RECEIVED

II AUG -4 PH 2: 09

State ofNew MemONAl AFFAIRS DIVISION

RECEIVED - 6PDL

AIR PLANNING SEC.

n AUG -9 AH 10: 3D

Susana Martinez

Governor

July 28, 2011

-e . I EJFlJ\•••• •••••ElIt!f•••••••••••••••••

EJDFlA ~I 6WQ .

EJMD ElSF .

601tJ •••••••••••.EJFlC ..

EJPD(!>.~M.~••EJXJ\.~! .

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Subject: Request for Approval of Revision to the State Implementation Plan for Air

Quality, for the Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Element:

Albuquerque - Bernalillo County, New Mexico

Dear Dr. Armendariz,

I am writing to request approval of the attached documentation which will serve as the basis for

a revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan for air quality (SIP). Specifically, I am

submitting documentation for the proposed revision to the Section 309 Regional Haze State

Implementation Plan Element: Albuquerque - Bernalillo County, New Mexico, which applies to

Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board) adopted these

revisions on June 8, 2011, after a public comment period and pUblic hearing held on June 8,

2011. I believe that the submitted materials provide adequate documentation to support the

requested SIP revision.

To facilitate your review and processing, the following materials are enclosed:

1) SIP Completeness Checklist pursuant to 40 CFR 51

2) Hearing record, including transcript and exhibits

3) Comments and responses

4) The proposed SIP revision for the Section 309 Regional Haze State

Implementation Plan Element: Albuquerque - Bernalillo County, New Mexico

adopted by the Air Board

State Capitol • Room 400 • Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 • 505-476-2200 • fax: 505-476-2226
-2-

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz

July 28, 2011

Page Two

Your favorable consideration of this request is appreciated. If you have any questions, please

contact Mary Lou Leonard, Director of the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department

(EHD), at (505) 768-2631.

Sincerely,

Susana Ma inez

Governor

SM/kr

cc:

Enclosures

Mary Lou Leonard, Director, Albuquerque EHD

Richard Goodyear, Acting Chief, Air Quality Bureau,

NM Environment Department

Margaret Menache, Chair, AQCB

Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Section Supervisor, AQD
SUBMITTAL LETTER FROM EHD DIRECTOR TO

GOVERNOR
CITY OF ALBUQYERQYE

June 17, 2011

Honorable Susana Martinez

Governor, State of New Mexico

Office of the Governor

Room 400

490 Old Santa Fe Trail

Santa Fe, NM 87501

SUBJECT: Request To Submit To the EPA For Review and Approval, a Proposed

Revision to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Air Quality,

Incorporating the Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Element:

Albuquerque - Bernalillo County, New Mexico

PO Box 1293

Dear Governor Martinez,

Albuquerque

NM87103

www.cabq.gov

I am writing to request your endorsement of the attached submittal to the EPA which

serves as the basis for a revision to the SIP to satisfy federal Regional Haze

requirements found at Section 51.309 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Element will put in place

a long-term strategy that is intended to improve the visibility in federal Class 1 Areas.

Class 1 Areas include national parks, national monuments, larger federal wilderness

areas and some wildlife refuges. The goal is to greatly improve visibility in Class 1

Areas such as Grand Canyon National Park, Mesa Verde National Monument, San

Pedro Parks Wilderness, and Bandelier National Monument by the year 2064. The

attached documentation supports the proposed SIP revision which incorporates an

amended Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Element: Albuquerque -

Bernalillo County, New Mexico, adopted pursuant to Title I of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, into the SIP. If you agree to the submission of the proposed

SIP revision, a letter of endorsement should be sent to the EPA with a request for

their approval by way of publication in the Federal Register. A draft formal letter to

EPA is attached for your convenience. I will provide EPA with the necessary review

copies of the submittal, so you do not need to send any accompanying

documentation. Please provide me with a copy of your letter of endorsement, or if

you prefer to provide me with the original, I will take care of all the details.

Albuquerque - Making History J706-2006
The Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (Air Board) adopted

these revisions on June 8, 2011, after a public comment period and corresponding

public hearing held on June 8, 2011. We believe that the submitted materials provide

adequate documentation to support the requested SIP revision.

To facilitate your review and processing, the following materials are enclosed:

1) SIP Completeness Checklist pursuant to 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

2) Hearing record, including transcripts and exhibits

3) Public comments and responses

4) The final SIP revision for Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation

Plan Element: Albuquerque - Bernalillo County, New Mexico, adopted by the

Ait Board.

5) A draft formal submittal letter from the Governor to EPA

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have questions or need

clarification, please contact me or Margaret Nieto of my staff at (505) 768-2637.

Sincerely,

Ditec r

Albuquerque Envitonmental Health Department

cc: Dr. Margaret Menache, Chait,

Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Ait Quality Control Board

Margaret Nieto, Conttol Strategies Supervisor, AQD

Neal Butt, Envitonmental Health Scientist, AQD

Richard Goodyear, Acting Chief, Ait Quality Bureau, NMED

Enclosures

2
REVISION TO THE NEW MEXICO STATE IMPLEMENTAnON PLAN (SIP)

PERTAINING TO THE DOCUMENT SECTION309 REGIONAL HAZESTATE

IMPLEMENTATIONPLAN (SIP) ELEMENT: ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY,

NEWMEXICO

June 2011

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

for regular processing

(per 40 CFR 51 Appendix V)

2.1 Administrative Materials

(a) A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA

approval ofthe plan or revision thereof(hereafter "the plan").

X YES NO __N/A

The previous two packages were sent to EPA with a formal submittal letter

from the Governor ofthe state ofNew Mexico, and another letterfrom the Governor

transmitting this 2011 SIP revision is also included.

(b) Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations;

or issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter "document") in final form.

That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the

effective date ofthe plan, ifdifferent from the adoption/issuance date.

X YES NO N/A

The SIP revision pertaining to incorporation ofthe document entitled Section

309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) Element: Albuquerque! Bernalillo

County, New Mexico was first adopted November 12lh, 2003 at a regular meeting of

the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB), following a

public hearin~ held on October B'h, 2003 which was recessed and continued on

November 12' , 2003.

The AQCB adopted the aforementioned document via Resolution 2003-7,

signed by then AQCB Chairman Stephen Pilon, M.D., a copy ofwhich was included in

Attachment B ofthe last SIP submittal. The previous SIP submittal also included a

copy of the final document-Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

(SIP) Element: AlbuquerquelBernalilio County, New Mexico, in Attachment A.

The revisions made in 2008 were adopted by resolution on August 13, 2008 at

a regular meeting of the AQCB following public hearings held on 11/14/07 and

8/13/08. A copy ofAQCB Resolution # 2008-6 was enclosed as Attachment A.

The current revisions were adopted by resolution #AQCB 2011-5 on June 8,

2011.

Page I of6
(c) Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and

implement the plan.

X YES NO N/A

The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act provides for Regulation at 74-2-5.1

NMSA 1978, Duties and Powers ofthe Department and the Local Agency; and for

Plan Revisions at 74-2-5.2 NMAS 1978, State Air Pollution Control Agency; Specific

Duties and Powers ofthe Department.

(d) A copy of the actual regulation, or docwnent submitted for approval and incorporation

by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing

approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State

regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating

that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/document

shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the docwnent itself.

X YES NO N/A

The final version ofthe Regional Haze SIP signed by the Air Board Chair with

all changes incorporated is shown as Attachment A Changes made to the 2008 plan are

indicated by AQD Exhibit 1a and AQD Exhibit 7, shown in Attachment B.

(e) Evidence that the State followed all ofthe procedural requirements ofthe State's laws

and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance ofthe plan.

X YES NO N/A

The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act 74-2-6C requires 3D-day notice. See

AQD Exhibits # 3c and 3d, shown in Attachment B for evidence that notices were

published in the local newspaper and the New Mexico Register. 20.11.82 NMAC

requires that a Petition for Hearing be filed as well as an NO/. These are also shown

in Attachment B.

(f) Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with

procedures approved by EPA; including the date ofpublication ofsuch notice.

X YES NO N/A --

See AQD Exhibits # 3c and 3d shown in Attachment B as evidence that notices

were published in the local newspaper and the New Mexico Register. The New

Mexico Air Quality Control Act 74-2"6C requires a 3D-day notice.

Page 2 of6
(g) Certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information

provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

X YES NO N/A

Consistency between public notice and scope of hearing is born out by the

transcriptsfrom the June 8, 2011 hearing shown as Attachment C

(h) Compilation ofpublic comments and the State's response thereto.

X YES NO N/A

See AQD Exhibits # 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e and 8 shown in Attachment B for public

comments and State's response thereto.

2.2 Technical Support

(a) Identification of all regulated pol1utants affected by the plan.

....K..-YES NO __N/A

The goal ofthe federal Regional Haze mandate is to restore natural visibility

conditions in federal Class I Areas by 2064. Visibility impairment is caused primarily

by emissions of sulfUr dioxide (S02), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) andparticulate matter (PM). Moleculesfrom these pollutants and

others combine toform regional haze.

The pollutants addressed in the document Section 309 Regional Haze State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Element: AlbuquerquelBemalillo County, New Mexico

include S02, NOx, VOCs and PM. Two regulations that form the backbone of the

regional haze program address S02 and PM; the Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory

Requirements; Westem Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, 20.11.46 NMAC,

establishes a program to control S02, and Open Burning, 20.11.21 NMAC, which

limits large-scale burning activities to control PM.

(b) Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment!

nonattainment designation ofthe locations and the status ofthe attainment plan for the

affected area(s).

---.X.. YES NO N/A

The document Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Element: Albuquerque/Bemalillo County, New Mexico does not pertain to carbon

monoxide (CO), the pallutant for which Albuquerque - Bernalillo County is under a

limited maintenance plan. Because the pollutants most relevant to regional haze are

S02, NOx, VOCs and PM, the Bernalillo County CO maintenance area is not affected

Page 3 of6
by the regional haze mandate in terms ofco. Bernalillo County is in attainment for

all regional haze pollutants.

(c) Quantification of the changes in plan-allowable emissions from the affected sources;

estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where

appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources

through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable

emissions anticipated as a result ofthe revision.

X YES NO -- __N/A

This plan revision for the document Section 309 Regional Haze State

hnplementation Plan (SIP) Element: AlbuquerqueIBernali110 County, New Mexico

contains regional sulfur dioxide emissions milestones. These milestones are identified

in the 2003. 2008 and 2011 SlP submittals. Quantification ofactual emissions from

sources producing S02 is not required because Bernalillo County contains no BART

sources at this time. Baseline emissions ofS02 are compared to the milestone levels

in the SlP. No plan-allowable emissionsfor pollutants produced by open burning are

required.

(d) The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of

significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and

visibility, as applicable, are protected ifthe plan is approved and implemented. For all

requests to redesignate an area to attainment for a national primary ambient air quality

standard, under section 107 ofthe Act, a revision must be submitted to provide for the

maintenance ofthe national primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years

as required by section 175A ofthe Act.

X YES NO _N/A

This plan revision does not pertain to redesignating an area to attainment for

a national primary ambient air quality standard. Nor does it pertain to prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) increments and demonstrations ofreasonable further

progress. The document Section 309 Regional Haze State hnplementation Plan (SIP)

Element: Albuquerque/Bernali11o County, New Mexico and its two supporting

regulations will serve to protect regional visibility and meet the goal ofthe regional

haze mandate-to restore the federal Class 1 Areas to natural visibility conditions by

2064. The technical information regarding demonstrating visibility conditions is

contained in the SlP.

(e) Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data,

output data, models used, justification of model selections, ambient monitoring data

used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used),

modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the

determination of adequacy ofthe modeling analysis.

Page 4 of6
NO N/A

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has produced and compiled

technical information to support the regional haze program's main goal ofrestoring

visibility in federal Class I Areas to natural conditions by 2064. In cooperation with

the EPA, the WRAP has conducted air quality modeling for the various pollutants

which interact to form regional haze-S02, NOx, VOCs and PM The results ofthese

analyses demonstrate that, with the control programs in place, Visibility is expected to

improve during the first planning period of2003-2018.

The WRAP's Technical Support Document (TSD) is accessible online to the

public at http://www.wrapair.org. The basic summary ofthe WRAP work is contained

in the Appendices to the document Section 309 Regional Haze State hnplementation

Plan (SIP) Element: Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico, (labeled as

Attachment A in the 2003 SIP submittal. Additional analysis was required for the

2008 SIP to comply with changes to Section 309(g). This additional analysis included

as Appendix 2007-H, including an addendum, shown as AQD Exhibit # 7, enclosed as

Attachment C in the 2008 SIP submittal. Modeled estimates of SOx and NOx

emissions in the 2003 and 2008 SIP submittals are not accurate, and so actual

emissions have been submitted as evidence, entitled "Appendix 201O-B" shown as

AQD Exhibit 5 in Attachment B.

(t) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous

emission reduction technology.

YES NO ---lLN/A

The S02 emissions limitations (or milestones) specified in the Regional Haze

Rule are regional totals that all participating states must meet together. Therefore,

evidence to demonstrate that emission limitations at the individual source level are

based on continuous emission reduction technology is not necessary here.

(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and

record keeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

---lLYES NO _N/A

The document Section 309 Regional Haze State hnplementation Plan (SIP)

Element: AlbuquerquelBernalillo County, New Mexico, along with the regulations

20.11.46 NMAC Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements; Western

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and 20.11.21 NMAC Open Burning,

contain specific emission reporting and tracking requirements for S02 and PM

emissions.

(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in

practice.

Page 5 of6
NO N/A

The Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) Element:

AlbuquerquelBernalillo County, New Mexico addresses the Western Backstop S02

Trading Program and the Smoke Management Program. Portions of the regional

haze program are supported by regulations and therefore contain compliance

provisions. These regulations contain reporting requirements that facilitate tracking

emissions to determine compliance, where appropriate.

If ever triggered, compliance with the Western Backstop S02 Trading

Program, supported by 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory

Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program. would be

determined on a regional basis by comparing actual regional S02 emissions with the

emissions milestones established in the Regional Haze Rule. Compliance with the

Smoke Management Program, supported by 20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning. will be

determined on a case-by-case basis through enforcement actions.

(i) Special economic and technical justification required by any applicable EPA policies,

or an explanation ofwhy such justifications are not necessary.

YES NO ---.2LN/A

No special economic and technical justifications required by other applicable

EPA policies are necessary because no such policies are relevant in this case.

Page 6 of6
ATTACHMENT A

AttachmentA contains the Regional Haze SIP as adopted by the Board on June 8, 2011,

with all changes incorporated
SECTION 309 REGIONAL HAZE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ELEMENT:

ALBUQUERQUE - BERNALILLO COUNTY,

NEW MEXICO

Main Document

FINAL VERSION

City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department

Air Quality Division

Control Strategies Section

Originally Drafted September 8, 2003

First Revised October 5, 2003

First Adopted by the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County

Air Quality Control Board (AQCB), November 12,2003

Redrafted and Re-released To Public, September 29,2007

Second Public Review Draft Released June 28,2008

Second Revision Adopted By the AQCB On: August 13, 2008

Redrafted and Re-released To Public, October 22,2010

Third Public Review Draft Released February 22,2011

Third Revision Adopted By the AQCB On: June 8, 2011

Dr. M garet Menache, Chair

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board

PREFACE 

This request was first submitted pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) requirements published as a Federal Register notice (FR Vol. 64, No. 126) on 

Thursday, July 1, 1999. The documentation in this report addresses requirements found in 

Part 51, Appendix V relating to completeness of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions. This report was first presented at a public hearing before the AlbuquerqueBernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) held on October 8, 2003 and continued 

on November 12, 2003. Appropriate public notices and opportunities for public comment 

were provided. The AQCB adopted the initial Regional Haze SIP on November 12, 2003. 

In 1999 the first regulation to address the type of visibility impairment known as Regional 

Haze was promulgated by EPA. Since that time it has been judicially challenged twice. On 

May 24, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling 

vacating the Regional Haze Rule in part and sustaining it in part, based on a finding that 

EPA's prescribed methods for determining best available retrofit technology (BART) were 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) [American Corn Growers Association v. EPA, {291 

F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002)}]. EPA finalized a rule on July 6, 2005 addressing the court's ruling in 

this case [FR Vol. 70 No. 128 39104-39172]. On February 18, 2005, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued another ruling, in Center for Energy and 

Economic Development (CEED) v. EPA, [398 F.3d 653(DC Cir. 2005)], granting a petition 

challenging provisions of the Regional Haze Rule governing an optional emissions trading 

program for certain western States and Tribes [the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) Annex Rule]. EPA published proposed regulations to revise the provisions of the 

Regional Haze Rule governing alternative trading programs, and to provide additional 

guidance on such programs in August 2005. EPA received several comments on the August 

2005 proposal. This final rule [Federal Register: October 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 

198)] finalized the proposed revisions, including changes in response to the public 

comments. This rule became effective December 12, 2006. The following report has been 

amended to address all these actions, as well as addressing comments received by the 

Department, from EPA on 11/3/04, and in 2007. 

