resolution of the civil claims of the United States provided by this Section 

is subject to the provisions of Section XII. 

XII. REOPENING OF U.S. CIVIL CLAIMS RESOLVED BY SECTION XI 

110. Bases for Pursuing Resolved Claims Across VEPCO System. If VEPCO: 

(A) Violates Paragraph 59(A) or (B) (VEPCO System-Wide, Interim Control of NOX 

Emissions, 2004 through 2007); or 

(B) Violates Paragraph 60 (VEPCO System-Wide NOX Tonnage Limits 2003 and 

thereafter: Declining, System-Wide Tonnage Caps); or 

48
(C) Violates Paragraph 61 (VEPCO System-Wide Average NOX Emission Rate) in 

any calendar year (or ozone season, as applicable); or 

(D) Fails by more than ninety days to complete installation of and commence timely 

year-round operation of any SCR or FGD required by Paragraphs 56 or 64 or Sections 

VIII or IX; or 

(E) Fails to limit VEPCO System SO2 emissions to 203,693 tons or less in each 

calendar year starting with 2005 and thereafter; 

then the United States may pursue any claims at any VEPCO System Unit otherwise resolved 

under Section XI, where the modification(s) on which such claim is based was commenced, 

under way, or completed within five years preceding the violation or failure specified in items 

(A) through (E) above, unless such modification was undertaken at an Improved Unit and 

commenced prior to the date of lodging of this Consent Decree. 

111. Other Units. The resolution of claims of United States in Section XI shall not apply to 

claims arising from modifications at Other Units commenced less than five years prior to the 

occurrence of one or more of the following: 

(A) a modification or (collection of modifications) commenced after lodging of this 

Decree at such Other Unit, individually (or collectively) increase the maximum

hourly emission rate for such Unit for the relevant pollutant (NOx or SO2) as 

measured by 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(b) and (h); or 

(B) the aggregate of all Capital Expenditures made at such Other Unit exceed 

$125/KW on the Unit’s Boiler Island (based on the Maximum Dependable Capacity 

numbers in the North American Electric Reliability Council’s Generating Availability

49
Database for the year 2002) during any of the following five-year periods: January 1, 

2001, through December 31, 2005; January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010; 

January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. (Capital Expenditures shall be 

measured in calendar year 2000 constant dollars, as adjusted by the McGraw-Hill 

Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index); or 

(C) modification(s) commenced after lodging of this Decree resulting in emissions 

increase(s) of the relevant pollutant that actually occurred from any such Other Unit, 

where such increase(s): 

(1) present by themselves or in combination with other emissions or sources 

“an imminent and substantial endangerment” within the meaning of Section 303 

of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7603; or 

(2) cause or contribute to violation of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard in any Air Quality Control Area that is in attainment with that NAAQS; 

or 

(3) cause or contribute to violation of a PSD increment; or 

(4) cause or contribute to any adverse impact on any formally recognized air 

quality and related values in any Class I area. 

112. Solely for purposes of Subparagraph 111(C ), above: (i) the determination of whether 

emissions increase(s) of the relevant pollutant actually occurred at the Unit must take into 

account any emissions changes relevant to the modeling domain that have occurred or will occur 

under this Decree at other VEPCO System Units; and (ii) an emissions increase shall not be 

deemed to have actually occurred unless annual emissions of the relevant pollutant from all 

50 
VEPCO System Units at the plant at which such Unit is located (and treating Mount Storm and 

North Branch as a single plant for this purpose) have exceeded such plant’s emissions of that 

pollutant after the lodging of this Consent Decree, as specified below: 

Plant SO2 Annual Emissions 

(tons) 

NOX Annual Emissions 

(tons) 

Bremo 13,463 4,755 

Chesapeake 35,923 10,657 

Chesterfield 75,330 15,858 

Clover Im proved 10,076 

Mt. Storm / North Branch 19,992 40,188 

Yorktown 26,755 5,066 

113. Introduction of any new or changed National Ambient Air Quality Standard shall not, 

standing alone, provide the showing needed under Subparagraph 111(C) (1)-(4) to pursue any 

claim resolved under Section XI. 

114. Fuel Limit. The resolution of claims provided by Section XI shall not apply to any 

modification commenced on a Unit within five years prior to the date on which VEPCO: 

51
(A) fires such Unit with any fuel or fuel mix that is either prohibited by applicable 

state law or that is not otherwise authorized by the relevant state; or 

(B) increases the current (as of February 1, 2003) coal contracting bid specification 

or contract specifications that limit fuel sulfur content in securing coal for a Unit, as 

summarized in Appendix A. This Paragraph does not apply to VEPCO’s use of: (i) a 

fuel or fuel mix specifically called for by this Decree, if any, or (ii) any coal in any 

coal-fired Unit regardless of the fuel’s sulfur content, so long as such use occurs after 

the Unit is being served by an FGD or other control equipment that can maintain 

95.0% Removal Efficiency for SO2, on a 30-day, rolling average basis. 

115. Improved Units. The resolution of claims provided by Section XI shall not apply to a 

modification (or collection of modifications), if commenced after the lodging of this Decree at an 

Improved Unit, that individually (or collectively) increase the maximum hourly emission rate of 

that Unit for NOx or SO2 (as measured by 40 C.F.R. § 60.14 (b) and (h)) by more than ten 

percent (10%) of the maximum hourly emission rate for that Unit. 

XIII. RESOLUTION OF PAST CLAIMS OF NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY, AND 

CONNECTICUT 

116. The States of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut agree that this Decree resolves all 

of the following civil claims that have been or could have been brought against VEPCO for 

violations at Units at Mount Storm, Chesterfield or Possum Point prior to the lodging of this 

Decree: 

52
(A) The Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Non- Attainment provisions of 

Parts C and D of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. and related state provisions; 

and(B) 40 C.F.R. § 60.1. 

XIV. RESOLUTION OF CIVIL CLAIMS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. 

117. Claims Based on Modifications Occurring Before the Lodging of Decree. Subject to the 

specific limitations in this Section, entry of this Decree shall resolve all civil and administrative 

claims of the Commonwealth of Virginia that arose from any modification (physical change or 

change in the method of operation, including construction of any air pollution control project at 

any VEPCO System Unit) under applicable federal statutes (Section 7410 (a)(2)(C), Part C or D 

of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act or 40 CFR Section 60.14) or applicable state regulations 

(Article 6 (9 VAC 5-80-1100 et seq.), Article 8 (9 VAC 5-80-1700 et seq.) or Article 9 (9 VAC 

5-80-2000 et seq.) of Part II of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80, and provisions of 9 VAC 5, Chapter 50, that 

are equivalent to 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(a)), and, as to the state regulations, all applicable predecessor 

regulations. This Paragraph shall apply to any modification commenced at any VEPCO System 

Unit located in the Commonwealth prior to the date of lodging of this Decree. 

118. Claims Based on Modifications after the Lodging of Decree. Subject to the specific 

limitations in this Section, entry of this Decree shall also resolve all civil and administrative 

claims of the Commonwealth of Virginia arising from any modification (physical change or 

change in the method of operation, including construction of any air pollution control project at 

any VEPCO system Unit) under applicable federal statutes (Section 7410 (a)(2)(C), Part C or D 

of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act) or applicable state regulations (Article 6 (9 VAC 5-80-

53 
1100 et seq.), Article 8 (9 VAC 5-80-1700 et seq.) or Article 9 (9 VAC 5-80-2000 et seq.) of Part 

II of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 80 and any successor regulations). This Paragraph shall apply to any 

modification at any VEPCO System Unit located in the Commonwealth commenced on or after 

lodging of this Decree that is completed before December 31, 2015, or are those that this 

Consent Decree expressly directs VEPCO to undertake. 

119. Reopener. The resolution of the civil claims of the Commonwealth of Virginia provided 

by this Section is subject to the provisions of Section XV. 

120. General. Each term used in Paragraph 118 that is also a term used under the Clean Air 

Act shall mean what such term means under the Act as it existed on the date of lodging of this 

Decree. 

121. Commonwealth's Authority Regarding NAAQS Exceedances. Nothing in this Section 

shall be construed to affect the Commonwealth's authority under applicable federal statutes and 

applicable state regulations to impose appropriate requirements or sanctions on any VEPCO 

System Unit when emissions from the plant at which such unit is located result in violation of, or 

interfere with the attainment and maintenance of, any ambient air quality standard, or the plant 

fails to operate in conformance with any applicable control strategy, including any emissions 

standards or emissions limitations. 

122. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the Commonwealth from issuing to any VEPCO 

System Unit a permit under either Article 5 (9 VAC 5-80-800 et seq.) or Article 6 (9 VAC 5-80-

1100 et seq.) for the purpose of preserving the terms and conditions of this Decree as applicable 

federal requirements upon the expiration of the Decree. 

54
XV. REOPENING OF VIRGINIAS’ CLAIMS RESOLVED BY SECTION XIV 

123. Bases for Pursuing Resolved Claims Across VEPCO System. If VEPCO: 

(A) Violates Paragraph 59(A) or (B) (VEPCO System-Wide, Interim Control of NOx 

Emissions, 2004 through 2007); or 

(B) Violates Paragraph 60 (VEPCO System-Wide NOx Tonnage Limits 2003 and 

thereafter: Declining, System-Wide Tonnage Caps); or 

(C) Violates Paragraph 61 (VEPCO System-Wide Average NOx Emission Rate) in any 

calendar year (or ozone season, as applicable); or 

(D) Fails by more than ninety days to complete installation of and commence timely 

year-round operation of any SCR or FGD required by Paragraphs 56 or 64 or Sections 

VIII or IX; or 

(E) Fails to limit VEPCO System SO2 emissions to 203,693 tons or less in each calendar 

year starting with 2005 and thereafter; 

then the Commonwealth of Virginia may pursue any claims at any VEPCO System Unit located 

in the Commonwealth otherwise resolved under Section XIV, where the modification(s) on 

which such claim is based was commenced, under way, or completed within five years preceding 

the violation or failure specified above, unless such modification was undertaken at an Improved 

Unit and commenced prior to the date of lodging of this Consent Decree. 

55
124. Other Units. The resolution of claims of the Commonwealth of Virginia in Section XIV 

shall not apply to claims arising from modifications at Other Units located in the Commonwealth 

commenced less than five years prior to the occurrence of one or more of the following: 

(A) One or more modifications at such Other Unit commenced after lodging of this 

Decree, individually or collectively, increase the maximum hourly emission rate for such 

Unit for the relevant pollutant (NOx or SO2) as measured by 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(b) and 

(h); or

(B) The aggregate of all Capital Expenditures made at such Other Unit is in excess of

$125/KW on the Unit’s Boiler Island (based on the Maximum Dependable Capacity 

numbers in the North American Electric Reliability Council’s Generating Availability

Database for the year 2002) during any of the following five-year periods: January 1, 

2001, through December 31, 2005; January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010; January 

1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. (Capital Expenditures shall be measured in 

calendar year 2000 constant dollars, as adjusted by the McGraw-Hill Engineering NewsRecord Construction Cost Index); or 

(C) Modification(s) commenced after lodging of this Decree resulting in emissions 

increase(s) of the relevant pollutant that actually occurred from any such Other Unit, 

where such increase(s): 

(1) present by themselves or in combination with other sources “an imminent 

and substantial endangerment” within the meaning of Section 303 of the Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 7603; or 

56
(2) cause or contribute to violation of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard in any Air Quality Control Area that is in attainment with that NAAQS; 

or 

(3) cause or contribute to violation of a PSD increment; or

(4) cause or contribute to any adverse impact on any formally recognized air 

quality and related values in any Class I area. 

Solely for purposes of this Subparagraph (C ), (1) determination of whether there is an emissions 

increase that actually occurred resulting from modification(s) at the Unit must take into account 

any emissions changes relevant to the modeling domain that have occurred or will occur under 

this Decree at other VEPCO System Units; and (2) no such increase from a Unit will be deemed 

to have occurred if annual emissions of the relevant pollutant from all VEPCO System Units at 

the plant at which such Unit is located (and treating Mount Storm and North Branch as a single 

plant for this purpose) do not exceed such plant’s emissions of that pollutant after lodging of this 

Consent Decree, as specified in Paragraph 112. Also, introduction of any new or changed 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard shall not, standing alone, provide the showing needed 

under this Subparagraph (C) (1)-(4) to pursue any claim resolved under Section XIV. 

125. Improved Units. The resolution of claims provided by Section XIV shall not apply to a 

modification (or collection of modifications), if commenced after lodging of this Decree, at an 

Improved Unit located in the Commonwealth that individually (or collectively) increase the 

maximum hourly emission rate of that Unit for NOx or SO2 (as measured by 40 C.F.R. § 60.14 

(b) and (h)) by more than ten percent (10%) of the maximum hourly emission rate for that Unit. 

57
XVI. RESOLUTION OF CIVIL CLAIMS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

126. Claims Based on Modifications Occurring Before the Lodging of Decree. Subject to the 

specific limitations in this Section, entry of this Decree shall resolve all civil claims of the State 

of West Virginia that arose under applicable federal statutes and regulations (Section 7410 

(a)(2)(C), Parts C or D of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act or 40 CFR Section 60.14) or 

applicable state regulations (45CSR13, 45CSR14 and 45CSR19, as well as the provisions of 

45CSR16 that are equivalent to 40 CFR Section 60.14(a)) and, as to the state regulations, all 

applicable predecessor regulations, from any modification (physical change or change in the 

method of operation, including but not limited to construction of any air pollution control project 

at any VEPCO System Unit). This Paragraph shall apply to any modification at any VEPCO 

System Unit located in West Virginia commenced prior to the date of lodging of this Decree. 

127. Claims Based on Modifications after the Lodging of Decree. Subject to the specific 

limitations in this Section, entry of this Decree shall also resolve all civil claims of the State of 

West Virginia arising under applicable federal statutes (Section 7410 (a)(2)(C) and Parts C or D 

of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act) or applicable state regulations (45CSR13, 45CSR14 and 

45CSR19 and any successor regulations from any modification (physical change or change in the 

method of operation, including but not limited to construction of any air pollution control project 

at any VEPCO system Unit. This Paragraph shall apply to any modification at any VEPCO 

System Unit located in West Virginia commenced on or after the date of lodging of this Decree 

that is completed before December 31, 2015, or is among those that this Consent Decree 

expressly directs VEPCO to undertake. 

58
128. Reopener. The resolution of the civil claims of the State of West Virginia provided by 

this Section is subject to the provisions of Section XVII. 

129. General. Each term used in Paragraph 127 that is also a term used under the Clean Air 

Act shall mean what such term means under the Act as it existed on the date of lodging of this 

Decree. 

130. West Virginia's Authority Regarding NAAQS Exceedances. Nothing in this Decree shall 

be construed to affect West Virginia's authority under applicable federal statutes and applicable 

state statutes or regulations to impose appropriate requirements or sanctions on any VEPCO 

System Unit when emissions from the plant at which such unit is located result in violation of, or 

interfere with the attainment and maintenance of, any ambient air quality standard, or the plant 

fails to operate in conformance with any applicable control strategy, including any emissions 

standards or emissions limitations. 

131. Nothing in this Section shall prevent West Virginia from issuing to any VEPCO System

Unit a permit under either 45CSR13 or 45CSR14) for the purpose of preserving the terms and 

conditions of this Decree as applicable federal requirements upon the expiration of the Decree. 

XVII. REOPENING OF WEST VIRGINIA’S CLAIMS RESOLVED BY SECTION XVI. 

132. Bases for Pursuing Resolved Claims Across VEPCO System. If VEPCO: 

(A) Violates Paragraph 59(A) or (B) (VEPCO System-Wide, Interim Control of NOx 

Emissions, 2004 through 2007); or 

(B) Violates Paragraph 60 (VEPCO System-Wide NOx Tonnage Limits 2003 and 

thereafter: Declining, System-Wide Tonnage Caps); or 

59 
(C) Violates Paragraph 61 (VEPCO System-Wide Average NOx Emission Rate) in any 

calendar year (or ozone season, as applicable); or 

(D) Fails by more than ninety days to complete installation of and commence timely 

year-round operation of any SCR or FGD required by Paragraphs 56 or 64 or Sections 

VIII or IX; or 

(E) Fails to limit VEPCO System SO2 emissions to 203,693 tons or less in each calendar 

year starting with 2005 and thereafter; 

then the State of West Virginia may pursue any claims at any VEPCO System Unit located in the 

state otherwise resolved under Section AA, where the modification(s) on which such claim is 

based was commenced, under way, or completed within five years preceding the violation or 

failure specified above, unless such modification was undertaken at an Improved Unit and 

completed prior to the date of lodging of this Consent Decree. 

133. Other Units. The resolution of claims of the State of West Virginia in Section AA shall 

not apply to claims arising from modifications at Other Units located in West Virginia 

commenced less than five years prior to the occurrence of one or more of the following: 

(A) One or more modifications at such Other Unit, individually or collectively, increase 

the maximum hourly emission rate for such Unit for the relevant pollutant (NOx or SO2) 

as measured by 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(b) and (h); or 

(B) The aggregate of all Capital Expenditures made at such Other Unit is in excess of

$125/KW on the Unit’s Boiler Island (based on the Maximum Dependable Capacity 

numbers in the North American Electric Reliability Council’s Generating Availability

Database for the year 2002) during any of the following five-year periods: January 1, 

60 
2001, through December 31, 2005; January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010; January 

1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. (Capital Expenditures shall be measured in 

calendar year 2000 constant dollars, as adjusted by the McGraw-Hill Engineering NewsRecord Construction Cost Index); or 

(C) Modification(s) resulting in emissions increase(s) of the relevant pollutant that 

actually occurred from any such Other Unit, where such increase(s): 

(1) present by themselves or in combination with other sources “an imminent 

and substantial endangerment” within the meaning of Section 303 of the 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7603; or 

(2) cause or contribute to violation of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard in any Air Quality Control Area that is in attainment with that 

NAAQS; or 

(3) cause or contribute to violation of a PSD increment; or 

(4) cause or contribute to any adverse impact on any formally recognized air 

quality and related values in any Class I area. 

Solely for purposes of this Subparagraph (C ), (i) determination of whether there is an emissions 

increase that actually occurred resulting from modification(s) at the Unit must take into account 

any emissions changes relevant to the modeling domain that have occurred or will occur under 

this Decree at other VEPCO System Units; and (ii) no such increase from a Unit will be deemed 

to have occurred if annual emissions of the relevant pollutant from all VEPCO System Units at 

the plant at which such Unit is located (and treating Mount Storm and North Branch as a single 

61 
plant for this purpose) do not exceed such plant’s emissions of that pollutant, as specified in 

Paragraph 112. Also, introduction of any new or changed National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard shall not, standing alone, provide the showing needed under this Subparagraph (C) (1)-

(4) to pursue any claim resolved under Section XVI. 

134. Improved Units. The resolution of claims provided by Section XVI shall not apply to a 

modification (or collection of modifications), if commenced after lodging of this Decree, at an 

Improved Unit located in West Virginia that individually (or collectively) increase the maximum 

hourly emission rate of that Unit for NOx or SO2 (as measured by 40 C.F.R. § 60.14 (b) and (h)) 

by more than ten percent (10%) of the maximum hourly emission rate for that Unit. 

XVIII. OTHER PROVISIONS ON ALLOWANCES AND CREDITS 

135. NOx Credits. For any and all actions taken by VEPCO to conform to the requirements of 

this Decree, VEPCO shall not use or sell any resulting NOx emission allowances or credits in any 

emission trading or marketing program of any kind; provided, however that: 

(A) NOx emission allowances or credits allocated to the VEPCO System by the 

Administrator of EPA under the Act, or by any State under its SIP in response to 

the EPA NOx SIP Call, or the EPA Section 126 Rulemaking, or any other similar 

emissions trading or marketing program of any kind, may be used by VEPCO and 

its parent company (Dominion Resources) or its subsidiaries or affiliates to meet 

their own federal and/or state Clean Air Act regulatory requirements for any air 

emissions source owned or operated, in whole or in part, by VEPCO or Dominion 

Resources, Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliates and; 

62
(B) VEPCO may trade in any federal or state program any NOx emissions allowances 

which are generated from VEPCO’s operating its SCRs, or equivalent control 

technology, at Chesterfield Units 4, 5, and 6; or Chesapeake Units 3 and 4; or any 

VEPCO System Unit on which SCR is installed under Section IX (Installing 

Additional Units on VEPCO System Units), either: 

(1) Earlier than required by this Decree or other applicable law; or 

(2) At time periods of the year not required by this Consent Decree or by 

applicable law; or 

(3)At a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate that is more stringent than 

required by this Decree. 

(C) VEPCO may trade in any federal or state program NOx emissions allowances which 

are generated from VEPCO’s operating its SCRs, or equivalent control 

technology, at Mt. Storm Units 1, 2, and 3 as follows: 

(1) 100% of NOx allowances generated earlier than required by this Decree or 

other applicable law; or 

(2) 100% of NOx allowances generated at time periods of the year not required by 

this Consent Decree or by applicable law; or (3) 50% of NOx allowances 

generated by achieving a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate more 

stringent than required by this Consent Decree. The remaining 50% of the 

NOx allowances generated may be used in accordance with Subparagraph 

A or be retired. 

63 
136. Netting Limits. Nothing in this Decree shall prevent VEPCO from claiming creditable 

contemporaneous emissions decreases from emission reductions effected by VEPCO prior to the 

June 30, 2001. For emission control actions taken by VEPCO to conform with the terms of this 

Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, improvements to ESPs and FGDs, installation of 

FGDs, installation of SCRs, and the fuel conversion of Possum Point Units 3 and 4, any emission 

reductions generated up to the level necessary to comply with the provisions of this Decree (and 

excluding simple control equipment operating requirements) shall not be considered as a 

creditable contemporaneous emission decrease for the purpose of obtaining a netting credit under 

the Act’s New Source Review program; provided, however, that nothing in this Decree shall be 

construed to prohibit VEPCO’s seeking such treatment for decreases in emissions resulting from 

VEPCO’s ceasing combustion of coal at Possum Point Unit 3 or Possum Point Unit 4, if: 

(A) Such decreases are used in VEPCO’s demonstrating whether the conversion of 

Possum Point Units 3 and 4 (plus the installation of up to two new units 540 MW 

(nominal) each, combined cycle electric generating units at Possum Point) would result in 

a net significant emissions increase; and 

(B) VEPCO either (i) installs and continuously operates LAER on Possum Point 

Units 3 or 4 or (ii) demonstrates that the use of natural gas will result in a net emissions 

decrease; and 

(C) VEPCO also complies with the NOx emissions cap and other requirements in 

Paragraph 96 for Possum Point Units 3 and 4 under this Decree and also installs SCR 

controls for NOx on the new combined cycle unit(s). 

64 
XIX. PERIODIC REPORTING 

137. Compliance Report. After entry of this Decree, VEPCO shall submit to Plaintiffs a 

periodic report, in compliance with Appendix B, within sixty (60) days after the end of each half 

of the calendar year (January through June and July through December). 