In 2010 EPA Region 6 conveyed to New Mexico and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County that 

there were certain technical issues concerning the S02 trading program in New Mexico's 

Regional Haze SIP that remained to be resolved. Regions 6, 8, and 9 (the “Regions") had 

reviewed the document entitled Demonstration that the S02 Milestones Provide Greater 

Reasonable Progress than BART dated July 23, 2009. This document illustrated the position 

held by the States participating in the Regional Haze option under 40 CFR 51.309 (the 309 

SIPs), that a 2018 S02 milestone of 234,624 tons S02 satisfied the requirements under 

Section 51.309(d)(4), and specifically, that the 2018 milestone will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would have been achieved from the installation and operation of 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). EPA Regions 6, 8 and 9 determined that based 

on their review, the proposed 2018 milestone did not satisfy Section 51.309(d)(4). Therefore, 

in order to approve the Regional Haze SIP for the aforementioned states, EPA has asked 

that the proposed milestones be revised in order to meet the requirements of Section 

51.309(d)(4). To this end, the States and Regions have negotiated a revised set of 

milestones. These revised milestones and their associated changes have been incorporated 

into this revised Regional Haze SIP. In addition, since this SIP was last amended, the state 

of Arizona has changed from a “309” program to a “308” program, and so this change has 

been also noted in this SIP. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT 

Neal Butt, Environmental Health Scientist, Air Quality Division (AQD) 

 Principal Author, Editor, SIP Submittal 

Margaret Nieto, Control Strategies Supervisor, AQD 

 Project Oversight 

Stephanie Summers, Emission Inventory Specialist, AQD 

 Emissions Inventory, BART Determination 

Dario Rocha, Air Quality Permitting and Technical Analysis Supervisor, AQD 

 Emissions Inventory, BART Determination 

Ken Lienemann, Monitoring Supervisor, AQD 

 Visibility Analysis 

Regulatory Development Committee, AQD 

 Peer Review 

Dan Warren, AQD (Retired) 

 Project Oversight, 2003 SIP Submittal 

Catalina Lehner, Lead Planner, Planning Development Review Division 

 Coauthor, 2003 SIP Submittal 

Major assistance in preparing this implementation plan was provided by the Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) and its forums and committees, who provided 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County and other western states with much of the policy and 

technical support information needed to meet the requirements of Section 309 of the 

Regional Haze Rule. Special thanks go to the following: 

• Pat Cummins, WRAP Co-Director 

• Tom Moore, TOC Staff Support/Technical Coordinator 

• Lee Alter, IOC Staff Support 

• Don Arkell, State Caucus Coordinator/Visibility Program Coordinator, WESTAR 

• Bob Lebens, WESTAR 

• Lee Gribovicz, WRAP Air Quality Project Manager 

• New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau staff 

• Christine ‘Tina’ Anderson, Wyoming Air Quality Division 

• Colleen Delany, Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) 

• Deborrah ‘Corky’ Martinkovic, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

• Jan Miller, UDAQ 

• Aarti Savani, Perrin Quarles Associates Inc. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

ii
ACRONYMS 

ACI Air Curtain Incinerator 

AEG Annual Emissions Goal 

AQD Air Quality Division (City of Albuquerque) 

AQCB Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 

ATS Allowance Tracking System 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology 

CAA The Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Dv DeciView 

EATS Emission Allowance Tracking System 

EC Elemental Carbon 

EDMS Emissions Data Reporting, Management and Tracking System 

EIB Environmental Improvement Board 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Emission Reduction Technique 

ESMP Enhanced Smoke Management Policy 

FEJF Fire Emissions Joint Forum 

FEP Fire Emissions Project 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan 

FLM Federal Land Manager 

GCVTC Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

I&M Inspection and Maintenance Program 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MW MegaWatts 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NMAC New Mexico Administrative Code 

NMED New Mexico Environment Department 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NVC Natural Visibility Conditions 

OC Organic Carbon 

PBII Prescribed Burn II 

PM Particulate Matter 

RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

RAVI Reasonable Attributable Visibility Impairment 

RHR Regional Haze Rule 

SEP Supplemental Environmental Project 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMP Smoke Management Plan or Smoke Management Program 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TIP Tribal Implementation Plan 

TPY Tons per Year 

TSA Tracking System Administrator 

TSD Technical Support Document 

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

iii
WEB Western Emissions Budget 

WEB EATS WEB Emission Allowance Tracking System 

WESTAR Western States Air Resources Council 

WFU Wildland Fire Managed for Resource Benefit 

WGA Western Governor’s Association 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. BACKGROUND ON REGIONAL HAZE 

 A. Introduction 1 

 B. 1977 Clean Air Act 1 

 C. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 2 

 D. Western Regional Air Partnership 3 

II. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 4 

 A. Objective 

 B. Statutory Authority 

 C. Scope 

 D. Options for Regional Haze SIP 

 E. Requirements of the 309 Option 

III COORDINATION WITH THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 

IV SIP ELEMENTS: 

SECTION A. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT 6 

 SECTION B. CLEAN AIR CORRIDORS 12 

 SECTION C. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES 16 

 Part A. Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger 20 

 Part B. Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Requirements 31 

 Part C. WEB Trading Program Requirements 32 

 Part D. 2013 SIP Revision; 

 Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning Period 53 

 SECTION D. MOBILE SOURCES 56 

 SECTION E. FIRE PROGRAMS 60 

 SECTION F. PAVED & UNPAVED ROAD DUST 69 

 SECTION G. POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2

) 71 

 SECTION H. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 97 

 SECTION I. PERIODIC SIP REVISIONS 99 

 SECTION J. STATE PLANNING / INTERSTATE COORDINATION & 

 TRIBAL IMPLEMENTATION 100 

 SECTION K. GEOGRAPHIC ENHANCEMENT & RAVI 101 

 SECTION L. REASONABLE PROGRESS FOR ADDITIONAL CLASS I AREAS

 103 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

v
 SECTION M. BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) 

 DETERMINATION 112 

 SECTION N. DEMONSTRATION THAT SO2 MILESTONES PROVIDE GREATER 

 REASONABLE PROGRESS THAN BART 125 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS - APPENDICES 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

 As Listed In the August 27, 2003 Draft Final Version Tab 1 

Revised, May 7, 2008. The baseline year was updated to 2002 and 2018 emissions 

projections revised between 2004 and 2006 by the WRAP. The methods for incorporating 

federal and state emissions control programs are detailed in a series of reports specific to 

point, area, mobile, fire, and dust sources. Therefore, Appendix A-TSD is no longer current. 

The references for these reports are available through the WRAP TSS at: 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Default.aspx?code=1 . In addition, the emissions data 

presented in Appendices C-TSD through K-TSD have been replaced with the emissions and 

modeling scenarios available through the WRAP TSS. Therefore, Appendices C through K 

are no longer current either. 

 Appendix A-TSD Methods Used to Incorporate State and Local Control 

 Programs in WRAP Emissions Inventories 

 Appendix B-TSD Use of EPA Guidance and Best Practices 

 Appendix C-TSD 1996 Base Case Emissions Used in Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix D-TSD 2018 Base Case Emissions Used in Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix E-TSD 2018 Scenario I Emissions Used in Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix F-TSD 2018 Scenario 2 Emissions Used in Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix G-TSD 2018 BART with Uncertainty Scenario Emissions Used in 

 Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix H-TSD 2018 SO2 Annex Milestones Scenario Emissions Used in 

 Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix I-TSD 2018 Stationary Source 50% NOx Reduction Scenario 

 Emissions Used in Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix J-TSD 2018 Stationary Source 50% PM10 Reduction Scenario 

 Emissions Used in Air Quality Modeling 

 Appendix K-TSD 2018 Stationary Source Simultaneous 25% NOx and 25% 

 PM10 Increase Scenario Emissions Used in Air Quality 

 Modeling 

 Appendix L-TSD Clean Air Corridor Change in Emissions 1996 to 2018 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

vii
SIP Appendices As Listed In the July 10, 2003 SIP Template Tab 2 

 Appendix A-SIP Projection of Improvement in 16 Class I Areas 

 Appendix B-SIP Analysis of the Clean Air Corridor (CAC) 

 Appendix C-SIP Mobile Sources: 2003 Interim Progress Report 

 (The body of the SIP document contains this information) 

 Appendix D-SIP Fire Programs 

 (The body of the SIP document contains this information) 

 Appendix E-SIP Dust Impact Assessment and Contribution to Impairment 

 (The body of the SIP document contains this information) 

 Appendix F-SIP Pollution Prevention-Summary of Renewable Energy and 

 Energy Conservation Programs in the State 

 (The body of the SIP document contains this information) 

 Appendix G-SIP Evaluation of Additional Recommendations from the 

 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

 (The body of the SIP document contains this information) 

 Appendix H-SIP SIP Strategies Developed through Interstate Coordination 

 (The body of the SIP document contains this information) 

 Appendix I-SIP Geographic Enhancements-Model MOA between Federal 

 Land Management Agency and State-optional 

 (Not included) 

 

 Appendix J-SIP Long-Term Strategies and Visibility Improvement 

 Expected for Additional Class I Areas-optional 

 (Not applicable) 

 Appendix K-SIP Summary of Emission Inventory and Tracking Programs 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

viii
Other Appendices As Included By the Local Authority Tab 3 

 Appendix A-O Final Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

 [FR Vol. 64, No. 126, July 1, 1999] 

 Appendix B-O State of New Mexico Letter-Decision to Pursue 309 

 Appendix C-O Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Regulation, 

 Open Burning, 20.11.21 NMAC 

 Appendix D-O Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Regulation, Sulfur Dioxide 

 Emissions Inventory Requirements; Western Backstop 

 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Trading Program, 20.11.46 NMAC 

 Appendix E-O Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Trading Program 

 Model Rule 

 Appendix F-O General Definitions in the RHR 

 Appendix G-O Complete Citation of Stationary Source Requirements in 

 Section 309 (h) and 309 (f) 

 Appendix H-O WRAP Report Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions 

 in the WRAP Region: An Initial Assessment of Emissions, 

 Controls and Air Quality Impacts (draft), May 30, 2003. 

 Appendix I-O Revisions to the RHR to Incorporate Sulfur Dioxide 

 Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for 

 Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes within that 

 Geographic Area, FR Vol. 68, No. 108, June 5, 2003. 

 (a.k.a.—The Annex) 

 Appendix J-O Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule to Correct Mobile 

 Source Provisions in Optional Program for Nine Western 

 States and Eligible Indian Tribes within that Geographic 

 Area, Final Rule, July 3, 2003. 

 Appendix K-O WRAP policy report Fire Tracking Systems, April 2, 2003. 

 Appendix L-O State of New Mexico Smoke Management Program 

 (SMP)-Emission Factors and Calculations 

 Appendix M-O WRAP policy report Enhanced Smoke Management 

 Programs for Visibility, November 12, 2002. 

 Appendix N-O WRAP report Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy, 

 April 2, 2003. 

 Appendix O-O State of New Mexico Appendix-Pollution Prevention (P2) 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

ix
 Appendix P-O WRAP report Recommendations for Making Attribution 

 Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable 

 BART, May 22, 2003. 

 Appendix Q-O EPA Completeness Criteria for the Regional Haze SIP 

 Appendix R-O References 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

x
Appendices for 2007 Regional Haze SIP for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

 Tab 4 

Appendix 2007-A. Federal Registers: 

 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 

 Technology (BART) Determinations, FR Vol. 70, No. 128, 39104-39172, 7/6/05. 

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2005/July/Day-06/a12526.htm

 Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternative to 

 Source-Specific BART Determinations, FR Vol. 71, No. 198, 60612-60634, 10/13/06. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/October/Day-13/a8630.pdf

Appendix 2007-B. 

 Market Trading Forum Non-Utility Sector Allocation. Final Report from the 

 Allocations Working Group, November 2002, E.H. Pechan, 

 Report No. 02.11.001/9422.000. 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/mtf/documents/FinalDocs/NonUtilityreport.pdf

Appendix 2007-C 

 Summary and Discussion of 1996 Through 2018 Mobile Source Emissions 

 Inventories. Technical Memo from Tom Moore to Mobile Sources Forum. 

 November 26, 2002. 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ef/inventories/mobile/FinalMobile_Emissions_Memo_N

ov26.doc

Appendix 2007-D 

 Chapter 5 of the Regional Technical Support Document for the Requirement of 

 §309 of the Regional Haze Rule entitled: Assessment of Mobile Sources, 

 WRAP Technical Oversight Committee, December 15, 2003. 

http://www.wrapair.org/309/031215Final309TSD.pdf

Appendix 2007-E. 

 WRAP's guidance on Nonburning Alternatives for Vegetation & Fuel 

 Management. November 2002, J & S 01-562. 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/documents/altwild/nonburning_manual.pdf

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xi
 WRAP's guidance on Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands 

 in the Western US. 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/fejf/tasks/FEJFtask4.html

Appendix 2007-F. 

 Identification of BART-Eligible Sources in the WRAP Region, Draft Report for 

 WRAP by ERG, #30204-84, April 4, 2005. 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bartsources.html

Appendix 2007-G. Fugitive Dust Control, 20.11.20 NMAC 

Appendix 2007-H. Visibility Analysis 

Addendum to Appendix 2007-H Weighted Emission Potential Analysis 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xii
Appendices for 2010 Regional Haze SIP for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County 

Appendix 2010-A. EPA letters regarding SO2 Trading Program 

Appendix 2010-B. Emissions Inventory, SOx and NOx, 2003, 2005, & 2008 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xiii
FIGURES 

Figure 1 Federal Class I Areas in the United States (map) 

Figure 2a & 2b 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau (map) 

Figure 3 Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region 

TABLES 

Table 1 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau 

Table 2 Projected Visibility Improvement at the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas in 

2018 on the Average 20% Worst Visibility Days / Average 20% Best Visibility 

Days 

Table 3 Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones 

Table 4a Reserved 

Table 4b Reserved 

Table 5 Preliminary Smelter-Specific Set Aside (tons of SO2) 

Table 6 Reserved 

Table 7a Reserved 

Table 7b Reserved 

Table 7c Utility Non-utility Split 

Table 8 Reserved 

Table 9 State-by-State Comparison of SO2 Emission Reductions, 1990-2000 (TPY) 

Table 10 On-road and Non-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventories for New Mexico: 

1996 – 2018 

Table 10.1 On-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for Albuquerque Urban Area: 

1996 baseline and 2018 

Table 10.2 Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for Albuquerque Urban Area: 

1996 Baseline and 2018 

Table 10.3 Total On-road and Non-road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for 

Albuquerque Urban Area: 1996 Baseline and 2018 

Table 11 Prescribed Fire Programs in the Bernalillo County Jurisdiction 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xiv
Table 12 Comparison of Existing Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Open Burning 

regulation with RHR Requirements 

Table 13 Policy Mechanisms to Promote Renewable Energy 

Table 14 Financial Incentives to Promote Renewable Energy 

Table 15 Programs to Promote Renewable Energy 

Table 16 Policy Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency/Energy Conservation 

Table 17 Programs to Promote Energy Efficiency/Energy Conservation 

Table 18 Summary of Renewable Energy Generation Capacity and Production in Use 

or Planned as of 2002 in Bernalillo County

Table 19 Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production in Bernalillo County

Table 20 Summary of New Mexico’s Incentive Programs that Affect Bernalillo 

 County 

Table 21 All Federal Class I Areas in New Mexico 

Table A1 Source Categories Subject to BART Requirements 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xv
Glossary 

(After Malm, W. C., Introduction to Visibility, National Park Service, May 1999 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Education/IntroToVisinstr.htm ) 

Absorption: a class of processes by which one material is taken up by another. 

Absorption Coefficient: a measure of the ability of particles or gases to absorb photons; a 

number that is proportional to the number of photons removed from the sight path by 

absorption per unit length. 

Aerosol: a dispersion of microscopic solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium, such as 

smoke and fog. 

Air Parcel: a volume of air that tends to be transported as a single entity. 

Anthropogenic: produced by human activities. 

Apportionment: to distribute or divide and assign proportionately. 

Attenuation: the diminuation of quantity. In the case of visibility, attenuation or extinction 

refers to the loss of image-forming light as it passes from an object to the observer. 

Coagulation: the process by which small particles collide with and adhere to one another to 

form larger particles. 

Condensation: the process by which molecules in the atmosphere collide and adhere to 

small particles. 

Condensation Nuclei: the small nuclei or particles with which gaseous constituents in the 

atmosphere (e.g., water vapor) collide and adhere. 

Deciview: a unit of visibility proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction, an 

index of haziness. Under many circumstances a change in one deciview will be perceived to 

be the same on clear and hazy days. 

Extinction: the attenuation of light due to scattering and absorption as it passes through a 

medium. 

Extinction Coefficient: a measure of the ability of particles or gases to absorb and scatter 

photons from a beam of light; a number that is proportional to the number of photons 

removed from the sight path per unit length. See absorption. 

Haze: an atmospheric aerosol of sufficient concentration to be visible. The particles are so 

small that they cannot be seen individually, but are still effective in visual range restriction. 

See visual range. 

Homogenous Nucleation: process by which gases interact and combine with droplets 

made up of their own kind. For instance, the collision and subsequent adherence of water 

vapor to a water droplet is homogenous nucleation. See nucleation. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xvi
Hydrocarbons: compounds containing only hydrogen and carbon. Examples: methane, 

benzene, decane, et cetera. 

Hygroscopic: readily absorbing moisture, as from the atmosphere. 

IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments. 

Integrating Nephelometer: an instrument that measures the amount of light scattered 

(scattering coefficient). 

Isopleth: a line drawn on a map through all points having the same numerical value. 

LAC or Light-Absorbing Carbon: carbon particles in the atmosphere that absorb light. 

Black carbon. 

Light Extinction Budget: the percent of total atmospheric extinction attributed to each 

aerosol and gaseous component of the atmosphere. 

Micron: a unit of length equal to one millionth of a meter; the unit of measure for 

wavelength. 

NO2 or Nitrogen Dioxide: a gas consisting of one nitrogen and two oxygen atoms. It 

absorbs blue light and therefore has a reddish-brown color associated with it. 

Nucleation: process by which a gas interacts and combines with droplets. See 

homogenous nucleation. 

Perceived Visual Air Quality (PVAQ): an index that relates directly to how human 

observers perceive changes in visual air quality. 

Photon: a bundle of electromagnetic energy that exhibits both wave-like and particle-like 

characteristics. 

Plume Blight: visual impairment of air quality that manifests itself as a coherent plume. 

Point Source: 1) generally, any stationary source for which individual records are 

maintained for emission inventory purposes; distinguished from area source, often by a 

criterion involving emission rate, such as 100 tons per year. 2) A source of pollution that is 

point-like in nature. An example is the smoke stack of a coal-fired power plant or smelter. 

See source. 

Polar Nephelometer: an instrument that measures the amount of light scattered in a 

specific direction. See also integrating nephelometer. 

Precursor Emissions: emissions from point or regional sources that transform into 

pollutants with varied chemical properties. 

Rayleigh Scattering: the scattering of light by particles much smaller than the wavelength 

of the light. In the ideal case, the process is one of a pure dipole interaction with the electric 

field of the light wave. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xvii
Relative Humidity: the ratio of the partial pressure of water to the saturation vapor 

pressure, also called saturation ratio; often expressed as a percentage. 

Scattering (light): an interaction of a light wave with an object that causes the light to be 

redirected in its path. In elastic scattering, no energy is lost to the object. 

Scattering Coefficient: a measure of the ability of particles or gases to scatter photons out 

of a beam of light; a number that is proportional to the amount of photons scattered per unit 

length. 

Secondary Aerosols: aerosol formed by the interaction of two or more gas molecules 

and/or primary aerosols. 

SO2: See sulfur dioxide. 

Source: in atmospheric chemistry, the place, places, group of sites, or areas where a 

substance is injected into the atmosphere; can include point sources, elevated sources, area 

sources, regional sources, multiple sources, etc. 

Sulfates: those aerosols which have origins in the gas-to-aerosol conversion of sulfur 

dioxide; of primary interest are sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfates. 

Sulfur Dioxide: a gas (SO2) consisting of one sulfur and two oxygen atoms. Of interest 

because sulfur dioxide converts to an aerosol that very efficiently scatters light. Also, it can 

convert into acid droplets consisting primarily of sulfuric acid. 

Temperature Inversion: in meteorology, a departure from the normal decrease of 

temperature with increasing altitude such that the temperature is higher at a given height in 

the inversion layer than would be expected from the temperature below the layer. This 

warmer layer leads to increased stability and limited vertical mixing of air. 

Visual Range: the distance at which a large black object just disappears from view. 

VOC: Volatile Organic Compound - gaseous hydrocarbon. 

Wavelength: the distance, measured in the direction of propagation of a wave, between two 

successive points in the wave that are characterized by the same phase of oscillation. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

FINAL VERSION June 8, 2011 

xviii
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

1

I. BACKGROUND ON REGIONAL HAZE 

A. Introduction 

Regional haze is a type of air pollution that is transported long distances and reduces visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas across the country. Over the years this haze has reduced the 

visual range from 90 miles (145 kilometers) to 15-31 miles (24-50 kilometers) in the East, and from 

140 miles (225 kilometers) to 35-90 miles (56-145 kilometers) in the West. The pollutants that 

create this haze are sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust. 

Anthropogenic haze sources include industry, motor vehicles, agricultural and forestry burning, and 

windblown dust from roads and farming practices. 