138. Deviations Report. In addition to the reports required by the previous paragraph, if 

VEPCO violates or deviates from any provision of this Consent Decree, VEPCO shall submit to 

Plaintiffs a report on the violation or deviation within ten (10) business days after VEPCO knew 

or should have known of the event. In the report, VEPCO shall explain the cause or causes of 

the violation or deviation and any measures taken or to be taken by VEPCO to cure the reported 

violation or deviation or to prevent such violation or deviations in the future. If at any time, the 

provisions of the Decree are included in Title V Permits, consistent with the requirements for 

such inclusion in the Decree, then the deviation reports required under applicable Title V 

regulations shall be deemed to satisfy all the requirements of this Paragraph. 

139. VEPCO’s reports (Periodic and Deviations) shall be signed by VEPCO’s Vice President 

of Fossil and Hydro, or, in his or her absence, VEPCO’s Vice President of Technical Services, or 

higher ranking official, and shall contain the following certification: 

I certify under penalty of law that this information was prepared under my 

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that 

qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. 

Based on my directions and my inquiry of the person(s) who manage the system, 

or the person(s) directly responsible for gathering the information, the information 

submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. 

I understand that there are significant penalties for making misrepresentations to 

or misleading the United States. 

140. If any allowances are surrendered to any third party pursuant to Section VI the third 

65 
party’s certification shall be signed by a managing officer of the third party’s and shall contain 

the following language: 

I certify under penalty of law that _____________ [name of third party] 

will not sell, trade, or otherwise exchange any of the allowances and will not use 

any of the allowances to meet any obligation imposed by any environmental law. 

I understand that there are significant penalties for making misrepresentations to 

or misleading the United States. 

XX. CIVIL PENALTY 

141. Within thirty (30) calendar days of entry of this Consent Decree, VEPCO shall pay to the 

United States a civil penalty of $5.3 million. The civil penalty shall be paid by Electronic Funds 

Transfer (“EFT”) to the United States Department of Justice, in accordance with current EFT 

procedures, referencing the USAO File Number ____________ and DOJ Case Number 90-5-2-

1-07122 and the civil action case name and case number of this action. The costs of EFT shall 

be VEPCO’s responsibility. Payment shall be made in accordance with instructions provided by 

the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

Any funds received after 11:00 a.m. (EST) shall be credited on the next business day. VEPCO 

shall provide notice of payment, referencing the USAO File Number, DOJ Case Number 90-5-2-

1-07122, and the civil action case name and case number, to the Department of Justice and to 

EPA, as provided in Section XXIX, Paragraph 187 (“Notice”). Failure to timely pay the civil 

penalty shall subject VEPCO to interest accruing from the date payment is due until the date 

payment is made at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and shall render VEPCO liable for 

all charges, costs, fees, and penalties established by law for the benefit of a creditor or of the 

United States in securing payment. 

66 
 XXI. MITIGATION PROJECTS 

142. General. VEPCO shall submit for review and approval plans for the completion of the 

Mitigation Projects described in this Section, complying with the schedules and other terms of 

this Consent Decree and plans for such Projects approved under this Decree. In performing these 

Projects, VEPCO shall spend no less than $13.9 million Project Dollars. VEPCO shall make 

available the full amount of the Project Dollars required by this Paragraph within one year of 

entry of this Decree. VEPCO shall maintain for review by the Plaintiffs, upon request, all 

documents identifying Project Dollars spent by VEPCO. All plans and reports prepared by 

VEPCO or by other persons pursuant to the requirements of this Section of the Consent Decree 

shall be publicly available from VEPCO, without charge. No Project Dollars may be made 

available or expended to undertake an obligation already required by law. 

143. Good Faith. VEPCO shall use good faith efforts to secure as much benefit as possible for 

the Project Dollars expended, consistent with the applicable requirements and limits of this 

Decree. 

144. Other Project Requirements. In addition to the requirements imposed for each Project 

specified in this Decree, including Appendix C and the approved plans, the following 

requirements shall apply. If VEPCO elects (where such election is allowed) to undertake a 

Project by contributing funds to another person or instrumentality to carry out the Project, that 

person or instrumentality must, in writing: (A) identify its legal authority for accepting such 

funding, and (B) identify its legal authority to conduct the Project for which VEPCO contributes 

the funds. Regardless of whether VEPCO elects (where such election is allowed) to undertake 

67 
the Project itself or to do so by contributing funds to another person or instrumentality that will 

carry out the Project, VEPCO acknowledges that it shall receive credit for expenditure of such 

funds as Project Dollars only in accordance with the approved plans. Provided however, that 

when VEPCO elects to undertake a Project by providing funds to a State or any instrumentality 

thereof, VEPCO shall receive credit for any timely expenditure of funds upon transfer of such 

funds to such State or instrumentality thereof, as long as the VEPCO provides payment in 

accordance with Appendix C and the approved plan. VEPCO shall certify, as part of the 

proposed plan submitted to the Plaintiffs for any contemplated Project, that no person is required 

by any law, other than this Consent Decree, to perform the Project described in the proposed 

plan. Within sixty (60) days following the completion of each approved Project, VEPCO shall 

submit to the Plaintiffs a report that documents the date that all aspects of the project were 

implemented, VEPCO’s results in completing the project, including the emission reductions or 

other environmental or health benefits achieved, and the Project Dollars expended by VEPCO in 

implementing the Project. Based on consideration of these reports and the approved plans, and 

any other available, relevant information, the United States (after consultation with the other 

Plaintiffs) will advise VEPCO whether the Project has met the requirements of the Decree. 

VEPCO shall submit the required plans for, and complete, each Project, as approved by the 

United States, and by any other Plaintiff within whose territory a Project would be implemented, 

all as specified further in Appendix C to this Decree. 

68
XXII. STIPULATED PENALTIES & ALLOWANCE OR CREDIT SURRENDERS 

145. Within thirty (30) days after written demand from the United States, and subject to the 

provisions of Sections XXVI (“Force Majeure”) and XXVII (“Dispute Resolution”), VEPCO 

shall pay the following stipulated penalties to the United States (and surrender the specified 

number of emission allowances or credits) for each failure by VEPCO to comply with the terms 

of this Consent Decree, as follows. 

146. For each violation of each limit, rate or removal efficiency that is measured on a 30-day 

Rolling Average or shorter averaging period imposed on NOx , SO2, and PM under Sections IV, 

V, VII, VIII (“Possum Point”), and IX (“Installing Additional Controls on VEPCO System 

Units”): 

(A) less than 5% in excess of the limit: $2,500 per day per violation; 

(B) equal to or greater than 5% in excess of the limit: $5,000 per day per 

violation; 

(C) equal to or greater than 10% in excess of the limit: $10,000 per day per 

violation. 

(D) For failure to meet any VEPCO System-Wide emissions requirement 

(Paragraph 59(A) and (B) “VEPCO System: Interim Control of NOX 

Emissions: 2004 through 2007; Paragraph 60”VEPCO System NOX Limits 

2003 and thereafter: Declining , System-Wide Tonnage Caps; and Paragraph 

61 VEPCO System –Wide, Annual Average NOX Emission Rate): $5,000 per 

ton for the first 100 tons resulting from the violation, and $10,000 per ton for 

each additional ton resulting from the violation. 

69 
147. Other Specific Failures. For failure to: 

(A) install timely and commence operation timely of SCR on each Unit (each 

SCR installation) specified in Section IV, Paragraph 56 (“Unit-Specific SCR 

Installations and Annual Performance Requirements”): (i) $10,000 per day, per 

violation, for the first 30 days; and (ii) $27,500 per day, per violation, thereafter. 

(B) complete any FGD improvements or installation needed to meet emission 

limits imposed under Section V, Paragraph 64 (“Construction, Upgrading, and 

Removal Efficiencies Required or on FGDs Serving Clover Units 1 and 2, Mount 

Storm Unites 1, 2, and 3, and Chesterfield Units 5 and 6"): (i) $ 10,000 per day, 

per violation, for the first 30 days; and (ii) $20,000 per day, per violation, 

thereafter. 

(C) surrender timely the annually-required 45,000 SO2 Allowances surrender 

under Section VI: $27,500 per day, per violation plus the surrender 100 additional 

SO2 Allowances per day per violation. 

(D) timely transfer the annually-required surrender of 45,000 SO2 Allowances by 

VEPCO to any third party under Section VI: $27,500 per day, per violation plus 

the surrender 100 additional SO2 Allowances per day per violation. 

(E) comply with any requirement in this Consent Decree regarding the use of any 

SO2 or NOx allowances or credits: surrender three times the allowances or credits 

handled in violation of the requirement. 

(F) complete timely the proper installation of all equipment called for under 

Section VII (PM Emission Reductions and Controls) or under any plan or 

70 
submission approved by EPA under Section VII: (i) $ 10,000 per day, per 

violation, for the first 30 days; and (ii) $20,000 per day, per violation, thereafter. 

(G) conduct a required stack test of PM emissions on each VEPCO System Unit 

where such test is required under Section VII: $1,000 per day, per violation. 

(H) Submit timely and complete reports called for under Section XIX (“Periodic 

Reporting”): $1,000 per day, per violation. 

(I) Complete any funding for any of the Projects described in Section XXI 

(Mitigation Projects): $1,000 per day, per violation for the first 30 days; and 

$5,000 per day, per violation thereafter. 

148. Violations of any limit based on a 30-Day Rolling Average constitutes thirty (30) 

days of violation but where such a violation (for the same pollutant and from the same Unit or 

source) recurs within periods less than thirty (30) days, VEPCO shall not be obligated to pay a 

daily stipulated penalty, for any day of the recurrence for which a stipulated penalty has already 

been paid. 

XXIV. ACCESS, AND INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION 

149. Access, Inspection, Investigation. Any authorized representative of EPA, including 

independent contractors, upon presentation of credentials, shall have a right of entry upon the 

premises of any facility in the VEPCO System at any reasonable time and for any reasonable 

purpose regarding monitoring compliance with the provisions of this Consent Decree, including 

inspecting plant equipment and inspecting and copying all records maintained by VEPCO 

required by this Consent Decree. VEPCO shall retain such records for a period of fifteen (15) 

71 
years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall limit 

any information-gathering or inspection authority of EPA under the Act, including but not 

limited to Section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7414. 

XXV. COORDINATION OF ENFORCEMENT & DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

150. United States - Enforcement and Dispute Resolution. The United States may enforce any 

and all requirements of this Decree and may invoke dispute resolution provisions of this Decree 

as to any requirement of this Decree to which dispute resolution applies and also may participate 

in adjudication of any claim of Force Majeure made by VEPCO or any other Party. 

151. VEPCO - Dispute Resolution. VEPCO may invoke the dispute resolution provisions of 

this Decree over any requirement of this Decree to which dispute resolution applies. 

152. States - Enforcement. Consistent with Section XXV, The State of New York, New 

Jersey, or Connecticut, or any combination of them, may enforce only the following 

requirements of this Decree: 

(A) those requirements imposed directly on a Unit at Mount Storm, Chesterfield, 

and Possum Point; 

(B) any or all of the following VEPCO System-Wide requirements: Section IV 

Paragraph 59 (“Interim NOx Emissions for VEPCO System”), Paragraph 60 

(“VEPCO System NOx Declining Tonnage Caps”) and Paragraph 61 (“NOx

System-Wide Average Emission Rate”] and Section VI, Paragraph 71 (Annual 

Surrender of SO2 Allowances); and 

(C) those requirements involving timely and proper performance of Decreemandated mitigation projects (Section XXI and Appendix C). 

72 
153. The Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of West Virginia may enforce all of the 

requirements of this Decree applicable to VEPCO units within their respective jurisdictions, 

including the system-wide cap. 

154. States - Dispute Resolution. The States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, 

or West Virginia, or any combination of them, may invoke dispute resolution only over those 

Decree requirements that such State could enforce under this Decree and may participate as a 

plaintiff in any matter in which VEPCO asserts Force Majeure under this Decree only if the 

matter concerns a requirement which such State could have enforced under the terms of this 

Decree. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the States of New York, New Jersey, 

Connecticut, Virginia, or West Virginia, or any combination of them, may participate as a 

plaintiff in any matter in which VEPCO asserts force majeure under this Decree, to the extent 

that resolution of the legal issue(s) at stake in that matter would affect the ability of New York, 

New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, or West Virginia to enforce any of the requirements specified 

in Paragraphs 152 and 153_of this Section. 

155. Consultation Among Plaintiffs. Absent exigent circumstances, the United States, New 

York, New Jersey, Connecticut shall consult prior to enforcing a requirement under this Decree 

or prior to invoking Dispute Resolution (Section ) for any issue, which the given State could 

enforce under this Decree. Absent exigent circumstances, the United States, Virginia, and West 

Virginia shall consult prior to enforcing a requirement under this Decree or prior to invoking 

Dispute Resolution (Section XXVII) for any issue which the given State could enforce under this 

Decree. If such consultation reveals that, for any reason, the United States does not intend to 

73 
participate, in the first instance, in either the Decree enforcement or invocation of Dispute 

Resolution contemplated by New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut, Virginia, or West Virginia 

then the consultation required by this Section is not satisfied until after “Senior Management 

Level Officials” of United States consult with the “Senior Management Level Officials” of each 

Plaintiff intending to enforce a requirement under the Decree or to invoke dispute resolution 

under it. The United States shall undertake such consultation and shall complete it within 

twenty-eight (28) days after the consultation with the States and the United States demonstrates 

that the United States does not intend to participate in the activity contemplated by one or more 

of the States. Only for purposes of the consultation requirement of this Section, “Senior 

Management Level Official” means: 

(A) For the United States: Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, U.S. EPA 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Chief of the Environmental 

Enforcement Section, U.S. DOJ Environment & Natural Resources Division; 

(B) For New York: Chief of the Environmental Protection Bureau, Office of the 

Attorney General of the State of New York; 

(C) For New Jersey: Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Environmental Protection, 

Office of the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey; 

(D) For Connecticut: Director of the Environmental Department, Office of the Attorney 

General for the State of Connecticut; 

(E) For Virginia: Director of the Environmental Unit, Special Prosecutions Section, 

Public Safety and Law Enforcement Division, Office of the Attorney General of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia; and 

74 
(F) For West Virginia: Director of the Division of Air Quality, West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

156. Confirmation of Consultation. Contemporaneous with any filing to enforce the Decree or 

to invoke Dispute Resolution (Section XXVII), the moving Plaintiff shall serve on VEPCO a 

written statement noting that the consultation required by this Section has been completed, unless 

Plaintiff is relying on the “exigent circumstances” exception of this Section. If a Plaintiff 

invokes the “exigent circumstances” exception in lieu of completing this consultation process, 

that Plaintiff must then serve on VEPCO an explanation of the need for acting in advance of 

completing such consultation. “Exigent” is intended to have its normal meaning when used in 

this Section of the Decree, and reliance by a Plaintiff on this exception is subject to review by the 

Court. 

XXVI. FORCE MAJEURE 

157. General. If any event occurs which causes or may cause a delay in complying with any 

provision of this Consent Decree or causes VEPCO to be in violation of any provision of this 

Decree, VEPCO shall notify the Plaintiffs in writing as soon as practicable, but in no event 

later than ten (10) business days following the date VEPCO first knew, or within ten (10) 

business days following the date VEPCO should have known by the exercise of due 

diligence, that the event caused or may cause such delay or violation, whichever is earlier. In 

this notice, VEPCO shall reference this Paragraph of this Consent Decree and describe the 

anticipated length of time the delay or violation may persist, the cause or causes of the delay 

or violation, the measures taken or to be taken by VEPCO to prevent or minimize the delay 

or violation, and the schedule by which those measures will be implemented. VEPCO shall 

75 
adopt all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize such delays and prevent such violations. 

158. Failure of Notice. Failure by VEPCO to comply with the notice requirements of this 

Section shall render this Section voidable by the Plaintiffs authorized under Sections XXV 

(Coordination of Enforcement and Dispute Resolution) to enforce a Consent Decree requirement 

against which VEPCO could interpose the force majeure assertion in question. If voided, the 

provisions of this Section shall have no effect as to the particular event involved. 

159. Plaintiffs’ Response. The Plaintiffs authorized under Sections XXV (Coordination of 

Enforcement and Dispute Resolution) to enforce a Consent Decree requirement against which 

VEPCO could interpose the force majeure assertion in question shall notify VEPCO, in writing, 

regarding VEPCO’s claim of a delay in performance or violation within fifteen (15) business 

days after completion of procedures specified in Section XXV (“Enforcement Coordination”). If 

the Plaintiffs agree that the delay in performance or the violation has been or will be caused by 

circumstances beyond the control of VEPCO, including any entity controlled by VEPCO, and 

that VEPCO could not have prevented the delay through the exercise of due diligence, the parties 

shall stipulate to such relief as appropriate, which shall usually be an extension of the required 

deadline(s) for every requirement affected by the delay for a period equivalent to the delay 

actually caused by such circumstances. Such stipulation shall be filed as a modification to this 

Consent Decree in order to be effective. VEPCO shall not be liable for stipulated penalties for 

the period of any such delay. 

160. Disagreement. If the Plaintiffs authorized under Sections XXV (Coordination of 

Enforcement and Dispute Resolution) to enforce a Consent Decree requirement against which 

VEPCO could interpose the force majeure assertion in question, do not accept VEPCO’s claim 

76 
that a delay or violation has been or will be caused by a Force Majeure event, or do not accept 

VEPCO’s proposed remedy, to avoid the imposition of stipulated penalties VEPCO must submit 

the matter to this Court for resolution by filing a petition for determination. Once VEPCO has 

submitted the matter, the United States, and other Plaintiffs as provided in Paragraph 159, shall 

have fifteen (15) business days to file a response(s). If VEPCO submits the matter to this Court 

for resolution, and the Court determines that the delay in performance or violation has been or 

will be caused by circumstances beyond the control of VEPCO, including any entity controlled 

by VEPCO, and that VEPCO could not have prevented the delay or violation by the exercise of 

due diligence, VEPCO shall be excused as to that event(s) and delay (including stipulated 

penalties otherwise applicable), but only for the period of time equivalent to the delay caused by 

such circumstances. 

161. Burden of Proof. VEPCO shall bear the burden of proving that any delay in performance 

or violation of any requirement of this Consent Decree was caused by or will be caused by 

circumstances beyond its control, including any entity controlled by it, and that VEPCO could 

not have prevented the delay by the exercise of due diligence. VEPCO shall also bear the burden 

of proving the duration and extent of any delay(s) or violation(s) attributable to such 

circumstances. An extension of one compliance date based on a particular event may, but will 

not necessarily, result in an extension of a subsequent compliance date. 

162. Events Excluded. Unanticipated or increased costs or expenses associated with the 

performance of VEPCO's obligations under this Consent Decree shall not constitute 

circumstances beyond the control of VEPCO or serve as a basis for an extension of time under 

this Section. However, failure of a permitting authority to issue a necessary permit in a timely 

77
fashion may constitute a Force Majeure event where the failure of the permitting authority to act 

is beyond the control of VEPCO, and VEPCO has taken all steps available to it to obtain the 

necessary permit, including, but not limited to, submitting a complete permit application, 

responding to requests for additional information by the permitting authority in a timely fashion, 

accepting lawful permit terms and conditions, and prosecuting appeals of any allegedly unlawful 

terms and conditions imposed by the permitting authority in an expeditious fashion. 

163. Potential Force Majeure Events. The parties agree that, depending upon the 

circumstances related to an event and VEPCO’s response to such circumstances, the kinds of 

events listed below could qualify as Force Majeure events: construction, labor, or equipment 

delays; acts of God; Malfunction for PM as malfunction is defined in 40 C.F.R. 60.2; and orders 

by governmental officials, acting under and authorized by applicable law, that direct VEPCO to 

supply electricity in response to a legally declared, system-wide (or state-wide) emergency. 

164. Prohibited Inferences. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, this 

Court shall not draw any inferences nor establish any presumptions adverse to any party as a 

result of VEPCO delivering a notice pursuant to this Section or the parties' inability to reach 

agreement on a dispute under this Part. 

165. Extended Schedule. As part of the resolution of any matter submitted to this Court under 

this Section, the Parties by agreement with approval from this Court, or this Court by order, may, 

as allowed by law, extend the schedule for completion of work under this Consent Decree to 

account for the delay in the work that occurred as a result of any delay or violation. VEPCO 

shall be liable for stipulated penalties for its failure thereafter to complete the work in accordance 

with the extended schedule. 

78
 XXVII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

167. Scope of Disputes Covered and Eligibility of Parties to Participate. The dispute resolution 

procedure provided by this Section shall be available to resolve all disputes arising under this 

Consent Decree, except as provided in Section XXVI (“Force Majeure”) or in this Section, 

provided that the Party making such application has made a good faith attempt to resolve the 

matter with the other Parties. Invocation and participation of this Section also shall be done in 

compliance with Section XXV (“Coordination of Enforcement and Dispute Resolution”). 

168. Invocation of Procedure. The dispute resolution procedure required herein shall be 

invoked by one Party to this Consent Decree giving written notice to another advising of a 

dispute pursuant to this Section. The notice shall describe the nature of the dispute and shall 

state the noticing party's position with regard to such dispute. The Party receiving such a notice 

shall acknowledge receipt of the notice, and the parties shall expeditiously schedule a meeting to 

discuss the dispute informally not later than fourteen (14) days following receipt of such notice. 

169. Informal Phase. Disputes submitted to dispute resolution under this Section shall, in the 

first instance, be the subject of informal negotiations among the parties. Such period of informal 

negotiations shall not extend beyond thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the first meeting 

among the Parties’ representatives unless they agree to shorten or extend this period. 

170. Formal Phase. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement during the informal 

negotiation period, the Plaintiffs, shall provide VEPCO with a written summary of their position 

regarding the dispute. The written position provided by the Plaintiffs shall be considered binding 

unless, within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter, VEPCO files with this Court a petition that 

79
describes the nature of the dispute and seeks resolution. The Plaintiffs may respond to the 

petition within forty-five (45) calendar days of filing. Where the nature of the dispute is such that 

a more timely resolution of the issue is required, the time periods set out in this Section may be 

shortened upon successful motion of one of the parties to the dispute. 

171. Prohibited Inference. This Court shall not draw any inferences nor establish any 

presumptions adverse to either party as a result of invocation of this Section or the parties'

inability to reach agreement. 

172. Alteration of Schedule. As part of the resolution of any dispute under this Section, in 

appropriate circumstances the parties may agree, or this Court may order if warranted by law, an 

extension or modification of the schedule for completion of work under this Consent Decree to 

account for the delay that occurred as a result of dispute resolution. VEPCO shall be liable for 

stipulated penalties for its failure thereafter to complete the work in accordance with the 

extended or modified schedule. 

173. Applicable Standard of Law. The Court shall decide all disputes pursuant to 

applicable principles of law for resolving such disputes; provided, however, that the parties 

reserve their rights to argue for what the applicable standard of law should be for resolving any 

particular dispute. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence of this Paragraph, as to disputes 

involving the submittal for review and approval under Section VII, the Court shall sustain the 

position of the United States as to disputes involving PM CEMs, any Pollution Control Upgrade 

Analysis, and optimization measures for PM that should be undertaken – unless VEPCO 

demonstrates that the position of the United States is arbitrary or capricious. 