In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations to address regional haze 

in 156 national parks and wilderness areas across the country. These regulations were published 

in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999 [64 FR 35714]. The goal of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

is to eliminate anthropogenic visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness areas across 

the country. It contains strategies to improve visibility over the next 60 years, and requires states 

to adopt implementation plans to address Regional Haze. 

EPA’s RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is 40 CFR 51.308 (“Section 308”), 

and requires most states to develop long-term strategies out to the year 2064. These strategies 

must be shown to make “reasonable progress” in improving visibility in Class I areas inside the 

state and in neighboring jurisdictions. The other is 40 CFR 51.309 (Section 309”), and is an option 

for nine states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and 

Wyoming - and the 211 Tribes located within those States to adopt regional haze strategies for the 

period from 2003 to 2018. These strategies are based on recommendations from the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas in the 

Colorado Plateau area. Adopting these strategies constitutes reasonable progress until 2018. 

These same strategies can also be used by the nine western states and tribes to protect the other 

Class I areas within their own jurisdiction. 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) is one of the main provisions in the RHR. It applies to 

certain industrial sources built between 1962 and 1977. Section 308 requires states to identify 

BART-eligible sources, estimate the expected visibility improvements, and determine BART for 

each eligible source. Section 309 initially provided an alternative method of satisfying the 308 

BART requirements by setting voluntary SO2 emission reductions for BART sources, with a backup 

market trading program if the SO2 reduction milestones are not met. This alternative to BART in 

Section 309 was referred to as the Annex. SO2 reductions in the Annex were designed to be 

“better than BART”. However, in response to lawsuits filed by CEED and American Corn Growers, 

EPA has modified the Regional Haze Rule so that: Section 309 States must also determine BART 

eligibility for sources and the “Annex” is unaffected. 

B. 1977 Clean Air Act 

In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA), including provisions to protect the scenic 

vistas of the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas. Section 169A was added to the CAA for 

the protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I Areas) of great scenic 

importance. In Section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal for visibility protection: 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

2

 

“Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas 

which impairment results from man-made air pollution”. 

In 1980, the EPA developed regulations to address this goal by reducing the impact of large 

industrial sources on nearby Class I areas1

. It was recognized at the time that regional haze, 

which comes from a wide variety of sources that may be located far away from a Class I area, were 

also a part of the visibility problem. However, monitoring networks and visibility models were not 

yet developed to the degree necessary to understand the causes of regional haze. Therefore, 

EPA deferred additional rulemaking until scientific knowledge of visibility impairment had improved. 

The final Regional Haze Rule (RHR), which precipitated the development of this SIP element, was 

promulgated on July 1, 1999 and became effective on August 30, 1999 (See Appendix A-O). In 

response to the lawsuits brought by CEED and American Corn Growers Ass’n, EPA has since 

issued amendments to the Regional Haze Rule (See 7/6/05 FR & 10/13/06 FR). See Appendix 

2007-A 

C. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

Amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 created the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC). The Commission was given the charge to assess the currently available 

scientific information pertaining to adverse impacts on visibility from potential growth in the region, 

identify clean air corridors, and recommend long-range strategies for addressing regional haze. 

The GCVTC completed significant technical analyses and developed recommendations to improve 

visibility in the 16 mandatory federal Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The Commission 

found that visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau was caused by a wide variety of sources 

and pollutants. A comprehensive strategy was needed to address all of the causes of regional 

haze. The GCVTC submitted these recommendations to EPA in a report dated June 1996 for 

consideration in rule development. These recommendations were: 

Air Pollution Prevention. Air pollution prevention and reduction of per capita pollution was a high 

priority for the Commission. The Commission recommended policies based on energy 

conservation, increased energy efficiency and promotion of the use of renewable resources for 

energy production. 

Clean Air Corridors. Clean air corridors are a key source of clean air at Class I areas, and the 

Commission recommended careful tracking of emissions growth that may affect air quality in these 

corridors. 

Stationary Sources. For stationary sources, the Commission recommended closely monitoring 

the impacts of current requirements under the Clean Air Act and ongoing source attribution studies. 

Regional targets for SO2 emissions from stationary sources should be set, starting in 2000. If 

these targets are exceeded, this will trigger a regulatory program, probably including a regional cap 

and market-based trading. 

Areas In and Near Parks. The Commission's research and modeling showed that a host of 

identified sources adjacent to parks and wilderness areas, including large urban areas, have 

significant visibility impacts. However, the Commission lacked sufficient data regarding the visibility 

1 Class I Areas generally include national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges and wildernesses. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

3

impacts of emissions from some areas in and near parks and wilderness areas. In general, the 

models used by the Commission were not readily applicable to such areas. Pending further 

studies of these areas, the Commission recommended that local, state, tribal, federal, and private 

parties cooperatively develop strategies, expand data collection, and improve modeling for 

reducing or preventing visibility impairment in areas within and adjacent to parks and wilderness 

areas. 

Mobile Sources. The Commission recognized that mobile source emissions are projected to 

decrease through about 2005 due to improved control technologies. The Commission 

recommended capping emissions at the lowest level achieved and establishing a regional 

emissions budget, and also endorsed national strategies aimed at further reducing tailpipe 

emissions, including the so-called 49-state low emission vehicle, or 49-state LEV. 

Road Dust. The Commission's technical assessment indicated that road dust is a large 

contributor to visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau. As such, it requires urgent attention. 

However, due to considerable skepticism regarding the modeled contribution of road dust to 

visibility impairment, the Commission recommended further study in order to resolve the 

uncertainties regarding both near-field and distant effects of road dust, prior to taking remedial 

action. Since this emissions source is potentially such a significant contributor, the Commission 

felt that it deserved high priority attention and, if warranted, additional emissions management 

actions. 

Emissions from Mexico. Mexican sources are also shown to be significant contributors, 

particularly of SO2 emissions. However, data gaps and jurisdictional issues made this a difficult 

issue for the Commission to address directly. The Commission recommendations called for 

continued bi-national collaboration to work on this problem, as well as additional efforts to complete 

emissions inventories and increase monitoring capacities. These matters should receive high 

priority for regional and national action. 

Fire. The Commission recognized that fire plays a significant role in visibility on the Plateau. In 

fact, land managers propose aggressive prescribed fire programs aimed at correcting the buildup 

of biomass due to decades of fire suppression. Therefore, prescribed fire and wildfire levels are 

projected to increase significantly during the studied period. The Commission recommended the 

implementation of programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts from prescribed fire, as 

well as to educate the public. 

Future Regional Coordinating Entity. Finally, the Commission believed there was a need for an 

entity like the Commission to oversee, promote, and support many of the recommendations in their 

report. To support that entity, the Commission developed a set of recommendations addressing the 

future administrative, technical and funding needs of the Commission or a new regional entity. The 

Commission strongly urged the EPA and Congress to provide funding for these vital functions and 

give them a priority reflective of the national importance of the Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. 

D. Western Regional Air Partnership 

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) was established in 1997 as the successor 

organization of the GCVTC. The WRAP is charged with coordinating and overseeing the 

implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, as well as developing the technical and 

policy work that states and tribes in the West will need in order to implement the RHR. The WRAP 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

4

is a stakeholder-based organization, working cooperatively with States, tribes, federal agencies, 

environmental groups, and industry representatives to develop recommendations that meet the 

environmental goals most effectively. Since 2000, much of the work being conducted by the 

committees and forums of the WRAP have focused on identifying what information will be needed 

for Section 309 SIPs and TIPs. 

II. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

A Objective

This document presents technical information to support the Albuquerque- Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board’s (AQCB) approval of this document as the Regional Haze element of the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The AQCB proposes the 

following action: Approval of the report Section 309 State Implementation Plan Element to 

Address Requirements of the final Regional Haze Rule

The AQCB has opted to follow the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC) and produce its regional haze SIP element to fulfill the requirements as 

specified in Section 51.309 (d) of the final Regional Haze Rule (RHR) [FR Vol. 64, No. 126] and 

subsequent rule changes. 

Along with the State of New Mexico’s Section 51.309(d) SIP governing thirty-two counties, 

Bernalillo County’s regional haze SIP element will address all of the 16 Federal Class I Areas on 

the Colorado Plateau. The Department will address additional Class I Areas in this revision to the 

2003 regional haze SIP element. 

B. Statutory Authority 

This SIP is adopted pursuant to the authority provided in the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act, 

NMSA 1978 Sections 74-2-4, 74-2-5.C; the Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, Bernalillo 

County Ordinance 94-5 Sections 3 and 4; and the Joint Air Quality Control Board Ordinance, 

Revised Ordinances of Albuquerque 1994 Sections 9-5-1-3 and 9-5-1-4. 

C. Scope 

This SIP is applicable to sources within Bernalillo County, except those that are located on Indian 

lands over which the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) lacks 

jurisdiction. 

For air quality purposes, Bernalillo County operates the same way as a state-level air agency. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates and funds Bernalillo County as it does any 

other state air agency. Enacted in 1967, the New Mexico State Air Quality Control Act [NMSA 

1978 Sections 74-2-4 & 74-2-5] allowed for the establishment of the AQCB as a local board and 

empowered it with the authority to administer and enforce its air quality regulations within Bernalillo 

County. 

Pursuant to the authority of the Air Quality Control Act, Chapter 74, Article 2 NMSA 1978, Sections 

74-2-5 and 74-2-7, the AQCB has jurisdiction over all of Bernalillo County, (including the City of 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

5

 

Albuquerque), except Indian lands. The State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board 

(EIB) has jurisdiction over all other counties in New Mexico. The City of Albuquerque 

Environmental Health Department, Air Quality Division (AQD) administers and staffs the air quality 

program for Bernalillo County. The term Department, as used in this document, refers to the 

Albuquerque Environmental Health Department. 

D Options for Regional Haze SIPs: 

The final Regional Haze regulation, also referred to as the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), establishes 

a comprehensive national visibility program to protect Federal Class I Areas and requires states to 

develop a SIP element to address requirements of the final RHR. 

Class I areas are those designated as areas of special national or regional value from a natural, 

scenic, recreational, and/or historic perspective. These areas are the focus of federal visibility 

protection regulations, including the Regional Haze Rule. Across the country, Class I areas 

include such places as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Mt. Rainier, Great Smoky Mountains, 

Yellowstone, and the Everglades. There are a total of 156 mandatory federal Class I Areas in the 

U.S. There are nine Class I areas in New Mexico, including Carlsbad Caverns National Park, 

Bandelier National Monument, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gila, Pecos, 

Salt Creek, San Pedro Parks, Wheeler Peak, and White Mountain Wilderness Areas. 

The final RHR provides two options to states under 40 CFR Sections 51.308 and 51.309, known as 

Section 308 or “308” and Section 309 or “309”, respectively. Section 309 of the Regional Haze 

Rule is an option only available to the nine western states that comprised the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), an organization formed by Congress in 1991 to study 

scientific and technical information on visibility protection for 16 Class I areas located on the 

Colorado Plateau, including the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area in New Mexico. In 1996, the 

GCVTC submitted a report to EPA with recommendations on how to protect visibility for these 

areas. The Regional Haze Rule’s Section 309 incorporates many of the recommendations of the 

GCVTC, which were developed through a consensus-based process that involved states, tribes, 

EPA, federal land managers, industry, citizens and environmental groups from the west.2

. New 

Mexico was an active participant in the process, as were New Mexico tribal governments, industry 

representatives and environmental groups. The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control 

Board (AQCB) chose to develop its regional haze SIP element using the 309 Option. 

E. Requirements of the 309 Option: 

The final RHR requires that States opting to follow Section 51.309 address the following topics in 

their regional haze SIP elements: 

 Projection of Visibility Impairment 

 Treatment of Clean Air Corridors 

 Implementation of Stationary Source Reductions 

 Mobile Sources 

 Emissions Related to Fire 

 Dust from Roads 

 Pollution Prevention 

2 See Section H, Additional Recommendations, for a discussion of all of the GCVTC’s recommendations. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

6

 Implementation of Additional Requirements 

 Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions, and 

 State Planning & Interstate Coordination 

The AQCB includes all of these topics in this regional haze SIP element, and identifies specific 

control strategies to address the different types of emission sources. 

III COORDINATION WITH THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Since 1967, when the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act was adopted, the City of Albuquerque 

and Bernalillo County have acted as agents of the AQCB to implement, administer and enforce the 

local air quality program within Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. After Congress adopted the 

1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), the AQCB (formed by Albuquerque and Bernalillo County prior to the 

CAA) became the federally-delegated authority to implement the Federal CAA. Therefore the, City 

of Albuquerque acting as agents for the AQCB, administers and enforces the local Bernalillo 

County air quality program and interfaces with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region VI to implement CAA provisions. 

This presents a unique situation for promulgating a 309 Regional Haze SIP element, because 

Bernalillo County has independent delegation for CAA purposes, but it is still part of the State of 

New Mexico. Therefore, coordination between Bernalillo County and the State of New Mexico is 

necessary. To this end, City of Albuquerque staff participated in the State’s Regional Haze 

Stakeholder Workgroup (for the 2003 Regional Haze SIP), a series of meetings to build consensus 

regarding whether the State should pursue the 308 or the 309 SIP option. 

However, consensus was not reached. In a letter dated June 24, 2003 (see Appendix B-O), the 

New Mexico Secretary of the Environment recommended that the State pursue the 309 SIP option 

so it could build upon the GCVTC’s technical work developed specifically for certain western 

states. City of Albuquerque staff met with State staff in June 2003 to coordinate how each would 

develop it’s separate, yet related, 309 SIP element. 

IV. SIP ELEMENTS 

SECTION A. PROJECTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT 

Page 35751 of the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) discusses the requirement for 

projection of visibility improvement, which is only applicable to the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado 

Plateau (see Figures 2a & 2b in Section B). There are, however, a total of 156 federal Class I 

Areas within the United States (see Figure 1). 
Figure 1: Federal Class I Areas in the United States 

This requirement for projection of visibility improvement applies to all transport region states, 

whether they have one or more of the 16 Class I Areas within their borders or whether they have 

none. States must show visibility improvement for each of the 16 Class I Areas. EPA 

requirements for the 2003 SIP submittal stipulated that, States do not need to show their individual 

contribution, just the regional contribution. Note that the same visibility improvement projections 

will be reflected in the SIPs of the transport region states because the states are utilizing technical 

work that the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has produced. 

Many of the 156 Mandatory Federal Class I Areas in the United States are found in the West (see 

Figure 1. As mentioned, Section 51.309 of the final Regional Haze Rule (RHR) offers two 

alternatives for addressing Federal Class I Areas3

. As part of their 2003 SIP element submittal, 

States either addressed 1) all of the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau, or 2) all of the 16 

Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau and additional Class I Areas outside of the Colorado Plateau 

but inside the nine GCVTC state transport region. 

 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

7

3 For purposes here, the term Class I Areas means the Mandatory Class I Federal Areas. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

8

In 2003, as part of this SIP element, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 

(AQCB) elected to address only the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau. However since that 

time WRAP has made efforts to model the impact transport region states have on additional Class I 

areas outside of the Colorado Plateau. These efforts were made to address additional 

requirements for the 2007 Regional Haze SIP submittal, specifically 40 CFR 51.309(d)10(i) and 40 

CFR 59.309(g), which call for an analysis the impacts each state has on other Class I areas. 

However, the WRAP has not analyzed transport impacts below the level of a state. Therefore, the 

determination of whether emissions from Bernalillo County will cause a significant (0.5 dv) impact 

on nearby Class I areas (i.e. Bosque del Apache) will be more qualitative than quantitative. The 

Department has worked with the WRAP to characterize this impact and it has been included in this 

report. A more quantitative analysis will be performed for the periodic SIP update due in 2013. 

(a) Applicable Class I Areas 

This projection of visibility improvement (presented here) covers the 16 Class I Areas of the 

Colorado Plateau as defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(1). 

Table 1: 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau 

Area Location 

Grand Canyon National Park Arizona 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Arizona 

Petrified Forest National Park Arizona 

Mount Baldy Wilderness Arizona 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness New Mexico 

Mesa Verde National Park Colorado 

Weminuche Wilderness Colorado 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness Colorado 

West Elk Wilderness Colorado 

Maroon Bells Wilderness Colorado 

Flat Tops Wilderness Colorado 

Arches National Park Utah 

Canyonlands National Park Utah 

Capital Reef National Park Utah 

Bryce Canyon National Park Utah 

Zion National Park Utah 

Of the 16 Class I Areas listed, only the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area lies within New 

Mexico (See Figure 2). Note that no such Class I Areas are located within Bernalillo County. 

However, Bernalillo County’s impact on these 16 Class I Areas is embodied in the regional 

technical work that the WRAP has conducted. Results of this work indicate a change in 

visibility in the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area on both the 20% worst visibility days and the 

20% best visibility days (see Appendix A-SIP for further explanation). 
Figure 2a: Class I Areas of the Southwestern U.S. 

Note: The San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area is the only such area in New Mexico. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

9

• Bridger (ViI)

• Wichita

• Guadalupe Mtns. (NP)
Figure 2b: Class I Areas of the Central and Western United States 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

10

o

CACR

oWiMO

"" "" o

••

•

.'

, 0

SA'" eWH

- ..."" ""

BAND PECO

00

GRCA

SVCA. PEFO

o 0

'0 0

0'

0

0

O( 0

O.

0

0 0

• 0

.

(BRIO ..... BAlIL

•

oc>" 0

GUMO No ""
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

11

(b) Projected Visibility Improvement For Colorado Plateau Class I Areas Pursuant To 

§309(d)(2) 

Table #2 shown below compares the monitored 2000-04 baseline visibility conditions in 

deciviews for the 20% Best and 20% Worst days to the projected visibility improvement 

resulting from the 2018 Base Case (Base 18b) and 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress 

(PRP18) modeling scenarios completed to date. 

These 2018 modeling scenarios are defined as follows: 

• Base Case (base18b) = growth plus all controls “on the books” as of December 2004, No 

BART or SO2 milestones assumptions 

• Preliminary Reasonable Progress Case (PRP18) = refined growth estimates plus all 

controls “on the books” as of May 2007, includes presumptive limit or known SO2 BART on 

EGUs; and 

• [future] Final Reasonable Progress Case (FRP18) = all controls “on the books” as of 2007, 

will include all BART controls in the WRAP region and limits defined in the SO2 milestone 

“better-than-BART” program. 

When SO2 and NOx controls for all BART sources have been adopted in the WRAP region, and 

the §309 states re-adopt the SO2 milestone program, a 2018 Final Reasonable Progress 

(FRP18) modeling scenario will then be analyzed and the remaining cells completed in the 

table below. The data in the table below satisfy §309(d)(2) of the RHR. 