80
XXVIII. SALES OR TRANSFERS OF OWNERSHIP INTERESTS 

174. Joint and Several Liability By Transfer of Certain VEPCO Property. If VEPCO 

proposes to sell or transfer any of its real property or operations subject to this Consent Decree, 

VEPCO shall advise the purchaser or transferee in writing of the existence of this Consent 

Decree prior to such sale or transfer, and shall send a copy of such written notification to the 

Plaintiffs pursuant to Section XXIX, Paragraph 187 (“Notices”) at least sixty (60) days before 

such proposed sale or transfer. Before closing such purchase or transfer, a modification of this 

Consent Decree shall make the purchaser or transferee a party defendant to this Decree and 

jointly and severally liable with VEPCO for all the requirements of this Decree that may be 

applicable to the transferred or purchased property or operations, including joint and several 

liability with VEPCO for all Unit-specific requirements and all VEPCO System-Wide 

requirements, namely: VEPCO System-Wide Annual Average Emission Rate for NOx (Section 

IV), SO2 Allowance surrenders (Section VI), and VEPCO System NOx annual tonnage caps 

(Section IV) . 

175. Option for Alternative Request on System-Wide obligations. VEPCO may 

propose and the United States may agree to restrict the scope of joint and several liability of any 

purchaser or transferee for any VEPCO System-Wide obligations to the extent such obligations 

may be adequately separated in an enforceable manner using the methods provided by or 

approved under Section X (“Permits”). 

176. Option for Alternative Request on Particular VEPCO System Units. VEPCO also 

may propose, and the United States may agree to execute, a modification that transfers 

responsibility for completing Decree-required capital improvements from VEPCO to the 

81 
purchaser of property at which the capital improvement is required. 

177. Standard for Reviewing a VEPCO Request. Liability transfers sought by VEPCO 

under this Section of the Decree shall be granted by the United States (or by all the Plaintiffs, as 

applicable) if the relevant Plaintiffs agree that: 

(A) The purchaser or transferee has appropriately contracted with VEPCO to assume the 

obligations and liabilities applicable to the Unit; and 

(B) VEPCO and the purchaser or transferee have properly allocated any emission 

allowance, credit requirement, or other Decree-imposed obligation on the VEPCO 

System, which also implicates the Unit to be transferred. 

In the case of transfers of VEPCO System Units at Chesterfield and/or Mount Storm, VEPCO’s 

scope of liability for either VEPCO System-Wide requirements or for Decree-required capital 

improvement on Units at those plants shall not be transferred unless the States of New York, 

New Jersey, and Connecticut concur with the United States’ determination to accept liability of 

only the purchaser or transferee, as opposed to joint and several liability between VEPCO and 

the purchaser. 

178. No limit on contractual allocation of responsibility that does not affect rights of 

the Plaintiffs. This Section of the Decree shall not be construed to impede VEPCO and any 

purchaser or transferee of real property or operations subject to this Decree from contractually 

allocating as between themselves the burdens of compliance with this Decree, provided that both 

VEPCO and such purchaser or transferee shall remain jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs 

for those obligations of the Decree specified above, absent approval under this Section of a 

VEPCO request to allocate liability. 

82
XXIX. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

179. Effect of Settlement. This Consent Decree is not a permit; compliance with its 

terms does not guarantee compliance with all applicable Federal, State, or Local laws or 

regulations. 

180. Criminal Liability. This Consent Decree does not apply to any claim(s) of alleged 

criminal liability, which are reserved, nor to any claims resolved and then reopened under the 

terms of this Decree. 

181. Limitation on Procedural Bars to Other Claims. In any subsequent administrative 

or judicial action initiated by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief or civil penalties relating to the 

facilities covered by this Consent Decree, VEPCO shall not assert any defense or claim based 

upon principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim splitting, or 

other defense based upon any contention that the claims raised by the Plaintiffs in the subsequent 

proceeding were brought, or should have been brought, in the instant case; provided, however, 

that nothing in this Paragraph is intended to affect the validity of Sections XI through XVII 

(Resolution of Certain Civil Claims). 

182. Other Laws. Except as specifically provided by this Consent Decree, nothing in 

this Consent Decree shall relieve VEPCO of its obligation to comply with all applicable Federal, 

State, and Local laws and regulations. Subject to Sections XI through XVII, nothing contained 

in this Consent Decree shall be construed to prevent or limit the Plaintiffs’ rights to obtain 

penalties or injunctive relief under the Clean Air Act or other federal, state, or local statutes or 

83
regulations. 

183. Third Parties. This Consent Decree does not limit, enlarge, or affect the rights of 

any party to this Consent Decree as against any third parties. 

184. Costs. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. 

185. Public Documents. All information and documents submitted by VEPCO to the 

United States or the other Plaintiffs under this Consent Decree shall be subject to public 

inspection, unless subject to legal privileges or protection or identified and supported as business 

confidential, under applicable law. VEPCO may not seek such protection concerning submittals 

required by the Decree that concern mitigation projects (Section XXI). 

186. Public Comment. The parties agree and acknowledge that final approval by the 

United States and entry of this Consent Decree is subject to the policy statement reproduced at 

Title 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, which provides for notice of the lodging of this Consent Decree in the 

Federal Register, an opportunity for public comment, and the right of the United States to 

withdraw or withhold consent if the comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate 

that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. 

187. Notice. Unless otherwise provided herein, notifications to or communications 

with the Plaintiffs or VEPCO shall be deemed submitted on the date they are postmarked and 

sent either by overnight mail, return receipt requested, or by certified or registered mail, return 

receipt requested. Except as otherwise provided herein, when written notification to or

communication with the Plaintiffs or VEPCO is required by the terms of this Consent Decree, it 

shall be addressed as follows: 

84
For the United States of America: 

Chief 

Environmental Enforcement Section 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 

DJ# 90-5-2-1-07122 

– and – 

Director, Air Enforcement Division

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building [2242A] 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

– and – 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

For Commonwealth of Virginia: 

Director

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

629 East Main Street 

P.O. Box 10009 

Richmond, VA 23240-0009 

For State of West Virginia: 

Director, Division of Air Quality 

Department of Environmental Protection 

7012 MacCorkle Avenue SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

For State of New York: 

Bureau Chief 

Environmental Protection Bureau 

New York Attorney General's Office

85
120 Broadway 

New York, New York 10271 

For State of New Jersey: 

Administrator 

Air and Environmental Quality Compliance and Enforcement 

P.O. Box 422 

401 East State Street, Floor 4 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

– and – 

Section Chief 

Environmental Enforcement 

Division of Law 

P.O. Box 093 

25 Market Street, 7th Floor 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

For State of Connecticut: 

Department Head 

Environmental Protection Department 

Connecticut Attoreny General’s Office 

55 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

For VEPCO: 

Senior Vice President – Fossil and Hydro 

Dominion Energy – Dominion Generation 

5000 Dominion Boulevard 

Glenn Allen, VA 23060 

Any Party may change either the notice recipient or the address for providing notices to it by 

serving all other parties with a notice setting forth such new notice recipient or address. 

188. Procedure for Modification. There shall be no modification of this Decree unless 

such modification is in writing , is filed with the Court, and either: 

(a) bears the written approval of all of the Parties and is approved by the Court, or 

(b) is otherwise allowed by applicable law. 

86 
189. Continuing Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case after entry 

of this Consent Decree to enforce compliance with the terms and conditions of this Consent 

Decree and to take any action necessary or appropriate for its interpretation, construction, 

execution, or modification. During the term of this Consent Decree, any party may apply to the 

Court for any relief necessary to construe or effectuate this Consent Decree. 

190. Complete Agreement. This Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete, and 

exclusive agreement and understanding among the parties with respect to the settlement 

embodied in this Consent Decree. The parties acknowledge that there are no representations, 

agreements, or understandings relating to the settlement other than those expressly contained in 

this Consent Decree, including Appendices A (“Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Generating Units 

Constituting the VEPCO System”), B (“Consent Decree Reporting Form”), and C (“Mitigation 

Projects that Shall be Completed Under this VEPCO Consent Decree”). Appendices A through 

C are incorporated into and part of this Consent Decree 

191. Non-Severability Absent Re-Adoption by the Parties. If this Consent Decree, in 

whole or in part, is held invalid by a court vested with jurisdiction to make such a ruling, and if 

such ruling becomes a final judgment, then after entry of such final judgment, no Party shall be 

bound to any undertaking that would come due or have continued under this Decree after the 

date of that final judgment, and the Decree shall be void from the entry of such final judgment. 

At any time, upon consent of all the Parties, the Parties may preserve that portion of this Decree 

not held invalid by agreeing, in a writing submitted to this Court, to keep in force that portion of 

this Decree not held invalid. 

192. Citations to Law. Except as expressly provided otherwise by this Decree, 

87 
provisions of law expressly cited by this Decree shall be construed to mean the provision cited as 

it is defined under law. 

193. Meaning of Terms. Every term expressly defined by this Decree shall have the 

meaning given to that term by this Decree, and every other term used in this Decree that is a term 

used under the Act or the regulations implementing the Act shall mean in this Decree what such 

term means under the Act or those regulations. 

194. Calculating and Measuring Performance. Performance standards, emissions 

limits, and other quantitative standards set by or under this Decree must be met to the number of 

significant digits in which the standard or limit is expressed. Thus, for example, an Emissions 

Rate of 0.090 is not met if the actual Emissions Rate is 0.091. VEPCO shall round the fourth 

significant digit to the nearest third significant digit, or the third significant digit to the second 

significant digit, depending upon whether the limit is expressed to two or three significant digits. 

Thus, for example, if an actual Emissions Rate is 0.0904, that shall be reported as 0.090, and 

shall be in compliance with an Emissions Rate of 0.090, and if an actual Emissions Rate is 

0.0905, that shall be reported as 0.091, and shall not be in compliance with an Emissions Rate of 

0.090. VEPCO shall collect and report data to the number of significant digits in which the 

standard or limit is expressed. As otherwise applicable and unless this Decree expressly directs 

otherwise, the calculation and measurement procedures established under 40 C.F.R. Parts 75 and 

76 apply to the measurement and calculation of NOx and SO2 under this Decree. 

195. Independent Requirements. Each limit and / or other requirement established by 

or under this Decree is a separate, independent requirement. 

196. Written Statements to be Sent to all Plaintiffs. Notwithstanding any other 

88 
provision of this Decree, VEPCO shall supply to all Parties to this Decree all notices, reports, 

applications, elections, and any other written statement that the Decree requires VEPCO to 

supply to any Party to the Decree. 

197. Applicable Law on Data Use Still Applies. Nothing in this Consent Decree alters 

or waives any applicable law (including, but not limited to, any defenses, entitlements, or 

clarifications related to the Credible Evidence Rule (62 Fed. Reg. 8314, Feb. 27, 1997)) 

concerning use of data for any purpose under the Act, generated by the reference methods 

specified herein or otherwise. 

XXX. CONDITIONAL TERMINATION OF ENFORCEMENT, CONTINUATION OF 

TERMS, AND FIRST RESORT TO TITLE V PERMIT 

198. Termination as to Completed Tasks. As soon as VEPCO completes any element 

of construction required by this Decree or completes any requirement that will not recur, VEPCO 

may seek termination of that portion of the Decree that dictated such requirement. 