All 16 Colorado Plateau Class I areas show a projected visibility improvement for 2018 using 

the monthly averages on the 20% Worst average visibility days, and no degradation on the 

20% Best average visibility days for each monitoring site. The monthly average method for 

projecting visibility improvement is an allowed variation of EPA guidance, and the method 

description is found at: 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/taf/meetings/070226c/Applying_Monitoring_Metrics_for_Region

al_Haze_Planning_%20February_23_2007_finalreviewdraft.pdf. The monthly averaging 

method was chosen because it was the shortest averaging period for making the future visibility 

projections, while avoiding the use of the EPA specific days method that only assesses 

improvements on the Worst and Best days observed during one year (2002) of the 2000-04 

baseline monitoring period.
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

12

TABLE 2 

Visibility Impairment in Deciviews* 

20% Worst Visibility Days 20% Best Visibility Days 

Projected Visibility 

(Monthly Average Method) 

Projected Visibility 

(Monthly Average Method) 

Colorado 

Plateau 

Class I areas 

under 

§309(d)(2) 

State 

2000-04 

Regional 

Haze Rule 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data 

2018 

Base 

Case 

(Base

18b) 

2018 

Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress 

Case [RPC] 

(PRP18) 

2018 

Final 

RPC 

(FRP18) 

2000-04 

Regional 

Haze Rule 

Baseline 

Monitoring 

Data 

2018 

Base 

Case 

(Base1

8b) 

2018 

Preliminary 

RPC 

(PRP18) 

2018 

Final RPC 

(FRP18) 

Grand Canyon 

National Park AZ 11.7 11.4 11.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 

Mount Baldy 

Wilderness AZ 11.9 11.5 11.4 3.0 2.9 2.8 

Petrified Forest 

National Park AZ 13.2 12.9 12.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 

Sycamore 

Canyon 

Wilderness 

AZ 15.3 15.1 15.1 5.6 5.6 5.6 

Black Canyon of 

the Gunnison 

National Park 

Wilderness 

CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 

Flat Tops 

Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

Maroon Bells 

Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

Mesa Verde 

National Park CO 13.0 12.8 12.6 4.3 4.1 4.0 

Weminuche 

Wilderness CO 10.3 10.1 9.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 

West Elk 

Wilderness CO 9.6 9.2 9.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 

San Pedro 

Parks 

Wilderness 

NM 10.2 10.0 9.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 

Arches National 

Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Bryce Canyon 

National Park UT 11.6 11.3 11.2 2.8 2.7 2.6 

Canyonlands 

National Park UT 11.2 11.0 10.9 3.8 3.6 3.5 

Capitol Reef 

National Park UT 10.9 10.6 10.5 4.1 4.0 3.9 

Zion National 

Park UT 13.2 13.0 13.0 5.0 4.7 4.7 

* Data are from: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/HazePlanning.aspx --> Modeling --> 

Visibility Projections 

SECTION B. TREATMENT OF CLEAN AIR CORRIDORS 

Clean Air Corridors (CACs) are geographic areas located within transport region states that 

contribute to good visibility in the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau. In a CAC, additional 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

13

restrictions on emissions increases may be appropriate to protect visibility in affected Federal 

Class I Areas. The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 require that the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) address the establishment of CACs. The GCVTC 

found that, in general, clean air comes to the Colorado Plateau from the northwest. The 

Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC delineated a CAC that encompasses roughly SE 

Oregon and most of Idaho, Nevada and Utah (see Figure 3 on the following page). 

Page 35751 of the Preamble to the RHR discusses the requirements for Clean Air Corridors 

(CACs). States are required to: 1) adopt an emissions tracking program; 2) identify the CAC 

boundary; 3) identify emissions growth that could be significant enough to result in visibility 

impairment at one or more of the 16 Class I Areas; 4) outside the CAC, identify significant 

emissions growth that could impact air quality inside the corridor; 5) if emission growth 

assessments inside and outside the CAC show visibility impairment in the CAC, conduct an 

analysis of the potential impact in the 16 Class I Areas; and 6) indicate if any other CACs exist. 

All transport-region states located within the CAC or not, need to address these requirements. 

(a) Comprehensive emissions tracking program. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3), a comprehensive emissions tracking system has been 

established to track emissions within portions of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah, that have 

been identified as part of the Clean Air Corridor (CAC), as specified in B(b) below, to ensure 

that visibility is not degraded on the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class I Areas of the 

Colorado Plateau. The WRAP developed this comprehensive emissions tracking system to 

assist these states in meeting this requirement. Note that the CAC emissions tracking 

system does not apply here, since no portion of the CAC lies within New Mexico. 

Appendix B-SIP describes the comprehensive emissions tracking system and the process 

the WRAP will use to summarize annual emission trends in order to identify any significant 

emissions growth that could lead to visibility degradation in the 16 Class I Areas. Included in 

this summary will be an assessment of whether any significant emissions growth has 

occurred within the CAC, in accordance with B(c) below. 

(b) Identification of Clean Air Corridors. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(i), the Department recognizes the Clean Air Corridor (CAC) 

indicated in Figure 3. This CAC was identified using studies conducted by the 

Meteorological Subcommittee of the GCVTC and updated by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP), based on an assessment described in the WRAP Policy Paper on 

Clean Air Corridors and related technical analysis conducted by the WRAP. Appendix B-SIP 

of this implementation plan summarizes the WRAP Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors and 

contains additional technical work associated with the identification of the CAC. 
Figure 3: Map of the Clean Air Corridor in the Transport Region 

(c) Patterns of Growth Within the Clean Air Corridor. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(ii), the Department has determined, based on the WRAP 

Policy Paper on Clean Air Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that 

inside the Clean Air Corridor identified in B(b) above there is no significant emissions growth 

occurring at this time that is causing visibility impairment in any of the 16 Class I Areas of the 

Colorado Plateau (see Appendix B-SIP). 

The Department has determined that emissions growth in the CAC does not adversely affect 

the 309 Federal Class I Area in New Mexico—the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area. Nor 

does this emissions growth adversely affect the other 15 Class I Areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. Appendix B-SIP contains a discussion of these findings. Future emissions growth 

will be tracked as applicable in accordance with the comprehensive emissions tracking 

system in B(a) above. The WRAP will summarize annual emission trends within the corridor 

and will assess whether any significant emissions growth has occurred within the corridor. 

(d) Patterns of Growth Outside the Clean Air Corridor. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iii), the AQCB has determined, based on the WRAP Policy 

Paper on Clean Air Corridors and technical analysis conducted by the WRAP, that, outside 

the Clean Air Corridor identified in B(b) above there is no significant emissions growth 

occurring at this time impairing air quality within the CAC sufficient to cause any visibility 

impairment in any of the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau (see Appendix B-SIP). As 

part of its annual summary of emission trends within the corridor, the WRAP will assess 

emission and monitoring data trends outside the CAC in order to determine if significant 

emissions growth is occurring outside the corridor that could be impairing air quality within 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

14

,

,

_ GCvrc C1a,..IArn..

• TrajeclOry Sites

..

."

...
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

15

the corridor and resulting in visibility impairment in the 16 Class I Areas (see Appendix BSIP). 

(e) Actions if Impairment Inside or Outside the Clean Air Corridor Occurs. 

The Department, in coordination with the other transport region states and tribes, will review 

the WRAP’s annual summary of emission trends within the Clean Air Corridor (CAC) and will 

determine if any significant emissions growth was identified either within the corridor or 

outside of it. If significant emissions growth is identified, the Department, in coordination with 

the other transport region states and tribes, will seek WRAP assistance in conducting an 

analysis of the effects of this emissions growth in terms of possible impact on air quality 

within the corridor and possible degradation of the least-impaired days in any of the 16 Class 

I Areas of the Colorado Plateau. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(iv), if this analysis finds that this growth is causing visibility 

impairment in the 16 Class I Areas, the Department, in coordination with the other transport 

region states and tribes, will evaluate the need for additional emission reduction measures 

and will identify an implementation schedule for such measures, if needed. The 

implementation of any additional emission reduction measures shall be coordinated between 

the Department and all appropriate transport region states and tribes, on a mutually agreed 

upon timetable, and reported to EPA in accordance with the periodic progress reports 

required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i). 

(f) Other Clean Air Corridors (CACs). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(3)(v), the Department has concluded that one other Clean Air 

Corridor (CAC), the Grand Canyon National Park CAC, can be identified. This finding is 

based on the WRAP Regional Technical Support Document (TSD), which cites Green, et al. 

(1996) who conducted an alternative analysis of CACs for the Grand Canyon (see Appendix 

B-SIP). Other than the two mentioned in this chapter, no additional CACs have been 

identified for the Colorado Plateau Region at this time. Note that no CAC or portion thereof 

has been identified within New Mexico. 

Although no formal update on this finding is required, the Department recognizes that future 

modeling or monitoring data may indicate that other possible CACs exist. The Department 

will notify EPA if there is evidence to support such a finding in the future, and will take 

appropriate action pursuant to this requirement. 

Neither New Mexico nor Bernalillo County is included within the boundaries of either of the 

Clean Air Corridors (CACs) identified in this chapter. Based on technical analysis that the 

WRAP conducted (see Appendix B-SIP), the Department does not believe that Bernalillo 

County’s emissions contribute to visibility impairment either within or outside of the CACs 

identified. 

This is because the GCVTC found that clean air comes to the corridor mainly from the 

northwest. Bernalillo County is located about 200 miles southeast of the Utah border (the 

Corridor’s southeastern-most edge), and lies generally downwind of the CAC hence, its 

emissions are not likely to be transported into this Corridor and therefore are not likely to 

adversely affect it. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

16

SECTION C. EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES 

Background: 

The SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program was developed to implement the emissions 

reduction program for major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(4), [68 FR 33764, June 5, 2003]. The program is implemented through the following 

documents: 

• The Section 309 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Element for Albuquerque and 

Bernalillo County describes the overall program and contains the Department’s commitment to 

implement all parts of the program as outlined in the Implementation plan element. The 

Implementation plan element establishes the regional milestones, SO2 emissions tracking 

requirements, and if the Western Backstop SO2 Trading Program (“WEB Trading Program”) is 

triggered, the Implementation plan element also describes how the Department shall determine 

allocations and manage the allowance tracking system that is needed to implement the program. 

• 20.11.46 NMAC - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements; Western Backstop SO2 

Trading Program (see Appendix D-O) establishes the procedures and compliance requirements 

that shall apply to major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) as a backstop regulatory 

program if the SO2 milestones are exceeded. The trading program outlined in this regulation 

may never be implemented if the goal to meet the regional SO2 milestones through voluntary 

measures is achieved. 

• 20.11.46.9 NMAC stipulates that, all stationary sources with actual emissions of 100 tons 

per year or more of SO2 are required to submit an annual emissions inventory in the pre-trigger 

phase of the program to measure compliance with the regional SO2 milestones. If the backstop 

program is triggered then these requirements will eventually be overridden by more rigorous 

monitoring requirements in 20.11.46 NMAC. 

Requirements: 

Pages 35751-35752 in the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) discuss the requirements 

for stationary sources. The stationary sources to which the requirements apply are those 

sources that emit 100 actual tons per year (tpy) or more of sulfur dioxide (SO2). Section 309 

originally contained two sets of requirements for controlling stationary source emissions. A third 

set of requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(h) was proposed via 67 FR 30418, May 6, 2002. These 

requirements were finalized via 68 FR 33764, June 5, 2003, and became known as “the Annex” 

or Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule. 

Section 309(f) of the RHR [64 FR 35773] required submission of an Annex to the GCVTC report. 

A description of the requirements in Section 309(h) begins on page 33774 in Revisions to the 

Regional Haze Rule, 67 FR 33764, June 5, 2003. The Annex contains SO2 emission reduction 

milestones showing steady and continuous reductions during the period 2003-2018, greater than 

what would be achieved by applying Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (see Appendix 

G-O for the complete rule citation). Section 309(d)(4) requires tracking emissions to ensure that 

the SO2 milestones in the Annex are met, and that a backstop market trading program would be 

implemented if the milestones are not met. The new Section 309(h) has been added to reflect 

the elements of the submitted Annex, and contains requirements related to adjusting the SO2
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

17

milestones, determining annual compliance with the milestones and key trading program 

elements. 

Definitions: 

Note: The definitions in this section apply only to this Implementation plan and correspond to 

the regulation 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements; Western 

Backstop SO2 Trading Program (“the regulation”). 

Account Certificate of Representation means the completed and signed submission 

required to designate an Account Representative for a WEB source or an Account 

Representative for a general account. 

Account Representative means the individual who is authorized through an Account 

Certificate of Representation to represent owners and operators of the WEB source with 

regard to matters under the WEB Trading Program or, for a general account, who is 

authorized through an Account Certificate of Representation to represent the persons having 

an ownership interest in allowances in the general account with regard to matters concerning 

the general account. 

Act means the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Actual Emissions means the total annual sulfur dioxide emissions determined in 

accordance with 20.11.46.16 NMAC, or determined in accordance with of 20.11.46.9 NMAC 

for sources that are not subject to 20.11.46.16 NMAC.

Allocate means to assign allowances to a WEB source through Section C(1) of this 

Implementation plan. 

Allowance means the limited authorization under the WEB Trading Program to emit one ton 

of SO2 during a specified control period or any control period thereafter subject to the terms 

and conditions for use of unused allowances as established by 20.11.46 NMAC.

Allowance Limitation means the tonnage of SO2 emissions authorized by the allowances 

available for compliance deduction for a WEB source for a control period under Subsection A 

of 20.11.46.19 NMAC on the allowance transfer deadline for that control period.

Allowance Tracking System means the system developed by the Department where 

allowances under the WEB Trading Program are recorded, held, transferred and deducted. 

Allowance Tracking System Account means an account in the Allowance Tracking 

System established for purposes of recording, holding, transferring, and deducting 

allowances. 

Allowance Transfer Deadline means the deadline established in Subsection B of 

20.11.46.17 NMAC when allowances must be submitted for recording in a WEB source’s 

compliance account in order to demonstrate compliance for that control period. 

Annex means the requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(h) of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), also 

referred to as Revisions to the Regional Haze Rule, which was published in 67 FR 33764, 

June 5, 2003 and became effective August 4, 2003. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

18

Bernalillo County means the jurisdiction of the air quality program that covers the 

Albuquerque city limits and all of the remaining areas of Bernalillo County, except for Tribal 

lands. 

Board (“the Board”) means the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board 

(AQCB). 

Compliance Account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System 

under Subsection A of 20.11.46.15 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances that a 

WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance limitation. 

Compliance Certification means a submission to the Department by the Account 

Representative as required under Subsection B of 20.11.46.19 NMAC to report a WEB 

source’s compliance or noncompliance with 20.11.46 NMAC. 

Control Period means the period beginning January 1 of each year and ending on 

December 31 of the same year, inclusive. 

Department means the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Quality 

Division.

Emissions Tracking Database means the central database where SO2 emissions for WEB 

sources, as recorded and reported in accordance with 20.11.46 NMAC, are tracked to 

determine compliance with allowance limitations. 

Emission Unit or Unit means any part of a stationary source that emits or would have the 

potential to emit any pollutant regulated pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

EPA Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency or the Administrator’s duly authorized representative. 

Existing Source means a stationary source that commenced operation before the WEB 

Trading Program Trigger Date. 

Floor Allocation means the amount of allowances set by the AQCB in accordance with this 

Implementation plan element that represents the minimum necessary for a source to operate 

under stringent control assumptions. 

Fugitive Emissions are those emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack, 

chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. 

General Account means an account established in the Allowance Tracking System under 

20.11.46.15 NMAC for the purpose of recording allowances held by a person that are not to 

be used to show compliance with an allowance limitation. 

Milestone means the maximum level of stationary source regional sulfur dioxide emissions 

for each year from 2003 to 2018, established according to the procedures in Section A of this 

Implementation Plan. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

19

New WEB Source means a WEB source that commenced operation on or after the WEB 

Trading Program Trigger Date. 

New Source Set-aside means a pool of allowances that are available for allocation to new 

WEB sources and modified WEB sources that have increased capacity in accordance with 

the provisions of Section C1.3 of this Implementation Plan. 

Owner or Operator means any person who is an owner or who operates, controls or 

supervises a WEB source, and includes, but is not limited to, any holding company, utility 

system or plant manager. 

Potential to Emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any air 

pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on 

the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and 

restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored or 

processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation is enforceable by the EPA 

Administrator. 

Program Trigger Date means the date that the AQCB determines that the WEB Trading 

Program has been triggered in accordance with the provisions of Section A2 of this 

Implementation Plan. 

Program Trigger Years means the years shown in Table 3, column 3, under Part C of this 

Implementation Plan element for the applicable milestone if the WEB Trading Program is 

triggered as described in Part A of this Implementation Plan element. 

Reducible Allocation means the amount of allowances set by the AQCB in accordance with 

Section C1.1(b)(9) of this Implementation plan element that represents, for each source, 

emissions in excess of the floor allocation that shall be reduced over time as the regional 

milestone is decreased.

Retired Source means a WEB source that has received a retired source exemption as 

provided in Subsection E of 20.11.46.11 NMAC. Any retired source resuming operations 

under Paragraph (4) of Subsection E of 20.11.46.11 NMAC must submit its exemption as 

part of its registration materials. 

Serial Number means, when referring to allowances, the unique identification number 

assigned to each allowance by the Tracking Systems Administrator, in accordance with 

Subsection B of 20.11.46.14 NMAC. 

SO2 Emitting Unit means any equipment that is located at a WEB source or other stationary 

source that emits SO2.

Special Reserve Compliance Account means an account established in the Allowance 

Tracking System under Subsection A of 20.11.46.15 NMAC for the purpose of recording 

allowances that a WEB source might hold to demonstrate compliance with its allowance 

limitation for emission units that are monitored for SO2 in accordance with Subsection B of 

20.11.46.16 NMAC. 

Stationary Source means any building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may 

emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

20

Submit means to send to the appropriate authority under the signature of the Account 

Representative. For purposes of determining when something is submitted, an official U.S. 

Postal Service postmark, or equivalent electronic time stamp, shall establish the date of 

submittal. 

Ton means 2000 pounds and, for any control period, any fraction of a ton equaling 1000

pounds or more shall be treated as one ton and any fraction of a ton equaling less than 1000 

pounds shall be treated as zero tons. 

Tracking System Administrator means the person designated by the AQCB in 

collaboration with other participating states and tribes as the administrator of the WEB 

Allowance Tracking System and the emission tracking database. 

Tribal Set Aside means a 2,500-ton SO2 WEB allowance allocated to tribes on an annual 

basis. The tribes will decide how to distribute the allowances in the set-aside among tribes in 

the region. The set-aside is intended to ensure equitable treatment for tribal economies and 

to prevent barriers to economic development. 

Trigger refers to the activation of the WEB Trading Program for SO2 in accordance with 

Section A of the Implementation Plan. 

WEB Source means a stationary source that meets the applicability requirements of 

20.11.46.11 NMAC. 

Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Trading Program or WEB Trading Program 

refers to Sections 20.11.46.11 NMAC through 20.11.46.22 NMAC of 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur 

Dioxide Emissions Inventory Requirements; Western Backstop SO2 Trading Program, which 

shall be triggered as a backstop in accordance with the provisions in the Implementation 

Plan element, if necessary, to ensure that regional SO2 emissions are reduced. 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) means the collaborative effort of tribal 

governments, state governments, and federal agencies to promote and monitor 

implementation of recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

(GCVTC) authorized under Section 169B(f) of the CAA, and to address other common 

Western regional air quality issues. 

PART A - Milestones and Determination of Program Trigger: 

A1 Regional Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Milestones. 

A1.1 Milestone Values 

The regional SO2 milestones for the years 2003 through 2018 are provided in Table 3. The 

milestones shall be adjusted annually as described in Paragraph A1.2 (on the following 

pages) of this implementation plan. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

21

Table 3. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Milestones 

For the year the regional sulfur 

dioxide milestone is:∗

and the annual SO2 emissions for 

these years will determine whether 

emissions are greater than or less 

than the milestone 

2008 269,083 tons SO2 Average of 2006, 2007 and 2008 

2009 234,903 tons SO2 Average of 2007, 2008 and 2009 

2010 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2008, 2009 and 2010 

2011 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2009, 2010 and 2011 

2012 200,722 tons SO2 Average of 2010, 2011 and 2012 

2013 185,795 tons SO2 Average of 2011, 2012 and 2013 

2014 170,868 tons SO2 Average of 2012, 2013 and 2014 

2015 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2013, 2014 and 2015 

2016 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2014, 2015 and 2016 

2017 155,940 tons SO2 Average of 2015, 2016 and 2017 

2018 141,849 tons SO2 Year 2018 only 

2019 

forward, 

until 

replaced by 

an approved 

SIP 

141,849 tons SO2 Annual; no multiyear averaging 

 

∗ These values are rolling three-year averages of the actual milestones for the years 2008 through 

2017, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.309(d)(4)(i). Accordingly, these values shall be compared for 

compliance purposes with the emissions listed in the 3rd column 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

22

Table 4a. RESERVED 

Table 4b. RESERVED 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

23

A 1.2 Milestone Adjustments. 

(a) All milestone adjustments shall require a SIP revision. Section A3.3 of this 

implementation plan element outlines adjustments to be made to the emissions inventory 

to ensure a consistent comparison to the milestones. These adjustments shall be 

incorporated into the milestones every five years as part of the periodic implementation 

plan revisions required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). The Department shall track all 

adjustments to the milestone pursuant to Section A3.3. 

(b) Within 90 days of the periodic implementation plan revision incorporating adjustments 

based on section A3.3, the Department shall provide the date of the SIP revision 

reflecting the milestone adjustment to sources whose records were used as the basis for 

the milestone adjustment and state that the source needs to retain the record at least five 

years from the date of the SIP revision, or 10 years from the date of establishing the 

record, whichever is longer. 

(c) Opt-in Provision for States and Tribes. The regional milestones in Table 3 were 

developed for a three-state region: New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Other western 

states and tribes may choose to join this backstop trading program in the future. The 

addition of a state or tribe to the program will require a SIP/TIP revision for all 

participating states and tribes to adjust the regional milestones, and will not occur 

automatically. Any state or tribe that wishes to opt in to the program will propose 

milestone adjustments to the participating states and tribes using the same methodology 

that was used to develop the milestones in Table 3. A new participant must agree to 

develop a SIP and backstop trading rule that is consistent with those adopted by the 

other participating states and tribes. 

A2 Regional Program Administration. 

A2.1 Pre-trigger tracking of regional SO2 emissions. 

The Department shall work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in 

the SO2 Milestones and Backstop Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking 

system for the regional SO2 inventory is developed and maintained. The Western Regional 

Air Partnership (WRAP) compiled the SO2 emission inventories that were used during the 

development of the Annex and subsequent SIP revisions, and the WRAP continues to refine 

and improve the overall tracking system for regional haze. 

The WRAP shall maintain the pre-trigger emissions tracking functions outlined in this 

Implementation Plan element for the foreseeable future. If the WRAP is no longer able to 

fulfill this function, then the Department shall ensure that other arrangements are made, 

either through a different regional organization, independently, through a contractor, or in 

collaboration with the State of New Mexico to maintain the SO2 tracking system that is 

described in this Implementation plan. The Department is responsible for all regional 

program administration functions as described in this Implementation plan. The Department 

shall perform these functions through the WRAP, as the AQCB agent. 

The WRAP shall have no authority to make regulatory determinations. The WRAP has 

limited authority under this Implementation plan to perform tracking and accounting functions, 

prepare reports, and perform other administrative functions as directed by the states and 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

24

tribes. The Department shall work expeditiously to correct any problems if the WRAP fails to 

perform any of the functions described in the SIP in a timely manner. 

A2.2 Designation of the Tracking System Administrator (TSA). 

If the backstop trading program is triggered due to an exceedance of the SO2 milestones as 

outlined in Section A3 of this Implementation plan, the Department shall work cooperatively 

with the other participating states and tribes to designate one Tracking System Administrator 

(TSA). The TSA shall be designated as expeditiously as possible, but no later than six 

months after the program trigger date. In addition, before the TSA is designated, the 

Department shall have entered into a binding contract or inter-governmental agreement with 

the TSA that shall require the TSA to perform all TSA functions described in this 

Implementation plan. In addition, the Department must obtain sufficient authority to ensure 

the functions in the Implementation Plan are carried out by the TSA. 

A2.3 Information Provided by other States and Tribes. 

The Department shall accept the emission inventory and permitting information provided by 

the other participating states and tribes in order to determine the milestone value and 

program trigger if such states and tribes have provided proper documentation and followed 

the public notification process outlined in Sections A3.6-A3.8 of this Implementation plan.

A3 Determination of Program Trigger (& Annual Emissions Report) 

If and only if, the actual SO2 emissions from any source subject to 20.11.46 NMAC are 

greater than or equal to 100 tons per year (TPY), shall the AQCB comply with the 

requirements of Section A3 (below): 

A3.1 The Department shall submit an annual emissions report (covering the jurisdiction of 

the AQCB) to the WRAP and all participating states and tribes by September 30 of each 

year. The report shall document actual sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions during the previous 

calendar year for all sources subject to the requirements of 20.11.46.9 NMAC, Emission 

Tracking Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventories. The first report for calendar 

year 2003 was submitted by September 30, 2004. This report was not required, but instead 

was generated due to a misunderstanding of the SO2 threshold as being 100 TPY Potential

To Emit (PTE) instead of 100 TPY Actual emissions. The Department shall prepare the 

supporting documentation that is included with the annual emissions report as noted in the 

provisions A3.2 & A3.3 (below).

A3.2 The annual emissions report for Bernalillo County shall include a source emissions 

change report that contains the following information: 

(a) Identification of any new sources that were not contained in the previous calendar 

year’s emissions report, and an explanation of why the source is now included in the 

program; 

(b) Identification of any sources that were included in the previous year’s report and are 

no longer included in the program, and an explanation of why this change has occurred; 

and 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

25

(c) An explanation for emissions variations at any applicable source that exceeds +/- 20 

percent from the previous year. 

A3.3 The annual emissions report for Bernalillo County shall include a proposed emissions 

adjustment as described in (a) through (b) below to ensure a consistent comparison to the 

milestones. 

(a) Changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods: Actual emission 

inventories for sources that change the method of monitoring or calculating their 

emissions shall be adjusted to be comparable to the emission monitoring or calculation 

method that was used in the 2006 base year inventory. 

(b) Changes due to enforcement actions: 

1. Adjustments due to enforcement actions arising from settlements.

Adjustments to the milestones shall be made as specified in Sections A3.3(b)3 and 

A3.3(b)4, if: 

(A) an agreement to settle an action, arising from allegations of a failure of an 

owner or operator of an emissions unit at a source in the program to comply with 

applicable regulations which were in effect during the base year, is reached 

between the parties to the action; 

(B) the alleged failure to comply with applicable regulations affects the 

assumptions that were used in calculating the source’s base year and forecasted 

sulfur dioxide emissions; and 

(C) the settlement includes or recommends an adjustment to the milestones. 

2. Adjustments due to enforcement actions arising from administrative or 

judicial orders. Adjustments shall be made to the milestones as directed by any 

final administrative or judicial order, as specified in Sections A3.3(c)3 and A3.3(c)4. 

Where the final administrative or judicial order does not include a reforecast of the 

source's baseline, the Department or its designee shall evaluate whether a reforecast 

of the source's baseline emissions is appropriate. 

3. Adjustments for enforcement actions. Based on Sections A3.3(c)3 and 

A3.3(c)4, the milestone must be decreased by an appropriate amount based on a 

reforecast of the source’s decreased sulfur dioxide emissions. The adjustments to 

the milestone do not become effective until after the source has reduced its sulfur 

dioxide emissions as required in the settlement agreement, or administrative or 

judicial order. All adjustments based upon enforcement actions must be made in the 

form of an implementation plan revision that complies with the procedural 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and 40 CFR 51.103. 

4. Documentation of adjustments for enforcement actions. In the periodic 

implementation plan revision required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the Department 

shall include the following documentation of any adjustment due to an enforcement 

action: 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

26

(A) Identification of each source under the AQCB’s jurisdiction which has reduced 

sulfur dioxide emissions pursuant to a settlement agreement, or an administrative 

or judicial order; 

(B) For each source identified, a statement indicating whether the milestones 

were adjusted in response to the enforcement action; 

(C) Discussion of the rationale for the Department’s decision to adjust or not to 

adjust the milestones; and 

(D) If extra SO2 emissions reductions (over and above those reductions needed 

for compliance with the applicable regulations) were part of an agreement to settle 

an action, a statement indicating whether such reductions resulted in any 

adjustment to the milestones or allowance allocations, and a discussion of the 

rationale for the Department’s decision on any such adjustment. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

27

The following example is for illustrative purposes: 

Asarco’s baseline SO2 emissions are 23,000 tons 

Asarco’s baseline sulfur input is 235,000 tons 

For example, in 2005: 

Asarco’s S02 emissions were 25,000 tons 

Asarco’s sulfur input was 250,000 tons. 

Because Asarco’s 2005 emissions and sulfur input exceeded it’s baseline 

emissions and sulfur input: need to calculate the percent increase in sulfur 

input in the year 2005 

= [(2005 sulfur input) - (baseline sulfur input)] ÷ [baseline sulfur input] 

= [250,000 - 235,000] ÷ [235,000] 

= [15,000] ÷ [235,000] 

= 0.0638 

= 6.38% 

The adjustment to the milestone based on Asarco’s increase in production is 

to increase the milestone by 1,467.4 tons of SO2 (which is ok, since it is less 

than the maximum of 3,000 tons in Table 5 for Asarco). 

adjustment = 6.38% x baseline emissions 

adjustment = 6.38% x 23,000 

adjustment = 1,467.4 tons 

A3.5 Compilation of Reports. 

(a) All participating states and tribes shall submit annual emissions reports, to the WRAP 

who will then compile these into a draft regional emission report for SO2. The WRAP will 

follow additional quality assurance procedures developed by states and tribes to identify 

possible errors in the emissions data, including screening for missing or added sources, 

name changes, and significant changes in reported emissions. Any questions or 

anomalies regarding the Department’s report shall be referred back to the Department for 

resolution prior to the submission of the draft regional emission report. 

(b) By December 31 of each year, the WRAP shall submit the draft regional emission and 

milestone report to the Department and shall post the draft report on the WRAP website 

for public review. The report shall include the following information: 

1. Actual regional sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year). 

2. Adjustments to account for: 

(i) Changes in emission monitoring or calculation methods, or 

(ii) Enforcement actions or settlement agreements as a result of enforcement 

actions. 

3. Average adjusted emissions for the last three years (if applicable) for comparison 

to the regional milestone. 

A3.6 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

28

The Department shall evaluate the draft regional emissions report and shall propose a draft 

determination that the SO2 milestone has either been met in the region, or has been 

exceeded. In the event that the WRAP has not submitted to the Department a draft regional 

emissions and milestone report by the December 31 deadline for any year the Department 

shall prepare its own report for that year based upon the annual emissions reports submitted 

by all participating states and tribes pursuant to Section A3.5 for that year. The Department 

shall modify the data in these annual emissions reports, or use data where such report(s) 

have not been submitted, based upon direction received from the EPA. 

A3.7 Public Notice: 

The Department shall publish a notice of availability of the draft report in a newspaper of 

general circulation. When appropriate, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control 

Board (AQCB) shall provide for the discussion of the report and accept public comment 

during a public meeting. The Department shall submit the draft determination to EPA for 

review and comment. 

A3.8 Comments: 

The Department shall review any comments received during the comment period and shall 

submit a copy of all comments to the WRAP and to all participating states and tribes along 

with any responses to address the comments. 

A3.9 Draft WRAP Regional Emissions Report: 

The WRAP shall compile the comments and any responses from all participating states and 

tribes and prepare a draft final regional emissions report. The report shall be submitted to 

the states and tribes that are participating in the program and, if necessary, the report shall 

propose a common Program Trigger Date. 

A3.10 Final Regional Emissions Report: 

The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) shall review and 

approve the final regional emissions report. The Department shall then submit this report to 

the EPA along with a final determination that the milestone has either been met in the region, 

or that the milestone has been exceeded and the WEB Trading Program has been triggered 

in Bernalillo County. This final determination shall be submitted to the EPA by the end of 

March, 15 months following the milestone year. 

The first final determination was due March 31, 2005 for the 2003 milestone. If the milestone 

had been exceeded, the common trigger date proposed in the regional report would have 

become the Program Trigger Date for purposes of implementing the WEB Trading Program. 

In the event that the Program Trigger Date must be established by the AQCB in the absence 

of a regional emissions and milestone report prepared by the WRAP the date shall be March 

31 of the applicable year. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

29

A3.11 

The Department shall notify the public of the final determination by publishing a notice in a 

newspaper of general circulation. This notice shall include the final calculation of the 

milestone and the final annual regional emissions. If the milestone has been exceeded, the 

notice shall include the program trigger date and the first year that WEB sources must be in 

compliance with the WEB Trading Program provisions outlined in Subsection D of 20.11.46 

NMAC. When appropriate, the AQCB will provide for the discussion of the report and accept 

public comment during a public meeting. The Department shall submit the draft 

determination to EPA for review and comment. 

A4 Year 2013 Assessment. 

A4.1 Initial Assessment in 2013 Periodic SIP Review. 

(a) The Department shall work cooperatively with the WRAP and other participating 

states and tribes to develop a projected emission inventory for SO2 through the year 

2018, using the 2010 regional inventory as a baseline. This projected inventory shall be 

included in the 2010 annual emission and milestone report that shall be completed in 

March 2012 as outlined in Section D(6) of this Implementation plan. 

(b) The Department shall evaluate the projected inventory, and based upon this 

information, make an assessment of the likelihood of meeting the regional milestone for 

the year 2018. The Department shall include this assessment as part of Bernalillo 

County’s progress report that must be submitted by December 31, 2013, as required by 

40 CFR 51.309 (d)(10). 

A4.2 Regional Emissions Report for 2012. 

(a) The Department shall prepare an SO2 emission report for the year 2012 by 

September 30, 2013 as described in Section A3.1 of this Implementation plan. The 

Department shall include a list of all known projects in Bernalillo County that are 

anticipated to affect SO2 emissions in 2018. This may include permitted projects, projects 

that are still in the planning stage, or projections from the affected sources of anticipated 

emissions in 2018. The status of these projects shall be described to provide a better 

understanding of the degree of certainty that individual projects will be completed by 

2018. 

(b) The WRAP shall compile the information from all participating states and tribes, 

prepare draft SO2 inventory projections for the year 2018, and estimate the effect of 

known future projects on SO2 emissions. Projected 2018 emissions will be compared to 

the 2018 milestone. This information shall be included in the draft regional emissions 

report that shall be submitted to the AQCB by December 31, 2013, as part of the report 

for the year 2012, as outlined in Section A3.5 of this Implementation plan. 

A4.3 Consensus Decision. 

The Department commits to meet with the participating states and tribes in March 2014 to 

discuss any comments received on the 2018 emission projections in the draft report. The 

participating states and tribes shall decide, through a consensus process, whether an early 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

30

trigger of the WEB Trading Program is necessary to meet the SO2 emission reduction goals 

in 2018.

A4.4 Official Trigger. 

If the participating states and tribes decide under Section A4.3 that an early trigger of the 

backstop trading program is necessary, the Department shall trigger the WEB Trading 

Program and the timing of various program elements shall be adjusted as follows to ensure 

that the WEB Trading Program is in place in 2018. The date of the consensus decision by 

the participating states and tribes to voluntarily trigger the WEB trading program shall 

become the Program Trigger Date. 

(a) Allowances shall be distributed to WEB sources by January 1, 2015. 

(b) The first control period shall be the year 2018. WEB sources will need to 

demonstrate at the end of the first control period that they have enough allowances to 

cover their SO2 emissions in 2018. 

A4.5 Public Notification. 

The Department shall provide notice to the public of the consensus decision. The notice of 

availability of the consensus decision to trigger the WEB Trading Program, and the date 

when the program will become effective, shall be published in a newspaper of general 

circulation. If applicable, the notification shall include a statement that the WEB Trading 

Program is in effect and a notification of the official program trigger date. 

A5 Special Penalty Provisions for the 2018 Milestone. 

(a) If the WEB Trading Program is triggered, as outlined in Subsection A.3 of this 

Implementation Plan, and the first control period will not occur until after the year 2018, a 

special penalty shall be assessed for the exceedance of the 2018 milestone. 

Details on the penalty provisions for violation of the 2018 milestone can be found in 

Section 20.11.46.20 NMAC. In general, the penalty involves an assessment of the 

minimum $5000 per ton of SO2 emissions in excess of the WEB source’s allowance 

limitation. The source can resolve its excess emissions violation by agreeing to a 

streamlined settlement approach outlined in Subparagraph (a) of Paragraph (5) of 

Subsection A of 20.11.46.20 NMAC. 

The amount of the minimum monetary penalty in Section 20.11.46.20 NMAC, shall be 

evaluated at each five-year SIP review, and adjusted to ensure that penalties per ton 

substantially exceeds the expected cost of allowances to ensure that this remains a 

stringent penalty. 

The 2018 special penalty provisions shall continue to be applied each year after 2018 

until the 2018 milestone has been achieved. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

31

PART B Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Requirements. 

B1. SO2 Emission Inventory (Per 20.11.46.9 NMAC, Emission Tracking Requirements 

For Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventories). 

(a) Applicability. Beginning with the 2003 emission inventory all stationary sources with 

actual emissions of 100 tons per year or more of SO2 in the year 2000, or in any 

subsequent year, shall submit an annual inventory of SO2 emissions. A source that 

meets these criteria and then emits less than 100 tons/year in a later year must still 

submit an SO2 inventory for tracking compliance with the regional SO2 milestones until the 

Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program has been fully implemented, and 

emission tracking has commenced under 20.11.46.9 NMAC. 

(b) The inventory rule, 20.11.46 NMAC, Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Inventory 

Requirements; Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program, includes federally 

enforceable provisions that require stationary sources subject to this rule to: 

(1) Submit an annual inventory of SO2 emissions 

(2) Document the emissions monitoring/estimation methodology used, and 

demonstrate that the selected methodology is acceptable under the inventory 

program; 

(3) Include emissions from start up, shut down, and upset conditions in the annual 

total inventory; 

(4) Use 40 CFR Part 75 methodologies for reporting emissions for all sources subject 

to the federal acid rain program; 

(5) Smelters must submit an annual report of sulfur input, in tons/year; 

(6) Maintain all records used in the calculation of the emissions, including but not 

limited to the following: 

(i) Amount of fuel consumed; 

(ii) Percent sulfur content of fuel and how the content was determined; 

(iii) Quantity of product produced; 

(iv) Emissions monitoring data; 

(v) Operating data; and 

(vi) How the emissions are calculated. 

(7) Maintain records of any physical changes to facility operations or equipment, or 

any other changes that may affect the emissions projections; 

(8) Retain records for a minimum of 10 years from the date of establishment, or if the 

record was the basis for an adjustment to the milestone, five years after the date of 

an implementation plan revision, whichever is longer. 