199. Conditional Termination of Enforcement through Consent Decree. Once 

VEPCO: 

(A) believes it has successfully completed and commenced successful operation of all 

pollution controls (new and upgrades) required by Decree; 

(B) holds final, Title V Permits -- covering all Units in the VEPCO System -- that include 

as enforceable permit terms all of the performance and other requirements for the 

VEPCO System as required by Section X (“Permits”), and 

(C) certifies that the date is later than December 31, 2015; 

then VEPCO may file a notice with the Court of these facts. Unless within forty-five 

89 
(45) days after VEPCO files such a notice, any Plaintiff objects to the accuracy of that 

notice, enforcement based on Decree violations that occurred after the filing of the notice 

shall be through the applicable Title V Permit and not through this Decree. 

200. Resort to Enforcement under this Consent Decree. Notwithstanding paragraph 

199, if enforcement of a provision of this Decree cannot be pursued by a party under the 

applicable Title V permit, or if a Decree requirement was intended to be part of the Title V 

Permit and did not become or remain part of such permit, then such requirement may be 

enforced under the terms of this Decree at any time. 

SO ORDERED, THIS _________ DAY OF _______________, 2003. 

________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

90
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

THOMAS L. SANSONETTI 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environmental and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice

THOMAS A. MARIANI

Assistant Chief

Environmental Enforcement Section 

Environmental and Natural Resources Division 

United States Department of Justice 

91
 JOHN PETER SUAREZ 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

BRUCE C. BUCKHEIT

Director, Air Enforcement Division

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

RICHARD ALONSO

Attorney Advisor

Air Enforcement Division

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

- 92 -
 DONALD S. WELSH 

Regional Administrator 

Region 3 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

- 93 -
FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

ELLIOT SPITZER 

Attorney General 

State of New York 

- 94 -
 FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY: 

PETER C. HARVEY 

Acting Attorney General of New Jersey 

- 95 -
FOR THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 

CARMEL A. MOTHERWAY 

Assistant Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 

KIMBERLY P. MASSICOTTE 

Assistant Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 

- 96 -
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

VIRGINIA: 

________________________________

ROGER L. CHAFFE

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

Commonwealth of Virginia

________________________________

ROBERT G. BURNLEY 

Director

Department of Environmental Quality 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

- 97 -
FOR THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA: 

JOHN BENEDICT 

Director 

Division of Air Quality 

West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection 

ROLAND T. HUSON, III 

Senior Counsel 

Office of Legal Services

West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection 

- 98 -
FOR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER 

COMPANY: 

EDWARD RIVAS

Sr. Vice President

Fossil and Hydro 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

- 99 -
APPENDIX A TO “VEPCO” CONSENT DECREE 

THE UNITS COMPRISING THE “VEPCO SYSTEM” IN 

UNITED STATES, ET AL. V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO.

Steam Electric Generating Unit: Plant Name, 

Unit Number, Unit Abbreviation, & Nominal 

Nameplate (“MW”) 

Improved 

Unit for SO2 

Under Decree 

Paragraph 64 

Improved 

Unit for NOx 

Under Decree 

Paragraph 56 

Optimization for PM 

Required under 

Decree Section VII 

Bremo Unit 3 

(“BR 3”) 69 MW 

NO NO YES 

Bremo Unit 4 

(“BR 4”) 185 MW 

NO NO YES 

Chesapeake Unit 1 

(“CEC 1”) 112 MW 

NO NO YES 

Chesapeake Unit 2 

(“CEC 2”) 112 MW 

NO NO YES 

Chesapeake Unit 3 

(“CEC 3”) 185 MW 

NO YES YES 

Chesapeake Unit 4 

(“CEC 4”) 239 MW 

NO YES YES 

Clover Unit 1 

(“CL 1”) 393 MW 

YES NO YES 

Clover Unit 2 

(“CL 2”) 393 MW 

YES NO YES 

Chesterfield Unit 3 

(“CH 3”) 112 MW 

NO NO YES 

Chesterfield Unit 4 

(“CH 4”) 187 MW 

NO YES YES 

Chesterfield Unit 5 

(“CH 5”) 359 MW 

YES YES YES 

Chesterfield Unit 6 

(“CH 6”) 694 MW 

YES YES YES 

1
APPENDIX A (continued) 

Steam Electric Generating Unit: Plant Name, 

Unit Number, Unit Abbreviation, & Nominal 

Nameplate (“MW”) 

Improved 

Unit for SO2 

Under Decree 

Paragraph 64 

Improved 

Unit for NOx 

Under Decree 

Paragraph 56 

Optimization for PM 

Required under 

Decree Section VII 

Mt. Storm Unit 1 

(“MS 1”) 551 MW 

YES YES YES 

Mt. Storm Unit 2 

(“MS 2”) 551 MW 

YES YES YES 

Mt. Storm Unit 3 

(“MS 3”) 552 MW 

YES YES YES 

North Branch 

(“NB”) 92 MW 

NO NO YES 

Possum Point Unit 3 

(“PP 3”) 114 MW 

YES YES NO 

Possum Point Unit 4 

(“PP 4”) 239 MW 

YES YES NO 

Yorktown Unit 1 

(“YT 1”) 187 MW 

NO NO YES 

Yorktown Unit 2 

(“YT 2”) 187 MW 

NO NO YES 

2
Appendix A: Coal Specifications for Sulfur 

Unit 

Fuel SO2 

Specification 

(lbs 

SO2/mmBtu) 

Fuel Sulfur 

Specification 

(lbs S/mmBtu) 

Fuel Sulfur 

Specification 

(% by weight) 

Bremo Unit 3 2.64 

Bremo Unit 4 2.64 

Chesapeake Unit 2.64 

Chesapeake Unit 2.64 

Chesapeake Unit 2.64 

Chesapeake Unit 2.64 

Chesterfield Unit 2.64 

Chesterfield Unit 2.64 

Chesterfield Unit 2.64 

Chesterfield Unit 2.64 

Clover Unit 1 N/A

Clover Unit 2 N/A

Mt. Storm Unit 1 1.9 

Mt. Storm Unit 2 1.9 

Mt. Storm Unit 3 1.9 

North Branch 4 

Possum Point N/A

Possum Point N/A

Yorktown Unit 1 2.64 

Yorktown Unit 2 2.64 

3
APPENDIX B - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

VEPCO shall submit its semi-annual report as required by Paragraph 137 electronically 

and in hard copy form. Each semi-annual report shall be certified as required by Paragraph 139 

of this Consent Decree. The semi-annual report is in addition to all other notices and reporting 

obligations under the Consent Decree. VEPCO shall provide the following information in each 

of the required semi-annual reports: 

I. NOx Reporting Requirements 

A. Installation and Seasonal/Annual Operation of SCRs 

1. The progress of construction (such as, if construction is not underway, the 

construction schedule, dates of contract execution, major component delivery, 

and, if construction is underway, the estimated percent of installation and 

estimated construction completion date) and, once construction is complete, 

the date of final installation and of acceptance testing under the SCR contract, 

of SCR controls required under Paragraph 56 of the Consent Decree. 

2. Commencing when 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rates become 

applicable, the 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate (lbs/mmBTU) as 

defined in Paragraph 5, for each operating day for each Unit utilizing SCRs 

required under Paragraph 56 of the Consent Decree. 

3. Within the first report that identifies a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate 

(lbs/mmBTU) for each SCR, at least five (5) example calculations (including 

raw CEM data in electronic format for the calculation) used to determine the 

30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate. If at any time VEPCO changes any 

aspect within the methodology used in determining the 30-Day Rolling 

Average Emission Rate, VEPCO shall explain the change and the reason for 

using the new methodology. 

4. All instances, and explain events, that cause deviations from any 30-Day 

Rolling Average Emission Rate in lbs/mmBTU required in Paragraph 56. 

VEPCO shall identify any corrective actions taken in response to such 

deviation. 

5. A description of the how VEPCO met the SCR performance efforts required 

in Paragraph 57 (Best Efforts). 

B. Interim Control of NOx Emissions 

1. In addition to the notice required under paragraph 59, within each semi-annual 

report covering activities in 2004 through 2007, identify the compliance 

option selected as between Paragraph 59(A) and 59(B) for that given year and 

-1-
the date that the notification required in Paragraph 59 was submitted to the 

Plaintiffs, if any such notification is required under Paragraph 59. 

2. If VEPCO implements option (A) under Paragraph 59, report which Unit or 

Units will utilize year-round SCR control(s) and the amount of MW 

represented by the identified Units and report for each Unit controlled with 

year-round SCR the 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate (lbs/mmBTU) as 

defined in Paragraph 5 for each operating day. 

3. If VEPCO implements option (B) under Paragraph 59, the Seasonal SystemWide Emission Rate (lbs/mmBTU) as defined in Paragraph 44, within the first 

report that identifies a Seasonal System Wide Emission Rate, provide at least 

five (5) example calculations (including raw CEM data in electronic format 

for the calculations) used to determine the Seasonal System Wide Emission 

Rate. If at any time VEPCO changes any aspect within the methodology used 

in determining the Seasonal System-Wide Emission Rate, VEPCO shall 

explain the change and the reason for using the new methodology. 

C. Annual NOx System-Wide Requirements 

1. Within the last report for any given year for which a report is due, report the 

total NOx emissions from the VEPCO System, and for each VEPCO System 

Unit, for the calendar year covered by the report as tons per year. 

2. Within the last report for any given year for which a report is due, 

commencing in 2013, report the System Wide Annual Emission Rate and the 

underlying calculation for the VEPCO System for the previous calendar year 

(starting with the year 2013) as lbs/mmBTU. 

D. Miscellaneous NOx Provisions 

1. For each Unit in the “VEPCO System” that utilizes SCR control pursuant to a 

requirement of the Consent Decree, all NOx emissions (in tons) excluded from 

any NOx emission calculation, as permitted in Paragraph 5 and an explanation 

for excluding such emission, as specified in subparagraph 2, below. The 

requirement to report tons of emissions excluded, but no other provisions, 

shall expire on December 31, 2015. 

2. Commencing when any VEPCO System Unit becomes subject to a 30-Day 

Rolling Average Emissions Rate for NOx and utilizes an SCR pursuant to a 

requirement of the Consent Decree, VEPCO shall report: 

a. The date and time that the fire is extinguished; 

-2-
b. The date and time that the Unit is restarted and the date and time that 

the Unit is synchronized with an utility electric distribution system 

after the restart; 

c. The NOx emissions emitted by the Unit prior to the time that the Unit 

was synchronized with an utility electric distribution system; 

d. On the fifth and subsequent Cold Start Up Periods that occur within 

any 30-Day period, the earlier of the date and time that (1) is eight 

hours after the Unit is synchronized with a utility electric distribution 

system, or (2) the flue gas has reached the SCR operational 

temperature as specified by the catalyst manufacturer; 

e. The NOx emissions emitted during the fifth and subsequent Cold Start 

Up Periods; 

f. Identification of the date, time and duration of any period when 

emissions are excluded due to a malfunction of the SCR, as provided 

by Paragraph 5, and supporting information regarding the malfunction, 

the cause, and corrective actions taken, and the amount of NOx 

emissions during the malfunction. 

E. Possum Point 

The tons of NOx from Possum Point Units 3 and 4 rolled daily as 

determined by Paragraph 96. 

II. SO2 Reporting Requirements 

A. SO2 Removal Efficiency Requirements 

1. The progress of construction and improvement (such as, if construction is not 

underway, the dates of contract execution, the estimated percent of 

installation, and major component delivery) and, once construction and 

improvement is complete, the date of final installation, improvement, and 

operation of FGDs required under Paragraph 64 of the Consent Decree, and of 

initial performance testing, if any. 

2. Commencing when any 30-Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency for SO2 

becomes applicable for each FGD as defined in Paragraph 64, the 30-Day 

Rolling Average Removal Efficiency for SO2 for each operating day. 

3. Within the first report that identifies a 30-Day Rolling Average Removal 

Efficiency for each FGD, at least five (5) example calculations (including raw 

CEM data in electronic format for the calculations) used to determine the 30-

Day Rolling Average Removal Efficiency for SO2. If at any time VEPCO 

-3-
changes any aspect within the methodology used in determining the 30-Day 

Rolling Average Removal Efficiency for SO2, VEPCO shall explain the 

change and the reason for using the new methodology. 

B. SO2 Emission Rate 

1. For Clover Units 1 & 2, Mt. Storm Units 1, 2, & 3 and Chesterfield Units 5 & 

6 upon qualifying for a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate as provided in 

Paragraph 66 of the Consent Decree, the 30-Day Rolling Average Emission 

Rate (lbs/mmBTU), as defined in Paragraph 5, for each operating day for each 

Unit qualifying for the SO2 emission rate. 

2. Within the first report that identifies a 30-Day Rolling Average Emission 

Rate for each FGD, at least five (5) example calculations (including raw CEM 

data in electronic format for the calculations) used to determine the 30-Day 

Rolling Average Emission Rate. If at any time VEPCO changes any aspect 

within the methodology used in determining the 30-Day Rolling Average 

Emission Rate, VEPCO shall explain the change and the reason for using the 

new methodology. 

3. A description of the how VEPCO met the FGD performance efforts required 

in Paragraph 69 (Best Efforts). 

C. FGD Bypass Days at Mt. Storm (Consent Decree Paragraph 67) 

1. For each FGD outage or FGD downtime at Mt. Storm Units 1, 2 or 3, as 

allowed under Paragraph 67, the following information: 

a. The date and time the outage/downtime began; 

b. The date and time that the FGD that was offline was returned to 

operation and the duration of the FGD outage/downtime; 

c. A narrative explanation of corrective or maintenance actions taken by 

VEPCO; 

d. The total SO2 emitted from the Unit during the FGD 

outage/downtime; 

e. The total amount of SO2 emission, in tons, that would have been 

emitted at the Unit during the FGD outage/downtime had VEPCO 

burned coal with the sulfur content required by the Consent Decree, 

during the FGD outage/downtime; 

f. The amount of allowances to be surrendered and provide evidence that 

VEPCO surrendered to EPA the amount of SO2 Allowances required 

to be surrendered under Paragraph 67; 

g. Report that the Unit with the FGD outage/downtime was not 

dispatched ahead of the other Mount Storm Units or the Clover Power 

Station Units during the FGD outage/downtime and the dispatch order 

-4-
for each Unit of the VEPCO System during the FGD 

outage/downtime; and 

h. By Unit, a year-to-date tabulation of the number and duration of FGD 

outages/downtime at Mt. Storm Units 1, 2, & 3, and the total amount 

of FGD outage/downtime permitted by the Consent Decree for that 

year. 

D. Miscellaneous SO2 Provisions 

1. Commencing when any VEPCO System Unit becomes subject to a 30-Day 

Rolling Average Removal Efficiency or Emission Rate requirement for SO2, 

for each Unit in the “VEPCO System” that utilizes FGD control pursuant to a 

requirement of the Consent Decree, when a Unit is taken out of service and 

the fire in the boiler is extinguished during the reporting period: 

a. The date and time that the fire is extinguished; 

b. The date and time the Unit is restarted; 

c. The date and time that the Unit is synchronized with an utility electric 

distribution system after the restart; and 

d. SO2 emissions emitted by the Unit prior to the time that the Unit was 

synchronized with a utility electric distribution system, ending on 

December 31, 2015. 

2. Within the last report for any given year, report the total SO2 emissions from 

the VEPCO System for the calendar year covered by the report as tons per 

year, and for each Unit in the VEPCO System, report the annual SO2 

emissions in tons per year for the calendar year covered by the report. 

E. Annual Surrender of SO2 Allowances 

1. Beginning in 2013, whether it made the annual SO2 allowance surrender 

required by the Consent Decree to the U.S. EPA and shall provide 

documentation verifying this surrender. 

2. If VEPCO surrenders the SO2 allowances to a third party, the following 

information: 

a. The identity of the third-party recipients(s) of the SO2 allowances and 

a listing of the serial numbers of the transferred allowances; 

b. A certification from the third-party recipient(s) that it (they) will not 

sell, trade or otherwise exchange any of the allowances and will not 

use any of the allowances to meet any obligation imposed by any law. 

c. Within 12 months after the first report of the transfer, VEPCO shall 

provide documentation that the third-party recipients(s) of the SO2 

allowances permanently surrendered the allowances to U.S. EPA 

-5-
within one year after VEPCO transferred the allowances the thirdparty recipient(s). 

F. Super-compliance Trading of Allowances 

1. The amount of SO2 Allowances and NOx emission allowances or credits 

used or traded pursuant to Paragraph 75 and Section XVIII and the 

calculations or data justifying the generation of the used or traded 

allowances or credits. 

III. PM Requirements 

A. Use of PM Controls Existing at the Time the Decree was Entered and PM 

Emissions Rate 

1. Until a Unit is subject to a PM emissions rate pursuant to this Consent 

Decree, the following information for each Unit: 

a. The calendar days on which the ESP was not operating at any time that 

the Unit was in operation; 

b. If, in accordance with Paragraphs 78 and 79, an ESP or portion 

thereof fails, does not perform in accordance with the equipment 

manufacturer’s specifications or is shutdown by VEPCO, the calendar 

date of each such instance, the time that the failure or inadequate 

performance of the ESP began, all corrective actions undertaken by 

VEPCO and the calendar date and time that the ESP was restored to 

the mode of operation required by Paragraphs 78 and 79. VEPCO 

shall also report any additional corrective actions undertaken in 

response to the event. 

2. For each Unit in the VEPCO System at which a PM emission rate applies 

pursuant to this Consent Decree, the following information: 

a. The PM Emission Rate (lbs/mmBTU) for the Unit, determined under 

the Consent Decree; 

b. If, in accordance with Paragraphs 78 and 79, an ESP or portion thereof 

fails, or does not perform in accordance with the equipment 

manufacturer’s specifications, the calendar date of each such instance, 

the time that the failure or sub-par performance of the ESP began, all 

corrective actions undertaken by VEPCO and the calendar date and 

time that the ESP was restored to the mode of operation required by 

Paragraphs 78 and 79. VEPCO shall also report any additional 

corrective actions undertaken in response to the event. 

-6-
3. Information required to be reported within the approved PM optimization 

plans. 

4. A description of the how VEPCO met the PM control device performance 

efforts required in Paragraph 78 (Best Efforts). 

B. PM CEMs 

1. For each PM CEM installed on a Unit in the VEPCO System: 

a. If the PM CEM was installed during the reporting period, the date of 

installation of the PM CEM; 

b. The dates that the PM CEM operated; 

c. If the PM CEM did not operate continuously throughout the quarter 

without interruption whenever the Unit it serves was operating, the 

date and time that the PM CEM was not operating, a description of the 

cause of the PM CEM’s outage, the steps taken by VEPCO to fix the 

PM CEM, any additional corrective actions undertaken by VEPCO in 

response to the event and the time and date that the PM CEM was 

returned to service. 

C. Performance Testing/Monitoring of PM Emission 

1. For each Unit in the VEPCO System: 

a. If the Unit was required to perform a stack test pursuant to the Consent 

Decree, the executive summary and results of the stack test; 

b. If the Unit has a PM CEM, the three-hour average emission rate for 

PM emissions (or such longer period as is specified in any applicable 

PM emissions limitation requirement), in lb/mmBtu. 

IV. Deviation Reporting 

A. In addition to reporting under Paragraph 137, a summary of all deviations that 

occurred during the reporting period and the date that the deviation was initially 

reported under Paragraph 138. 

B. Within each deviation report submitted under Paragraph 138, the following 

information: 

1. The Consent Decree requirement under which the deviation occurred, with a 

reference to the Consent Decree paragraph containing the requirement; 

2. The date and time that the deviation occurred; 

-7-
3. The date and time that the deviation was corrected; 

4. The data, calculations or other information indicating that a deviation 

occurred; and 

5. A narrative description of the cause or suspected cause of the deviation, the 

steps taken by VEPCO to correct the deviation and any additional corrective 

actions taken by VEPCO in response to the deviation. 

V. Mitigation Project Reporting 

A. The progress such as the schedule for completion of the project dates of contract 

execution, and estimated percent of completion of the Mitigation Projects 

required in Section XXI of the Consent Decree. 

B. The amount of Project Dollars expended on Mitigation Projects. 

VI. VEPCO Submissions 

A list all plans or submissions and the date submitted to the Plaintiffs for the 

reporting period, and identify if any are pending the review and approval of the 

Plaintiff. 

VII. VEPCO Capital Projects 

A list of all Capital Expenditures performed throughout the VEPCO System on 

the Boiler Islands in order to determine meeting the threshold established in 

Paragraphs 111, 124, and 133. 

VIII. Additional Information 

Provide a response to any reasonable request by the Plaintiffs for any additional 

information regarding these reporting requirements or the obligations and 

requirements of this Consent Decree. 

-8-
APPENDIX C – MITIGATION PROJECTS REQUIREMENTS 

In compliance with and in addition to the requirements in Section XXI of the Consent Decree, 

VEPCO shall comply with the requirements of this Appendix to ensure that the benefits of the 

environmental mitigation protects are achieved. No Party may submit a proposed plan for a 

mitigation project until after entry of the Consent Decree. 

I. Clean Diesel, Idle Reduction and School Bus Retrofit Project - To Be Conducted 

within the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 

West Virginia and Resource Lands Project 

A. Within 90 days after entry of the Consent Decree, VEPCO shall submit a plan to 

EPA for review and approval for the completion of the Clean Diesel, Idle 

Reduction and School Bus Retrofit Project in which VEPCO shall spend no less 

than $2,500,000 Project Dollars to retrofit diesel engines with emission control 

equipment, replace diesel engines with cleaner engines, subsidize the use of clean 

diesel fuels or install equipment or implement strategies that will reduce engine 

idling in the above listed jurisdictions. 

B. The plan shall satisfy the following criteria: 

1. Involve fleets located in geographically diverse areas and/or fleets 

operated in nonattainment areas or areas at significant risk of 

nonattainment status within the listed states, taking into account other 

clean diesel projects called for under this Decree. 

2. Provide for the retrofit of high emitting, in service heavy-duty diesel 

engines with verified emissions control equipment. Retrofit technology 

may include but not be limited to oxidation catalysts and particulate 

matter filters that will reduce particulate matter and hydrocarbon 

emissions. 

3. Provide for the replacement of engines with those that meet the 2007 

engine standards and/or are equipped with verified emission control 

technology. 

4. Involve vehicles that are located in areas in which ultra low sulfur diesel 

fuel (ULSD) is already available or is scheduled to become available and 

where such fuel is required for retrofit technology. For affected 

municipalities, school districts or similar local government entities whose 

fleet will be retrofitted, the plan may provide for (a) the procurement of 

tanks or other infrastructure required enabling that fleet to obtain and use 

ULSD and (b) offsetting higher fuel costs from the requirement to use 

ULSD. 

5. Provide for the use of alternative diesel fuels that reduce emissions of 

particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and/or hydrocarbons including but not 
limited to emulsions and biodiesel fuels. 

6. Provide for the installation of verified idle reduction technology and/or 

idle reduction strategies that effectively reduce emissions from idling 

engines through equipment such as electrification stations and/or 

implementation of outreach and education programs to implement policies 

that reduce idling time. 

7. Account for hardware and installation costs, and may provide also for 

incremental maintenance costs and/or costs of repairs on such hardware 

for a period of up to four years after installation. 