(c) The Department shall retain 2006 emission inventory records, including the emissions 

monitoring methodology, for non-utilities until the year 2018 to ensure that changes in 

emissions monitoring techniques can be tracked. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

32

B2. Development of Emission Tracking System: 

The Department shall work cooperatively with the states and tribes that are participating in 

the WEB Trading Program to ensure that an emission tracking system for the regional SO2

inventory is developed and maintained. 

B3. Periodic Audit of Pre-Trigger Emission Tracking Database. 

During the pre-trigger phase when the Department is tracking compliance with the regional 

SO2 milestones, the Department shall work cooperatively with the participating states and 

tribes to ensure that an independent audit of the tracking database is conducted to ensure 

that the WRAP is accurately compiling the regional emissions report. The first audit shall 

occur during the year 2006 and shall review data collected during the first two years of the 

program. Subsequent audits shall occur in 2011 (which shall cover emissions years 2005-

2009) and 2016 (which shall cover emissions years 2010-2014). 

The primary focus of the audit will be the process that is used to compile the regional 

inventory from the data provided by each state and tribe, and the tracking of accumulated 

changes during the period between SIP revisions. The audit shall also review the accuracy 

and integrity of the regional reports that the Department uses to determine compliance with 

the milestones. 

The audit is not intended to be a full review of the process for compiling and reporting SO2

emissions, but shall include a broad review of the Department’s inventory management and 

quality assurance systems (i.e. presence and exercise of systems to assure data quality and 

integrity). 

The audit shall discuss the uncertainty of emissions calculations, and whether this 

uncertainty is likely to affect the annual determination of whether the milestone is exceeded. 

The audit shall identify any recommended changes to emissions monitoring or calculation 

methods or data quality assurance systems. The audit shall also review and recommend 

any changes to improve the administrative process of collecting the annual emissions data at 

the state and tribal level, compiling a regional emission inventory, and making the annual 

determination of whether the WEB Trading Program has been triggered. 

Changes to the WEB trading program, including any changes to the milestones due to the 

results of these periodic audits, shall be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision as part of the 

five-year SIP review required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). 

The Department shall publish a notice of availability of the draft audit report in a newspaper 

of general circulation. When appropriate, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality 

Control Board (AQCB) will provide for the discussion of the report and accept public 

comment during a public meeting. The Department shall submit the final audit report to the 

EPA regional office. 

PART C WEB Trading Program Requirements: 

C1. Allowance Allocations 

C1.1 Initial Allocation of SO2 Allowances. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

33

(a) Draft Allocation Report. 

Within six months of the program trigger date, as outlined in Paragraph A3.11 of this 

Implementation plan, the Department shall submit a draft allocation report to all 

participating states and tribes and to the TSA. This report shall contain the following 

information: 

1. A list of all WEB sources in Bernalillo County as defined in 20.11.46.11 NMAC. 

The list shall group the sources into two categories: 

(i) Category 1: WEB sources that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2008. 

These sources shall receive a floor allocation and shall be eligible for the reducible 

portion of the allocation. 

(ii) Category 2: WEB sources that commenced operation on January 1, 2008 or a 

later date. These sources shall receive a floor allocation, but shall not be eligible for 

the reducible allocation. The floor allocation for Category 2 sources shall be 

deducted from the new source set-aside. 

WEB sources that have received a retired source exemption under Subsection D of 

20.11.46.11 NMAC will be included in the allocation process in the same manner as 

WEB sources that are currently operating. However, sources that were permanently 

shut down prior to the program trigger date are not considered WEB sources under 

Subsection A of 20.11.46.11 NMAC and would therefore not be included in the 

allocation process. 

2. Floor allocation for all WEB sources in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. 

(i) For non-utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor allocation shall be as 

established in the E.H. Pechan Report, “Market Trading Forum Non-Utility Sector 

Allocation Final Report from the Allocations Working Group” (November 2002) (see 

Appendix 2007-B). If any additional category 1 sources are identified, the 

Department shall calculate a floor allocation using the methodology outlined in the 

E.H. Pechan Report. 

(ii) For utility category 1 WEB sources, the floor will be calculated by first assigning a 

“clean unit” emission rate to each unit. The clean unit emission rate will then be 

multiplied by an annual heat input (MMBtu) that represents a realistic upper bound for 

the unit. 

(Note: The floor level approach described above is designed to address equity 

issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The Department is participating in 

ongoing discussions with the other participating states, tribes and regional 

stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. The Department 

will work with the other participating states and tribes to ensure that the floor 

allocation is calculated in a consistent manner for all participants. As outlined further 

in this allocation methodology, the floor for both utilities and non-utilities is limited by 

the utility/non-utility split in Table 7C. The floor allocation methodology will ensure 

that credits are available for early reduction allocations. In addition, the regional 

number of allowances allocated for each year cannot exceed the milestone for that 

year under any circumstances.) 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

34

Principles 

• Each unit will have enough allowances to operate as a clean source and at an 

operating rate (capacity factor) that is a realistic upper bound for the unit. 

• There will not be significant winners and losers in this process. 

• The focus is on a fair approach that is applied equally to all sources rather 

than on state and tribal budgets. 

• The allocation process will use data that reflect current conditions, including 

current monitoring methodologies. 

Equity Issues 

• Sources that are currently burning very low sulfur coal may see changes in 

their supply in the future. Historic actual emissions may not reflect future 

operations. 

• Sources that are currently operating at a low utilization may not reach full 

capacity in the future. Assumptions about growth that are realistic on the 

regional level may provide a windfall to some sources, and not provide 

adequate allowances for other sources. 

• There are some utility units in the region that are not BART-eligible and are 

operating at a low level of control for SO2. The relative responsibility of BARTeligible vs. non-BART-eligible is a consideration in the process. 

• Sources that are operating at a high level of control are already bearing the 

cost of control and this affects their ability to compete in the market. 

• Sources that have no SO2 controls are facing a large expense that could 

affect their ability to continue to operate. 

• Emission rate disparities exist throughout the region. 

(iii) For Category 2 WEB sources the floor allocation shall be the lower of the 

permitted SO2 annual emissions for the WEB source or SO2 annual emissions 

calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% 

utilization of the WEB source. 

3. A list of certified early reductions, expressed as tons of SO2. Early reductions shall be 

calculated and certified as follows: 

(i) Any WEB source that installs control technology and accepts new permit 

emissions limits that are, for a non-utility source, below its floor as established in this 

section, or, for a utility source, below BACT, may apply for an early reduction credit as 

outlined in 20.11.46.14 NMAC. The credit will be available for reductions that occur 

between 2008 and the program trigger year. The application must show that the floor 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

35

was calculated in a manner that is consistent with the monitoring requirements of 

Subsection A and C of 20.11.46.16 NMAC and the new permit must contain 

monitoring requirements that are consistent with Subsection A and C of 20.11.46.16 

NMAC. Emission units that are monitored using the less stringent monitoring 

requirements of Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 NMAC are not eligible for early 

reduction credits. The credits accumulate from the time the new controls come on 

line until the program trigger date and will be allocated to the WEB source over a 10 

year period. The use of early reduction credits in any control period is limited to no 

more than five percent, system wide, of the existing available allowances, as provided 

in paragraph C1.1(b)(5) of this plan. 

(ii) The Department shall review the application and shall certify early reductions for 

each full year between 2008 and the program trigger year that meet the requirements 

of Subsection E of 20.11.46.14 NMAC and this Implementation Plan element. 

(iii) A source’s’ certified early reductions shall be summed for all years to obtain the 

total certified early reductions for that source. 

4. Historical SO2 emissions data for all Category 1 sources for the purposes of 

calculating the reducible allocation. 

(i) For utilities, the annual SO2 emissions for the year 2006. Another time period may 

be used for individual emission units, if needed, to be representative of normal 

operating conditions 

(ii) For non-utilities, the annual SO2 emissions for the year 2006. 

5. Changes due to enforcement actions or settlement agreements as a result of 

enforcement actions. The adjustment shall be determined in accordance with 

Paragraph A3.3(c) of this Implementation Plan. The difference between the WEB 

source’s allocations prior to enforcement and after the enforcement action shall be 

removed from the allocation pool. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

36

Table 7a: RESERVED 

Table 7b. RESERVED 

(b) Compiled Allocation Report 

The Tracking System Administrator shall compile the information provided by all 

participating states and tribes into a draft regional allocation report, and shall submit this 

draft regional report to the Department and all participating states and tribes for review 

and comment 30 days after receiving the preliminary allocation reports. The draft 

regional allocation report shall include a proposed budget for each state and tribe and the 

proposed allocation for each WEB source in Bernalillo County 

The Department will work closely with the other participating states and tribes to ensure 

that the regional allocation is distributed consistently and fairly and to address any 

change in status that may affect this process. 

The following methodology distributes the allowances available under the milestone in 

the following order: tribal set-aside, new source set-aside, floor, early reduction credit, 

renewable energy credit, reducible allocation. The allocation process is limited by the 

number of allowances available under the milestone. It is not possible under this 

methodology to distribute more allowances than are available under the milestone. The 

Department expects that there will be allowances available for all of the categories listed 

above. However, if at any time in the process there are not enough allowances available 

to fully cover a particular category, then the sources eligible for that category will receive 

a pro-rated allowance, and the process will stop. For example, if the early reduction 

credit allocation is greater than the remaining available allowances under the milestone, 

then each of the early reduction sources would receive a reduced early reduction credit 

allocation, and there would be no reducible allocation. 

(1) Table 7C shows the major categories that will be used to allocate allowances 

under the milestone. The methodology to calculate the available allocation for 

existing sources is described below. The milestone for the three-state region is the 

starting point. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

37

Table 7C. Utility/Non-utility Split 

Year Milestone 

from Table 

1 

Tribal 

Set-Aside 

New 

Source 

Set-aside 

Remaining 

Allocation 

Utility 

Portion 

Nonutility 

portion 

2008 269,083 2,500 6,143 260,440 210,480 49,961 

2009 234,903 2,500 6,143 226,260 176,299 49,961 

2010 200,722 2,500 6,143 192,079 142,119 49,961 

2011 200,722 2,500 6,143 192,079 142,119 49,961 

2012 200,722 2,500 6,143 192,079 142,119 49,961 

2013 185,795 2,500 12,286 171,009 121,048 49,961 

2014 170,868 2,500 12,286 156,082 106,121 49,961 

2015 155,940 2,500 12,286 141,154 91,194 49,961 

2016 155,940 2,500 12,286 141,154 91,194 49,961 

2017 155,940 2,500 12,286 141,154 91,194 49,961 

2018 141,849 2,500 12,286 127,063 80,402 49,661 

(2) Subtract the floor allocation for all WEB sources in the region that were identified as 

Category 2 from the new source set-aside to determine the available allocation for new 

sources that begin operation after the program trigger date. 

This allocation methodology treats all Category 2 sources as existing sources because 

these sources will be operating on the program trigger date. However, the allowances for 

all Category 2 sources are actually drawn from the new source set-aside. If new source 

growth exceeds the projections used to develop this plan, it is possible that the above 

calculation will result in a negative number. Therefore, to address this problem, Category 

2 sources will be ranked based on the date the permit is issued for each source. Sources 

will then be removed from the list of Category 2 sources, starting with the most recent 

permit, until the new source set-aside is no longer depleted. The last source on the list 

will receive a partial allocation. The sources that were removed from the list will be 

considered new sources as described in Section C1.3 of this plan. These sources will 

need to purchase allowances to cover their emissions because the new source set-aside 

for sources that begin operation after the program trigger date would be calculated as 

zero until it is replenished in the next 5-year period. The allocation process for these new 

sources is described in Section C1.3 of this Plan. 

Table 8: RESERVED

(3) The remaining allocation shown in Table 7C is available for distribution to category 1 

sources. The final two columns in Table 7C split this remaining allocation into a utility 

allocation and a non-utility allocation. 

(4) Subtract the floor allocations for all category 1 utility and non-utility sources in the 

region from the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation. In the unlikely event that the 

total floor allocation for either utility or non-utility sources submitted by the participating 

states and tribes exceeds the total allocation available for that category, the TSA will 

notify the participating states and tribes of the discrepancy. The Department commits to 

work with the participating states and tribes through a consensus process to ensure that 

the floor allocation has been calculated in a consistent manner for all participants and to 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

38

ensure that the floor allocation does not exceed the total allocation available for that 

category. The total number of allowances distributed cannot exceed the milestone for 

any given year. 

(5) Calculate the early reduction allocation. 

(i) Divide the number of certified early reduction credits for all WEB sources in the 

region by 10. 

(ii) Add the utility allocation for 2018 to the non-utility allocation for 2018 and then 

multiply this total by 0.05. 

(iii) If the product of Paragraph (i) is no more than the product of Paragraph (ii), the 

product of Paragraph (i) is the early reduction allocation, and each source is allocated 

10 percent of its early reduction credits. 

(iv) If the product of Paragraph (i) is more than the product of Paragraph (ii), the 

early reduction allocation for the region is the product of Paragraph (ii). To determine 

a source’s allocation, divide the product of Paragraph (ii) by 0.10 times the total 

number of early reduction credits and apply that ratio to the early reduction credits 

claimed by the source. 

(v) Split the regional early reduction allocation based on the ratio of utility to non-utility 

allocations in 2018 and subtract the early reduction allocation from the utility and nonutility allocation totals. 

(vi) The early reduction allocation will be calculated in a similar manner for the 

second five-year allocation period under this program, and will then be discontinued 

for any future allocation periods. 

(6) Any remaining allowances in the utility allocation or the non-utility allocation after 

subtraction of the early reduction allocation is considered the reducible allocation and shall 

be assigned to Category 1 sources. 

(i) For non-utility sources, add together the historic SO2 emissions in accordance with 

Paragraph C1.1(a)(5) of this implementation plan for all Category 1 non-utility sources in 

the region to determine an historic emission total. 

Determine a percent contribution of SO2 emissions for each WEB source to the historic 

emission total. 

Multiply the non-utility reducible allocation by the percent contribution for each WEB 

source to determine a reducible allocation for each WEB source. 

(ii) For utility sources, the reducible allocation will be distributed to sources that emitted 

above their floor in the baseline period (2006) based on their percentage of total floor 

emissions for sources emitting above the floor times the number of reducible allowances 

available for the first five years of the WEB Trading Program. The number of allowances 

for any source receiving a reducible allocation will not exceed a recent historic emission 

rate times a heat input that represents a realistic upper bound for the unit. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

39

[Note: The approach for distributing the reducible utility allocation described above is 

designed to address equity issues regarding the allocation process for utilities. The 

Department is participating in ongoing discussions with the other participating states, 

tribes and regional stakeholders to ensure that all equity issues have been addressed. 

The principles and equity issues that are under discussion are listed in Paragraph C1.1 

(a)(2)(ii) of this plan.] 

(7) Add together the floor allocation, early reduction allocation, and reducible allocation for 

each WEB source to determine the proposed allocation for the first five years of the WEB 

Trading Program. 

(8) Add together the proposed allocation for all of the WEB sources in the jurisdiction of each 

participating state and tribe to determine a draft SO2 allowance budget for each state and 

tribe. 
Sample Calculation of the New Source Set-Aside. 

The example uses the following assumptions (refer to the table that follows): 

Emissions exceed the milestones based on an average of the years 2004-

2006. 

The program trigger date is March 31, 2008. 

The first five years of the program are 2012-2015. 

New sources that commenced operation between January 1, 2008 and the 

program trigger date have a total floor allocation of 600. 

YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

New Source Set-Aside 6,143 12,286 12,286 12,286 12,286 

Floor for Category 2 

Sources - 600 - 600 - 600 - 600 - 600 

Remaining New Source 

Set-aside 5,543 11,686 11,686 11,686 11,686 

(c) Public Comment Period. 

The Department shall publish a notice of availability of the draft regional allocation report in a 

newspaper of general circulation in Bernalillo County. A 30-day public comment period shall 

be established, and a hearing will be held during the comment period. The Department shall 

consider the comments, and shall revise the draft report if the recommended changes are 

consistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan. The Department shall prepare a 

written response that explains why each comment has either been accepted or has been 

determined to be inconsistent with the allocation process outlined in this plan. 

(d) Proposed Changes Submitted to Tracking System Administrator (TSA). 

The Department shall submit a copy of all comments received the response to those 

comments and any proposed changes to the budget and source allocations to the TSA within 

60 days of receipt of the draft regional allocation report. 

(e) Compilation of Changes. 

The TSA shall compile the comments, responses and proposed changes to the report and 

shall submit a final draft regional allocation report that is consistent with the allocation 

methodology outlined in this plan to the Executive Secretary within 90 days of the receipt of 

the draft regional allocation report. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

40
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

41

(f) Final Regional Allocation Report.

The AQCB shall review the final regional allocation report and shall determine the budget for 

Bernalillo County and allocations for WEB sources within Bernalillo County in accordance 

with the allocation methodology outlined in this Implementation plan element within 30 days 

of receipt of the final draft allocation report. The Department shall submit the budget and 

allocations for all WEB sources in Bernalillo County to EPA, and shall notify the TSA that the 

WEB source allocations should be recorded in the allowance tracking system. 

(g) Notification. 

The Department shall notify all WEB sources within Bernalillo County of the number of 

allowances that have been recorded in their compliance account. The notice shall include a 

warning to the WEB sources that reported annual SO2 emissions may change due to the 

implementation of new monitoring methodologies as required by 20.11.46.16 NMAC. 

Allocations for the first five years of the program shall not be adjusted to account for changes 

due to the new monitoring methodology. However, allocations during the next five-year 

distribution shall be adjusted as needed to account for paper changes in emissions due to 

changes in monitoring methodology. 

C1.2 Distribution of Allowances for Future Control Periods. 

By December 1 of the year, five years after the initial allocation, the Department shall follow 

the process outlined in Section C1.1 to distribute allowances for the next five-year period. 

This process shall continue every five years until allowances have been allocated through 

the year 2018. Under no circumstances shall allocations be made that would exceed the 

allocations available. 

C1.3 Distribution of the New Source Allocation. 

(a) The new source set-aside shall be available for two categories of sources. 

1. New WEB sources are eligible to receive an annual floor allocation equal to the lower 

of the annual permitted SO2 emissions for the source, or SO2 annual emissions 

calculated based on a level of control equivalent to BACT and assuming 100% utilization 

of the WEB source beginning with the first full calendar year of operation and in 

accordance with the provisions of Subsection F of 20.11.46.14 NMAC. 

2. Existing sources that increase production are eligible to receive allowances from the 

new source set-aside equal to: 

(i) the permitted annual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a new unit; or 

(ii) the permitted annual SO2 emission increase for the WEB source due to the 

replacement of an existing unit with a new unit or the modification of an existing unit that 

increased the production capacity of the WEB source. 

Permitted emission increases due to fuel switching or other process changes that are not 

directly related to increased production capacity are not eligible for allocations from the 

new source set-aside. The allocation from the new source set-aside in the first year of 

operation shall be adjusted to account for the number of days that the source is operating 

in that first year. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

42

Example. A new unit with a nameplate capacity of 400 MW is constructed at a power 

plant with two existing units with nameplate capacities of 400 MW and 300 MW. The two 

existing units install SO2 controls and reduce emissions to meet PSD requirements for 

the construction of the new unit. In this example, the source would continue to receive a 

floor and a reducible allocation for each of the existing units, and would also be eligible to 

receive an allocation from the new source set-aside for the new unit. Even though total 

SO2 emissions will decrease at this plant due to the construction of the new unit, the 

allowances allocated to the source will increase to reflect the increase in production 

capacity of 400 MW of electricity. If the new unit comes on line on July 1 the allocation 

for the first year shall be reduced by 50 percent because the unit was operational for half 

of the year. 

(b) Allocations from the new source set-aside shall remain constant for the applicable 

WEB source and shall be made on an annual basis by March 31 of each year for the 

current control period. Under no circumstances shall allocations be made that would 

exceed the allocations available. When the next five-year allocation block is distributed 

as outlined in Section C1.2 of this Implementation plan element, all sources with an 

allocation under the new source set-aside shall receive a five-year allocation block from 

the new source set-aside, and shall continue to receive this allocation in future five-year 

allocation blocks. 

(c) Owners or operators of new sources or modified sources that meet the eligibility 

requirements of C1.3(a) may apply for an allocation from the new source set-aside by 

submitting a written request to the Department as outlined in Subsection F of 20.11.46.14 

NMAC. 

(d) The Department shall review the application for an allocation from the new source 

set-aside for accuracy and completeness, and shall notify the source, of intent to 

distribute allocations from the regional new source set-aside pending verification that 

allowances are available in the new source set-aside account. Under no circumstances 

shall allocations be made that would exceed the allocations available. The Department 

shall then forward the request to the Tracking System Administrator (TSA). 

(e) The TSA shall document the date that the TSA receives the request. Requests for 

allocation of allowances from the new source set-aside shall be processed in the order 

received. Under no circumstances shall the TSA make allocations that would exceed the 

allocations available. The TSA shall deduct the number of allowances requested from 

the regional new source set-aside that was established by the participating states and 

tribes in accordance with Section C1.1(b) of this Implementation plan, and shall then 

record an equal number of allowances in the source’s compliance account for each 

remaining year of the five-year period. The TSA shall then send written notification to the 

source and to the Department that the allowances have been recorded in the source’s 

compliance account. 

(f) If the new source set-aside is depleted, the source shall purchase the allowances 

required to demonstrate compliance. Any eligible WEB source that does not receive an 

allocation from the new source set-aside because the set-aside was depleted shall be 

first in line to receive an allocation when the new source set-aside is increased in the next 

five-year period as outlined in Section C1.1 (b) of this Implementation Plan element. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

43

(g) A source that has received a retired source exemption and continues to receive an 

allocation as a retired WEB source shall not be eligible to receive an allocation from the 

new source set-aside. 

 C1.4 Regional Tribal Set-aside. 

(a) Each year after the program is triggered, for which allowances are allocated, 2,500 

allowances will exist as a tribal set-aside. 

(b) The tribal caucus of the WRAP has stated its intent to determine the means for 

distributing the allowances among the tribes by one year after the program trigger date. 

The AQCB understands that there will be a process that shall meet the tracking and data 

security requirements of the allowance tracking system by which a tribe shall move its 

set-aside allowances into the trading program for the purposes of trading. 

(c) The AQCB recognizes that the tribal set-aside allowances are bonus allowances for 

the tribes and as such, are separate and additional to any allowances included in a tribal 

budget or the new source set-aside as outlined in the allocation report in Section 

C1.1(b)(9). 

C1.5 Opt-In Sources. 

The WRAP Market Trading Forum has recommended provisions be included in this 

Implementation plan element that would allow smaller sources to opt-in to the program. Optin sources may provide a more cost-effective way to reduce overall regional SO2 emissions, 

and therefore may strengthen the market incentives of this program. While the benefits of 

allowing sources to opt-in to the program are important, the program must also provide 

safeguards to ensure that the integrity of the program is not affected. For example, it would 

be counterproductive to allow sources that were already planning to shut down to opt-in to 

the program and then sell allowances to an existing source. In this example, regional 

emissions could slowly creep upward in a manner that is not consistent with the goals of the 

SO2 milestones. 

The Department is deferring inclusion of provisions for opt-in sources until a future SIP 

revision to allow time to thoroughly consider how to provide the flexibility and potential 

benefits to the market by expanding the program while also ensuring that the SO2 emission 

reductions goals are maintained. 

C2. WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS). 

The Department shall provide a centralized system for the tracking of allowances and 

emissions within the framework of the SIP. The centralized system will be referred to as the 

WEB Emissions and Allowance Tracking System (WEB EATS). The WEB EATS must 

ensure that all necessary information regarding emissions, allowances, and transactions is 

publicly available in a secure, centralized database. The EATS must ensure that each 

allowance is uniquely identified, allow for frequent updates, and include enforceable 

procedures for recording data. 

The Department shall work cooperatively with other states and tribes participating in the 

WEB Trading Program to designate this system. The Department shall be responsible for 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

44

ensuring that all the EATS provisions are completed as described in this Implementation 

plan. 

The EATS will not exist unless the program is triggered. Prior to the implementation of the 

WEB Trading Program, a separate emissions tracking database will be employed to track the 

ongoing emissions of sources emitting SO2 at amounts equal to or greater than 100 tons per 

year. The emissions tracking database, used to track and measure SO2 emissions against 

the milestones, will still exist once the WEB Trading Program is triggered. If the program is 

triggered, either the emissions tracking database will be incorporated into the SO2 Emissions 

and Allowance Tracking System (EATS), or a similar, parallel one, more suitable for 

enforcement and program specific purposes will be developed and incorporated into the SO2

Emissions and Allowance Tracking System. Both the emissions tracking database and the 

EATS shall be centralized systems with data posted in a format, including an electronic, 

Web-based program, and available to anyone. 

The states and tribes shall contract with a common TSA to service and maintain the WEB 

EATS. It is envisioned that the EATS will require the use of a contracted consultant or 

database design engineer to create a secure, efficient and transparent tracking system. 

Because the EATS shall be utilized by all states and tribes participating in the program, the 

design will require a uniform approach and level of security that will satisfy regional needs 

and concerns as well as meet the electronic, Web-based, access needs and security 

provisions. Due to the dynamic needs of the marketplace, the EATS will require a database 

that will reflect the current status of allowances and allowance transactions. The EATS shall 

be operational within one year after the program trigger date. 

Specifications of the WEB EATS such as emissions tracking, the recording of allowance 

transactions, account management, system integrity and transparency are outlined in a 

report prepared for the WRAP, entitled Western Emissions Backstop (WEB) Emissions and 

Allowance Tracking System (EATS) Analysis (July, 2003). A copy of this report is provided 

in Appendix K-SIP of this implementation plan. Appendix K-SIP and related sections of 

20.11.46 NMAC detail how a WEB source will register for the EATS and how the source will, 

through an account representative, establish accounts, transfer allowances, and track 

unused allowances from a previous year. 

Neither the AQCB nor the TSA shall adjudicate any dispute concerning the authorization of 

any Account Representative with regard to any representation, action, inaction, or 

submission of the Account Representative. 

As an example of how the WEB EATS will generally function, once the WEB Trading 

Program is triggered, a WEB source will have its allowance allocation determined. On a 

parallel track, the WEB source’s account representative will register for the EATS under 

20.11.46.13 NMAC, and a compliance account will be established under 20.11.46.15 NMAC. 

Each allowance will be assigned a serial number. The WEB EATS will use the allowance 

serial number to track allowance allocations, transfers (20.11.46.17 NMAC), deductions, and 

account for any unused allowances from a previous year (20.11.46.18 NMAC). The serial 

number will also be assigned each allowance recorded in a general account, an account for 

allowances that are not held to meet program compliance requirements. Furthermore, the 

EATS will track tribal allowance set-asides and new source allowance set-asides not yet 

assigned to either a compliance or general account. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

45

It is important to note that while an effort has been made in this Implementation plan element 

to provide a design for and an operational understanding of the EATS, the components of the 

EATS will need to be examined and possibly altered upon each required SIP revision. 

C3. Allowance Transfers. 

Allowance transfers are defined as the conveyance from one account to another account 

(compliance account or general account) of one or more allowances by whatever means, 

including but not limited to purchase, trade, or gift in accordance with the procedures 

established in 20.11.46.17 NMAC. This includes transfer of allowances for the purpose of 

retirement. Once an allowance is retired, it is no longer available for transfer to or from any 

account. Any party may purchase allowances for the purpose of retirement. 

The Tracking System Administrator (TSA) shall have specific recording requirements 

involving transfers. These required procedures will be detailed in the service contract but are 

outlined here as well. 

C3.1 Recording of Allowance Transfers. 

Within five business days of receiving an allowance transfer, except when the transfer does 

not meet the requirements of this Section, the TSA shall record an allowance transfer by 

moving each allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by 

the request, provided that: 

(a) The transfer is correctly submitted; and 

(b) The transferor account includes each allowance identified in the transfer. 

Any allowance transfer that is submitted for recording following the allowance transfer 

deadline and that includes any allowances allocated for a control period prior to or the same 

as the control period to which the allowance transfer deadline applies, shall not be recorded 

until after completion of the compliance account reconciliation. 

Where an allowance transfer submitted for allowance transfer recording fails to meet the 

requirements of this Section, the TSA shall not record such transfer. 

C3.2 Notification of the Recording of Allowance Transfers. 

The TSA has specific responsibilities involving the notification of the recording of any 

transferred allowances, including the failure to record any transfer of allowances. Again, 

these required procedures will be outlined in the service contract, but will include what is 

outlined here. 

(a) Within five business days of the recording of an allowance transfer, the TSA shall 

notify the Account Representatives of both the transferor and transferee accounts, and 

make the transfer information publicly available on the Internet. 

(b) Within five business days of receipt of an allowance transfer that fails to meet the 

requirements of 20.11.46.17 NMAC, the TSA shall notify the Account Representatives of 

both accounts of the decision not to record the transfer, and the reasons for not recording 

the transfer. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

46

C4. Use of Allowances from a Previous Year. 

C4.1 Background 

Unused allowances may be kept for use in future years in accordance with 20.11.46.18 

NMAC. Allowances kept for use in future years may be used in calendar year 2018 only to 

the extent that this Implementation Plan element guarantees that such allowances will not 

interfere with the achievement of the 2018 milestone. Subsection D of 20.11.46.18 NMAC 

addresses this requirement by prohibiting the use, after the year 2017, of allowances 

allocated for the years 2003 - 2017. This provision ensures that actual emissions will be less 

than the 2018 milestone because only allowances allocated for the year 2018 could be used 

to show compliance in that year. The provision also maintains flexibility by resetting the 

baseline to the year 2018 and then allowing sources to once again use extra allowances to 

show compliance in any future year. This flexibility is important for sources that have 

variable operations because the source may build up a reserve of unused allowances for use 

in a high production year. 

The Annex explains the benefits of allowing the WEB source to tap the previous year’s 

unused allowances, including increased flexibility and early reduction stimulus. The risk in 

allowing the use of allowances carried from a previous year could be an increase in 

emissions in later years as the unused allowances are withdrawn for compliance. 

Because the regional haze SIP is based on reasonable progress requirements related to the 

remedying or prevention of any future visibility impairment, it is important to assure the use of 

these allowances will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any reasonable 

progress goals. The safeguard employed here to mitigate this type of risk is termed, “flow 

control.” 

C4.2 Flow Control Provisions. 

At the end of each control period, WEB sources may transfer allowances in and out of their 

compliance account for a period of 60 days to ensure that the account will contain enough 

allowances to cover sulfur dioxide emissions during the previous year. At the end of the 60-

day transfer period, allowances shall be deducted from the compliance account of each of 

the WEB sources in an amount equal to the sulfur dioxide emissions of that source during 

the control period. 

After the deductions have been completed, the Tracking System Administrator (TSA) shall 

perform the following calculations and prepare a report according to Section C7.1 (b): 

(a) Determine the total number of allowances remaining in the allowance tracking system 

that were allocated for the just completed control period and all previous control periods. 

(b) If the number calculated in (a) above exceeds 10 percent of the milestone for the next 

control period, then the flow control procedures in Subsection C of 20.11.46.18 NMAC 

shall be triggered for that next control period. These flow control provisions will 

discourage the excessive use of allowances that were allocated for an earlier control 

period without establishing an absolute limit on their use. WEB sources will maintain the 

option to use allowances allocated for an earlier control period, but will be required to use 

two allowances for each ton of SO2 emissions. Flow control operates as follows: 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

47

(1) The flow control ratio shall be calculated by multiplying one tenth multiplied by the 

milestone for the next control period divided by the total number of unused 

allowances remaining in the system. 

(2) To calculate the number of prior-year allowances that can be used without 

restriction by a source for the next control period, the TSA shall multiply them by the 

flow control ratio. The resulting number of allowances may be used on a one-to-one 

ratio to show compliance with the source’s allowance limitation as outlined in Section 

20.11.46.19 NMAC. 

(3) The remaining prior-year allowances may be used on a two-to-one ratio to show 

compliance. Thus, WEB sources will maintain the option to use allowances allocated 

for an earlier control period, but will be required to use two of those allowances for 

each ton of SO2 emissions. 
Example: 

On March 1, 2010 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2009 control period) the TSA 

deducts allowances from the compliance account for each WEB source to cover 2009 SO2

emissions from that source. After completing these deductions, the TSA reports the 

following information: 

Total number of allowances still in the system for the years 2003 – 2009 = 30,000 

2010 milestone = 200,722 

Percent of milestone = 14.94 % 

Because the number of allowances not used in previous control periods is greater than 

10% of the milestone, flow control procedures are triggered. In the annual report required 

in C7.1(b) the TSA will then calculate the flow control ratio for 2010: 

0.1 x 2010 Milestone ÷ prior year allowances=flow control ratio 

 0.1 x 200,722 ÷ 30,000 = 0.70 

On March 1, 2011 (the compliance transfer deadline for the 2010 control period) the TSA 

will apply the 2010 flow control ratio before deducting allowances from each WEB source’s 

compliance account. 

WEB Source A 2010 Allowances = 1,000 

Remaining Prior Year Allowances = 600 

2010 Emissions = 1580 

In this example, the TSA would multiply the prior year allowances (600) by 0.70 to determine 

the number of prior year allowances that could be used without restriction at a one-to-one 

ratio. This would equal 420. The remaining prior year allowances would then be used at a 

2:1 ratio 360 allowances would be needed to cover the remaining 180 tons of SO2 emissions. 

The TSA would therefore deduct a total of 1780 allowances (1,000 + 420 + 360) to cover 

1580 tons of SO2 emissions. 

C5. Monitoring & Recordkeeping: 

C5.1 For WEB sources subject to 40 CFR Part 75, the EPA Administrator shall quality assure 

and finalize the data for submission to the Tracking System Administrator (TSA). For WEB 

sources subject to Sections 21 and 22 of 20.11.46 NMAC, the Department shall quality 

assure and finalize the data in accordance with these provisions for submission to the TSA. 

C5.2 The EPA Administrator and the Department, as applicable, shall verify and submit data 

to the emissions tracking database as soon as reasonably feasible after annual emissions 

are reported by the WEB sources. Note: these timelines will be modified, as necessary, 

according to the monitoring protocols. 

C5.3 Special Reserve Compliance Accounts. The WEB Trading Program requires most 

WEB sources to install continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that meet the 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 75. However, there 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

48
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

49

are some emission units that are not physically able to install CEMS and there are also 

emission units that do not emit enough sulfur dioxide to justify the expense of installing these 

systems (see Subsection B of 20.11.46 NMAC). The WEB Trading Program allows these 

emission units to continue to use their pre-trigger monitoring methodology, but does not allow 

the WEB source to transfer any allowances that were allocated to that unit for use by another 

WEB source. The restriction on transferring these allowances is needed to ensure that an 

emission reduction of sulfur dioxide and the corresponding increase in sulfur dioxide from are

equal. The allowances associated with emission units that continue to use their pre-trigger 

monitoring methodology are placed in a special reserve compliance account, while 

allowances for other emission units are placed in a regular compliance account. Allowances 

may not be traded out of a special reserve compliance account, even for use by emission 

units with CEMS at the same WEB source. However, the WEB source may use allowances 

in the compliance account to demonstrate compliance with the WEB source's allowance 

limitation. 

Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 NMAC allows WEB sources with any of the following emission 

units to apply to establish a special reserve compliance account: 

(a) any smelting operation where all of the emissions from the operation are not ducted 

to a stack; or 

(b) any flare, except to the extent such flares are used as a fuel gas combustion device 

at a petroleum refinery; or 

(c) any other type of unit without add-on sulfur dioxide control equipment, if the unit 

belongs to one of the following source categories: cement kilns, pulp and paper recovery 

furnaces, lime kilns, or glass manufacturing. 

The emission units described in (a) and (b) cannot physically be monitored using a CEM. 

The emission units described in (c) do not typically have add-on controls for sulfur dioxide. 

These units, addressed in Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 NMAC, are expected to operate 

within their floor-level allocation and therefore will not be affected by the market, unless they 

make a process change and wish to sell allowances on the market. Other sources that are 

meeting the more rigorous monitoring requirements of Subsection A of 20.11.46.16 NMAC, 

and emit sulfur dioxide above their expected allocation will either need to purchase 

allowances or install sulfur dioxide controls. Therefore it is important that all emission units 

that participate in emissions trading, have an accurate monitoring methodology that is 

comparable to other sources in the program, to insure that a ton of reductions is the same, 

regardless of where the reductions originate. 

The Department shall review the application to monitor under Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 

NMAC. If the emission units meet the criteria in Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 NMAC, the 

Department shall determine the portion of the WEB source's allocation that is associated with 

the emission units that will be monitored under Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 NMAC and will 

require the TSA to record that portion of the WEB source's allocation in the special reserve 

compliance account. The Department shall use the methodology for determining allocations 

described in Section C1.1 of this Implementation Plan to determine the portion of the 

allocation that is associated with emission units monitored under Subsection B of 

20.11.46.16 NMAC. The Department shall notify the WEB source that the application has 

either been accepted or rejected, including a notification of the allowances that are to be 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

50

recorded in the WEB source's regular compliance account and the special reserve 

compliance account. 

If an emission unit that is monitored under Subsection B of 20.11.46.16 NMAC is 

permanently retired, the TSA will transfer the portion of allowances that were associated with 

that emission unit from the WEB source's special reserve compliance account to the source's 

compliance account. These allowances will then be available for use or sale by the WEB 

source. The allowances will be transferred after the compliance deduction has taken place 

for the last control period that the unit was in operation 

C6. Compliance and Penalties: 

C6.1 Compliance, Excess Emissions & Penalties. 

When a WEB source exceeds its allowance limitation stipulated by Section 20.11.46.19 

NMAC, the Department shall require the Tracking System Administrator (TSA) to deduct 

allowances from the following year’s allocation in an amount equal to three times the WEB 

source’s emissions of SO2 in excess of its allowance limitation. This deduction shall be 

made from the WEB source’s compliance account after deductions for compliance under 

20.11.46.19 NMAC. If sufficient allowances do not exist in the compliance account for the 

next control period to cover this amount, the Department shall require the TSA to deduct the 

required number of allowances, regardless of the control period for which they were 

allocated, whenever the allowances are recorded in the account. 