8. Limit recipients of retrofits to fleets that legally bind themselves to 

maintain any equipment installed in connection with the project during 

and after completion of the project. 

9. Establish minimum standards for any third-party with whom VEPCO 

might contact to carry out this program that include prior experience in 

arranging vehicle retrofits, ULSD purchases, anti-idling campaigns, etc. 

and a record of prior ability to interest and organize fleets, school districts, 

community groups, etc. to join a clean diesel program. 

10. A schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

C. Within 180 days after entry of the Consent Plans, VEPCO shall submit a plan to 

EPA for review and approval for the identification, acquisition, restoration, 

management and/or preservation of resource lands to mitigate or compensate for 

lost service uses possibly resulting from past power plant emissions in which 

VEPCO shall spend no less than $500,000. The proposed plan shall satisfy the 

following criteria: 

1. Provide a means for the identification of available resource lands which 

may be used to mitigate any past impacts of acid rain deposition or other 

possible effects of power plant emissions and assess the value of such 

lands in providing such benefits as contributing to carbon sequestration, 

restoring forest productivity and other relevant factors. 

2. Establish a process for carrying out the plan, including the identification 

of resources, staff and/or other entities charged with project execution, 

management and oversight during the terms of the Decree, and develop a 

related schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

3. Within 180 days after approval of the proposed selection process identify 

particular plots of land that are consistent with the specifications outlined. 

4. Submit the identified plots of land with recommended selection criteria 

2
within a reasonable period of time. Develop legal options for acquiring, 

restoring and assuring the continued preservation of identified lands. 

D. Performance - Upon approval of plan by the United States, VEPCO shall 

complete the mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule. 

II. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Project – To Be Conducted in New York State 

A. New York shall propose to VEPCO and the U.S. a plan using $2.1 million to 

accomplish the installation of solar photovoltaics (“PVs”) on municipal buildings 

in New York. These building would then use the PV-generated energy, in part to 

help remove some demand for energy from the electrical grid during peak demand 

periods. The project will be administered through the New York State Energy 

Research and Development Authority=s (NYSERDA) Solar Photovoltaics 

program. 

B. New York’s proposed plan must: 

1. Describe how the work or project to be performed is consistent with 

requirements of Section II.A, above; 

a) Include a general schedule and budget (for $2.1 million) for 

completion of the work; including payment instructions for 

VEPCO’s submission of funds to the State, along with a 

requirement of periodic reports to all Parties on the progress of the 

work called for in the proposed plan through completion of the 

project; 

b) Describe generally the expected environmental benefit for project 

or work called for under the proposed plan; and 

c) Describe briefly how work or project described in the proposed 

plan meets the requirements of Section XXI of the Decree. 

C. VEPCO’s obligation for this project shall terminate once a plan exists for this 

project or work and VEPCO has transferred at least $2.1 million to New York to 

complete the project or work described in the plan. VEPCO shall transfer this 

sum as soon as possible after the proposed plan is developed but no later than 

December 31, 2003, unless untimely submission of the proposed plan or material 

deficiency in such plan requires payment after that date. 

D. If New York (or NSYERDA) is later unwilling or unable to perform the project 

specified here, then New York, in consultation with VEPCO, shall select an 

alternative project or projects designed to accomplish the same kinds of goals as 

intended for this project. After proceeding through this proposed plan process 

3
for the alternative project, VEPCO shall fund such project or projects in the 

amount of $2.1 million. 

III. Mitigating Harm to Health Related to Air Pollution in New Jersey and New York: 

Public Transit -- Diesel Bus Catalyzed Particulate Filters 

A. New Jersey shall supply to VEPCO and the U.S. a plan to use $2.7 million to 

accomplish the installation of catalyzed particulate filters (CPFs) on late-model 

conventional diesel buses used to transport commuters from various locations in the 

State of New Jersey into New York City. Operating exclusively on ultra-low sulfur 

diesel fuel, these CPF-equipped buses will further significantly reduce harmful 

emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter in both New 

Jersey and New York. The project will be administered by the New Jersey Transit 

Corporation. 

B. New Jersey’s proposed plan must: 

1. Describe how the work or project to be performed is consistent with requirements 

of Section III.A, above; 

2. Include a general schedule and budget (for $2.7 million) for completion of the 

work, including payment instructions for VEPCO’s submission of funds to the 

State, along with a requirement of periodic reports to all Parties on the progress of 

the work called for in the proposed plan through completion of the project; 

3. Describe generally the expected environmental benefit for project or work called 

for under the proposed plan; and 

4. Describe briefly how the work or project described in the proposed plan meets the 

requirements of Section XXI of the Decree. 

C. VEPCO’s obligation for this project shall terminate once a plan exists for this project 

or work and VEPCO has transferred at least $2.7 million to New Jersey to complete 

the project or work described in the plan. VEPCO shall transfer this sum as soon as 

possible after the proposed plan is developed but no later than December 31, 2003, 

unless untimely submission of the proposed plan or material deficiency in such plan 

requires payment after that date. 

IV. School Bus Retrofit Project – To be Conducted in the State of Connecticut 

A. The State of Connecticut will supply VEPCO and the U.S. a plan to use $1.1 million 

to purchase and install particulate filters for diesel school buses that operate in 

selected urban communities in that State. The proposed plan may include any 

combination of the following: (i) conversion of conventional diesel-powered, school 

buses to buses with particulate traps, (ii) procuring of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (and 

4
necessary infrastructure) to power for up to three years buses converted in the manner 

described in (i), and/or (iii) install additional air pollution controls on such buses. 

The proposed plan will be limited to pollution control devices, fuels, and other 

measures needed to convert diesel buses to include CRT or other particulate traps and 

other controls (including support infrastructure). 

B. Connecticut’s proposed plan must: 

1. Describe how the work or project to be performed is consistent with 

requirements of Section IV.A, above; 

2. Include a general schedule and budget (for $1.1 million) for completion 

of the work, including payment instructions for VEPCO’s submission of 

funds to the State, along with a requirement of periodic reports to all 

Parties on the progress of the work called for in the proposed plan through 

completion of the project; 

3. Describe generally the expected environmental benefit for project or work 

called for under the proposed plan; and 

4. Describe briefly how the work or project described in the proposed plan 

meets the requirements of Section XXI of the Decree. 

C. VEPCO’s obligation for this project shall terminate once a plan exists for this project 

or work and VEPCO has transferred at least $1.1 million to Connecticut to complete 

the project or work described in the plan. VEPCO shall transfer this sum as soon as 

possible after the proposed plan is developed but no later than December 31, 2003, 

unless untimely submission of the proposed plan or material deficiency in such plan 

requires payment after that date. 

V. School Bus Retrofit Program to be Carried Out in Commonwealth of Virginia 

A. Commonwealth of Virginia shall supply to VEPCO and the U.S. a plan to use $2.0 

million to accomplish any combination of the following concerning in-service dieselpowered school buses in the Commonwealth: retrofitting buses with pollution control 

devices and techniques and infrastructure needed to support such retrofits, engine 

replacements that will reduce emissions of particulates or ozone precursors, and 

changeover to CNG fuel or low diesel fuel. These projects are to be carried out in 

areas either non in attainment with ambient air quality standards in the 

Commonwealth or at risk of being reclassified as nonattainment, such as Fairfax, 

Hampton Roads, and Virginia Beach 

B. Commonwealth’s proposed plan must: 

1. Describe how the work or project to be performed is consistent with 

requirements of Section V.A, above; 

2. Include a general schedule and budget (for $2.0 million) for completion of 

5
the work, including payment instructions for VEPCO’s submission of funds to 

the Commonwealth, along with a requirement of periodic reports to all Parties 

on the progress of the work called for in the proposed plan through 

completion of the project; 

3. Describe generally the expected environmental benefit for project or work 

called for under the proposed plan; and 

4. Describe briefly how the work or project described in the proposed plan meets 

the requirements of Section XXI of the Decree. 

C. VEPCO’s obligation for this project shall terminate once a plan exists for this project 

or work and VEPCO has transferred at least $2.0 million to the Commonwealth to 

complete the project or work described in the plan. VEPCO shall transfer this sum as 

soon as possible after the proposed plan is developed but no later than December 31, 

2003, unless untimely submission of the proposed plan or material deficiency in such 

plan requires payment after that date 

VI. Protecting Forests and other Natural Resources in West Virginia’s Cheat Gorge / 

Big Sandy Area. 

A. The State of West Virginia will supply VEPCO and the U.S. a $2.0 million proposed 

plan for the purchase and maintenance of property and/or conservation easements that 

would preserve forests and other environmentally sensitive areas in and around the 

Cheat Gorge / Big Sandy area of the West Virginia, for the purposes of making or 

expanding a public wildlife management area in the State and thus preserving an 

important sources of carbon sequestration. The proposed plan also will include 

needed steps for securing and maintaining valid conservation easements under 

applicable law and for securing clear title, as applicable. 

B. West Virginia’s proposed plan must: 

1. Describe how the work or project to be performed is consistent with 

requirements of Section VI.A, above; 

2. Include a general schedule and budget (for $2.0 million) for completion of 

the work; including payment instructions for VEPCO’s submission of funds to 

the State or its designee, along with a requirement of periodic reports to all 

Parties on the Progress of the work called for in the proposed plan through 

completion of the project; 

3. Describe generally the expected environmental benefit for project or work 

called for under the proposed plan; and 

4. Describe briefly how work or project described in the proposed plan meets the 

requirements of Section XXI of the Decree. 

C. VEPCO’s obligation for this project shall terminate once a plan exists for this project 

6
or work and VEPCO has transferred at least $2.0 million to West Virginia or its 

designee. VEPCO shall transfer this sum as soon as possible after the proposed plan 

is developed but no later than December 31, 2003, unless untimely submission of the 

proposed plan or material deficiency in such plan requires payment after that date. 

D. If West Virginia is unwilling or unable to perform the project specified here, West 

Virginia, in consultation with VEPCO, shall select an alternative project or projects 

designed to accomplish the same kinds of goals as intended for this project. After 

proceeding through this proposed plan process for this alternative project(s), VEPCO 

shall fund such project or projects in the amount of $2.0 million. 

VII. National Park Service Alternative-Fueled and Hybrid Vehicles Project. 

A. The National Park Service will supply VEPCO a plan for using $1.0 million in 

accordance with the Park System Resource Protection Act, 16 U.S.C Section 19jj, 

to improve air quality in and about the Shenandoah National Park, either by 

securing alternative-fueled vehicles for trial use in and around the Park (including 

necessary ancillary equipment such as a fueling station) or for implementing 

another project also intended to reduce damage to those resources caused by air 

pollution suffered by the Park. 

B. NPS’s proposed plan must: 

1. Describe how the work or project to be performed is consistent with 

requirements of Section VII.A, above; 

2. Include a general schedule and budget (for $1.0 million) for completion of 

the work; including payment instructions for VEPCO’s submission of funds to 

the Natural Resource Damage and Assessment Fund, along with a 

requirement of periodic reports to all Parties on the Progress of the work 

called for in the proposed plan through completion of the work. 

3. Describe generally the expected environmental benefit for project or work 

called for under the proposed plan; and 

4. Describe briefly how work or project described in the proposed plan meets 

the requirements of Section XXI of the Decree. 

C. VEPCO’s obligation for this project shall terminate once an approved plan exists 

for this project or work and VEPCO has transferred at least $1.0 million to the 

Natural Resource Damage and Assessment Fund. VEPCO shall transfer this sum 

as soon as possible after the proposed plan is approved but no later than 

December 31, 2003, unless untimely submission of the proposed plan or material 

deficiency in such plan requires payment after that date. 

7