Under the rule, sources may also be liable for penalties for each day of violations of the 

program’s other requirements. 

C7. Periodic Evaluation of the Trading Program. 

C7.1 Annual Report. 

(a) One year after compliance with the trading program is required; the Department shall 

obtain from the TSA an annual report that contains the following information: 

1. The level of compliance program-wide; 

2. A summary of the use and transfer of allowances, both geographically and 

temporally; 

3. A source-by-source accounting of allocations compared to emissions; 

4. A report on the use of unused allowances (in order to determine whether these 

emissions have or have not contributed to emissions in excess of the cap.) 

5. The total number of WEB sources participating in the trading program and any 

changes to eligible sources, such as opt-in or retired sources, or sources that emit 

more than 100 tons of SO2 after the program trigger date. 

(b) Within 10 months after the allowance transfer deadline for each control period when 

compliance with the trading program is required, the TSA shall prepare a draft report that 

lists: 

1. The total number of allowances deducted for the control period, 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

51

2. The total number of allowances remaining in the Allowance Tracking System 

allocated for that control period and any earlier control period, 

3. Proposed determination that flow control procedures have either been triggered or 

have not been triggered for the next control period, and 

4. If flow control procedures have been triggered, a draft flow control ratio calculated 

according to C4.2 of this Implementation Plan. 

(c) The Department shall evaluate the draft report, and shall propose a determination that 

flow control procedures have been either been triggered or have not been triggered for 

the next control period. 

(d) The Department shall publish a notice of availability of the draft report in a newspaper 

of general circulation. When appropriate, the AQCB will provide for the discussion of the 

report and accept public comment during a public meeting. 

(e) The Department shall make a final determination that the flow control procedures 

have either been triggered or have not been triggered for the next control period. 

C7.2 Five-year Evaluation. 

(a) States and tribes shall conduct an audit of the WEB Trading Program no later than 

three years following the first full year of the trading program, and at least every five 

years thereafter. This evaluation does not supplant the Implementation Plan 

assessments in 2008, 2013, and 2018 as required by the regional haze regulations. The 

evaluation should be conducted by an independent third party and include an analysis of: 

1. Whether the total actual emissions could exceed the values in Table 3 of this 

Implementation Plan element of the WEB Trading Program even though sources 

comply with their allowances; 

2. Whether the program achieved the overall emission milestone it was intended to 

reach; 

3. The effectiveness of the compliance, enforcement and penalty provisions; 

4. A discussion of whether states and tribes have enough resources to implement 

the WEB Trading Program; 

5. Whether the trading program resulted in any unexpected beneficial effects, or any 

unintended detrimental effects; 

6. Whether the actions taken to reduce sulfur dioxide have led to any unintended 

increases in other pollutants; 

7. Whether there are any changes needed in emissions monitoring and reporting 

protocols, or in the administrative procedures for program administration and tracking; 

and, 

8. The effectiveness of the provisions for interstate trading, and whether there are 

any procedural changes needed to make the interstate nature of the program more 

effective. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

52

9. The integrity of the emissions and allowance tracking system, including whether 

the procedures for recording transactions are adequate, whether the procedures are 

being followed and in a timely manner, whether the information on sources’ emissions 

is accurately recorded, whether the emissions and allowance tracking system has 

procedures in place to ensure that the transactions are valid, whether back-up 

systems are in place to account for problems with loss of data. 

(b) The public shall have an opportunity to participate in this trading program evaluation. 

(c) In the event that any audit results in recommendations for program revisions, the 

AQCB, in consultation with the WRAP, will make appropriate modifications to this 

Implementation plan. The AQCB will revise this Implementation plan if the program is not 

meeting its emission reduction goals. 

(d) The Department shall submit a copy of the report to the EPA regional office. 

C8. Retired Source Exemption: 

Subsection D of 20.11.46.11 NMAC outlines the procedure that a WEB source must follow to 

receive a retired source exemption. The exemption would allow the source to continue to 

receive an allocation, but would exempt the source from monitoring and record keeping 

requirements that would serve no useful function for a source that has ceased operations. 

The Department shall notify the source of its obligation to apply for a retired source 

exemption upon the cancellation or relinquishment of a permit.

In order to receive a retired source exemption, the source must submit a request for the 

exemption to the Department. The Department shall review this request, and within 60 days 

of receipt of the request shall notify the source that the retired source exemption has been 

granted or has been rejected. If the exemption has been rejected, the notification shall 

contain an explanation of the reasons for rejecting the request. 

The Tracking System Administrator (TSA) shall record an allocation to a WEB source that 

has received a retired source exemption. However, the allowances shall be recorded in a 

general account rather than a compliance account for the source. The TSA will transfer any 

existing allowances in the retired source’s compliance account or special reserve compliance 

account into the general account for the retired source, and will close the compliance 

accounts. 

A WEB source that is permanently retired and that does not request a retired source 

exemption shall forfeit all abandoned allowances in that source’s compliance account, as 

outlined in Section 20.11.46.17 NMAC. The forfeited allowances shall not be redistributed to 

other sources, and shall be permanently retired from the Allowance Tracking System, as 

outlined in Subsection E of 20.11.46.11 NMAC. During the next five-year allowance 

distribution period the retired source shall not receive an allocation, and the allowances that 

would have been distributed to that source shall be added to the new source set-aside 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

53

C9. Integration into Federally Enforceable Permits 

It is expected that all WEB sources will at least initially be required to obtain a permit under 

the Department’s Title V delegated permitting program. Under 20.11.42 NMAC, the 

Department’s delegated Title V permitting program, the pre- and post- trigger requirements of 

the market trading program fall under the definition of “applicable requirements”, and will be 

incorporated into each source’s Title V permit. 20.11.46 NMAC requires that any source that 

for any reason and at any time, is not required to have a permit under 20.11.42 NMAC must 

obtain a New Source Review permit pursuant to 20.11.40 NMAC, 20.11.60 NMAC, or 

20.11.61 NMAC, that incorporates the same requirements, and that the source must at all 

times possess a permit containing the program’s requirements. Additionally, in order for a 

source permitted under Title V to become a synthetic minor source, and thus not need a Title 

V permit, a source must first obtain federally enforceable permit limits through a New Source 

Review permit, and thus there will be no gap between the effective Title V permit and the 

new NSR permit which contains the same market trading program requirements. Both types 

of permits are enforceable both federally and by citizens pursuant to this Implementation 

Plan. 

PART D - 2013 SIP Revision; Backstop for Beginning of Second Planning Period: 

D1. Requirements of 2013 SIP Revision. 

In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10), the 2013 SIP shall contain: 

1. Source specific allocations for all WEB sources under the jurisdiction of the 

Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) for the year 2018; and 

2. Either the provisions of a program designed to achieve reasonable progress for 

stationary sources of SO2 beyond 2018 or a commitment to submit a SIP/TIP revision

containing the provisions of such a program no later than December 31, 2016. The 

program will ensure that, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 for the first planning period 

are achieved, including requirements that cannot be measured until after 2018, such as 

the determination of compliance with the 2018 milestone. 

D2. Adjustments in Allocation Calculations. 

This 2013 SIP revision will provide certainty to sources regarding their potential liability under 

the special penalty provisions for the year 2018 outlined in Section A5 of this Implementation 

plan. The calculation of these allocations is delayed until 2013 to provide certainty about the 

number of sources that would qualify as WEB sources at that time; the allocations needed for 

new sources in the region; and early reductions that would need to be included in the 

allocation process. It is difficult to estimate the impact of these factors today because many 

things will change during the next 10 years. 

If the 2018 milestone is not met, the starting point for the next planning period shall be the 

2018 milestones, not actual emissions in 2018. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

54

Achievement of 13 Percent SO2 Emission Reduction. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), the Department has determined that a 13 percent 

reduction in actual stationary source SO2 emissions occurred between 1990 and 2000. 

Table 9 below provides a state-by-state comparison of these emissions, and shows that 

there has been a 25 percent reduction from 1990 to 2000 for all states (from 828,775 tons to 

621,838 tons). Further information on the emission inventories used for this calculation is 

described in Appendix K-SIP of this implementation plan. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

55

Table 9: State-by-State Comparison of SO2 Emission Reductions, 1990-2000 

(In tons per year)

States 1990 2000 

Arizona 185,398 99,133 

California 52,832 38,501 

Colorado 95,534 99,161 

Idaho 24,652 27,763 

Nevada 52,775 53,943 

New Mexico 177,994 117,344 

Oregon 17,705 23,362 

Utah 85,567 38,521 

Wyoming 136,318 124,110 

Totals 828,775 621,838

D3. Provisions for Stationary Source NOx and PM. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the Department has included in this SIP, a report which 

assesses emissions control strategies for stationary source NOx and PM, and the degree of 

visibility improvement that would result from implementation of the identified strategies. The 

report, Stationary Source NOx and PM Emissions in the WRAP Region: An Initial 

Assessment of Emissions, Controls, and Air Quality Impacts, was prepared by the WRAP 

and is included in Appendix H-O. This report represents the initial assessment of stationary 

source NOx and PM strategies for regional haze, and as such, should be considered a 

starting point for a more extensive process and analysis aimed at supporting the commitment 

by the Department to a SIP revision by 2013. This report concludes the following: 

“Analysis of current and future emissions, ambient monitoring data, and very limited 

modeling results does not show stationary source NOx and PM emissions to be a 

major contributor to regional haze (typically about two percent on average) in the vast 

majority of western Class I areas. These findings may change as emission 

projections are updated and as ambient monitoring data from new sites is collected 

and analyzed, and especially as modeling capabilities are improved and as modeled 

and monitored data become available for the best and worst visibility days instead of 

seasonal and annual averages. Furthermore, when considering NOx and PM 

milestones, attention should be given to the reasonable progress goals in the regional 

haze rule, which generally entail steady and continuing emission reductions and no 

degradation on the best visibility days. Finally, the remedy embodied in reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment requirements under the regional haze rule is still 

available where BART-eligible sources of NOx and PM are found to have direct 

impact on specific mandatory federal Class I areas. Where stationary source NOx 

emission reductions are appropriate, substantial reduction may be feasible with 

commercially-available technologies for about $300 to $1,200 per ton.” 

Additional findings from this report are described in Appendix H-O of this implementation 

plan. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

56

The Department commits to a SIP revision containing any necessary long-term strategies 

and BART requirements (if applicable), for stationary source NOx and PM (including 

enforceable limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures) by no later than 

December 31, 2013. 

SECTION D. MOBILE SOURCES 

1. Regulatory History and Requirements

In its June 1996 Report, the GCVTC recommended EPA move forward on new national 

vehicle emission and fuel standards to reduce emissions from mobile sources. The GCVTC 

also recommended other regional and local strategies be considered to manage mobile 

source emissions. One of the local strategies was to establish emission budgets for those 

pollutants in urban areas shown to significantly contribute to visibility impairment in any of the 

16 GCVTC Class I areas. The budget caps were to be set at the 2005 emission levels. 

When EPA finalized the Regional Haze Rule in July 1999, the rule acknowledged that the 

GCVTC recommendations related to national vehicle emission and fuel standards. EPA 

included a status of planned actions on those recommendations as of July 1999 (Preamble 

to the Regional Haze Rule, 64 FR 35753). EPA noted these new measures were over and 

above those included in the Regional Haze Rule for mobile sources that simply required a 

cap on emissions in significantly contributing urban areas at the 2005 level. EPA also 

indicated that emission reductions resulting from new standards adopted after the Regional 

Haze Rule was approved would be creditable toward reasonable progress. EPA also 

committed to work with the states if new national standards impacted the efficacy of regional 

or local strategies. 

After the Regional Haze Rule was finalized, EPA established new standards for on-road 

vehicle emission and fuel standards (65 FR 6698) as well as standards for diesel vehicles 

and diesel fuel (66 FR 5002). As a result, current mobile source emission projections 

developed by WRAP for the GCVTC Transport Region indicate overall mobile source 

emissions will decline continuously from 2003 through the end of the SIP planning period in 

2018, which is more than the level of emission reductions that EPA approved to meet 

reasonable progress by holding mobile source emissions constant from their 2005 level. In 

addition, new standards for off-road vehicles were proposed by EPA on April 15, 2003, and 

are expected to be finalized, which will further reduce overall mobile source emissions. 

At the April 2003 WRAP Board meeting, the WRAP approved a recommendation for EPA to 

modify the Regional Haze Rule eliminating the current requirements related to mobile source 

emission significance determination and budgets for urban areas (40 CFR 309(d)(5)), and 

replacing those requirements with a new requirement focused on tracking mobile source 

emission reductions resulting from national standards to assure reasonable progress. This 

action was based on the finding that emissions of all pollutants from on-road and off-road 

mobile sources are expected to decline significantly through 2018 except for sulfur dioxide 

from non-road sources. If EPA adopts new low-sulfur standards for off-road mobile sources 

then off-road mobile source sulfur dioxide emissions will also decline continuously through 

2018. The WRAP Board deliberations did not define criteria for mobile source significance, 

leaving the determination of significance under the current rule (40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii)) to 

the states and tribes. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

57

On July 3, 2003, EPA proposed a direct final rule (68 FR 39842) to amend the mobile 

sources provision of the Regional Haze Rule consistent with the recommendations of the 

WRAP. The rule was promulgated on December 22, 2003 (68 FR 71009). The revisions 

amended 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i) and eliminated the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii) for setting mobile sources emissions budgets using the lowest 

projected level as a planning objective and performance indicator for each area. Instead, the 

new Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) requires statewide inventories to demonstrate a continuous 

decline in emissions of each pollutant of concern over the planning period. Should mobile 

source emission not decline as expected, the Department will review control options for 

mobile sources and determine if additional controls are needed, consistent with the criteria 

for reasonable progress. If the Department determines that additional controls are needed, 

the Department will prepare a revision to the implementation plan. 

In addition to the revisions to Section 51.309(d)(5)(i) and the elimination of Sections 

51.309(d)(5)(ii) and (iii), a backstop provision as outlined by the WRAP was added. The new 

Section 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B) requires the Department to assess the need for any long-term 

strategies to address SO2 from non-road mobile sources by no later than December 31, 

2013. States may determine if a SIP revision is necessary to address SO2 from mobile 

sources by considering whether the emission reductions anticipated or achieved by any 

Federal standards in place addressing fuel sulfur content for non-road engines are sufficient 

to meet reasonable progress. The direct final rule also renumbered the requirement to 

review other GCVTC mobile source strategies from (d)(5)(iv) to (d)(5)(ii). 

(a) Actual and Projected Statewide Inventory for Mobile Source Emissions. 

Pursuant to requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i), a statewide inventory of baseline 

and future year mobile source emissions has been compiled for the years 2003 to 2018, 

with assistance from the WRAP. Tables 10, 10.1, 10.2 & 10.3 below summarize these 

emissions as well as estimates for the Albuquerque Urban Area, and indicate that the 

year mobile source emissions are projected to be at their lowest level within the state and 

within the City of Albuquerque, will be at the end of the SIP planning period in 2018, 

instead of 2005 as anticipated by the GCVTC. The substantial reduction of projected 

mobile source emissions from 2003 to 2018 is primarily due to the adoption of new onroad vehicle emission and fuel standards by the EPA. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

58

Table 10: On-Road and Non-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for New 

Mexico: 1996 Baseline and 2018 (emissions in tons per YEAR) 

Year VOC NOx SO2 PM 2.5*

1996 194 208 5.7 6.6 

2003 137 179 7.6 6.7 

2008 95 132 0.8 6.3 

2013 70 87 0.9 4.3 

2018 59 60 1.0 3.3 

Lowest Year 2018 2018 2008 2018 

*PM2.5 includes Elemental Carbon (EC) and Organic Carbon (OC). 

Table 10.1. On-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for Albuquerque Urban 

Area: 1996 Baseline and 2018 {emissions in tons per DAY} (Environ, 2004, p. 8, 

Appendix 2007-C) 

Year VOC NOx SO2 PM 10

1996 68 64 2 2 

2003 49 55 2 2 

2008 34 41 0 2 

2013 24 27 0 2 

2018 20 18 0 2 

Lowest Year 2018 2018 2018 2018 

Table 10.2. Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for Albuquerque Urban 

Area: 1996 Baseline and 2018 {emissions in tons per DAY} (Environ, 2004, p. 9, 

Appendix 2007-C) 

Year VOC NOx SO2 PM 10 

1996 15 20 5 3 

2003 11 17 5 2 

2008 8 14 6 2 

2013 7 13 6 2 

2018 7 12 6 2 

Lowest Year 2018 2018 2018 2018 

Table 10.3. TOTAL On-road and Non-road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for 

Albuquerque Urban Area: 1996 Baseline and 2018 {emissions in tons per DAY} 

(Environ, 2004, p. 7, Appendix 2007-C) 

Year VOC NOx SO2 PM 10 

1996 83 84 7 5 

2003 60 72 8 5 

2008 42 55 6 4 

2013 31 40 6 4 

2018 27 31 6 4 

Lowest Year 2018 2018 2018 2018 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

59

(b) Program to assure continuous decline in mobile source emissions. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(A), the Department commits to monitoring the 

emissions from mobile sources to assure a continuous decline in emissions as defined in 

40 CFR 51.309(b)(6). If the Department determines that a continuous decline in 

emissions is not being achieved, additional control measures will be reviewed to 

determine if they are needed to make reasonable progress. If the Department 

determines such measures are needed, it will submit an implementation plan revision to 

address the identified control measures. 

(c) Backstop provision to address potential increase in non-road emissions in the 

event Federal standards are not finalized. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(i)(B), the Department commits to provide for a SIP 

revision no later than December 31, 2008 2013, containing long-term strategies 

necessary to reduce emission of SO2 from non-road mobile sources consistent with the 

goal of reasonable progress. The need for a SIP revision will be determined by a 

consideration of the emission reductions achieved or anticipated to be achieved by 

Federal standards should those standards addressing fuel sulfur content for non-raid 

engines not be in place. 

2. Other GCVTC Strategies for Mobile Sources 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(5)(ii), the Department has reviewed the other mobile source 

recommendations contained in the GCVTC report. Based on the evaluation made by the 

Department, no additional measures have been identified as being practicable or necessary 

to demonstrate reasonable progress. However, there is already an Inspection & 

Maintenance program in place in Bernalillo County that is an effective local emission 

reduction strategy for mobile sources. 

3. 2007 Interim Progress Report: 

In the 1996 Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) report there is a 

discussion of recommended regional and local emissions reductions strategies for mobile 

sources. 

The regional strategies are to: 

 Establish Clean Fuel Demonstration Zones 

 Analyze Pricing and Incentive Approaches 

 Explore an Inspection Program for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, and 

 Promote Vehicle Maintenance. 

The local strategies are to: 

 Promote Incentives for Innovative and Effective Approaches 

 Encourage Better Integration of Transportation, Land Use and Air Quality Planning 

 Establish Mobile Source Emissions Budgets for Selected Major Urban Areas 

 Suggest Retiring High-Emitting Vehicles (see below). 

The Department has implemented a Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance Program (“I & M”), in 

Bernalillo County, pursuant to 20.11.100 NMAC. The most recent strategies to reduce 

emissions that are included in this testing program became effective on May 1, 2004, and 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

60

include: phase-in of BAR 97 OBDII analyzers certified to meet program specifications with 

all testing to be done using said analyzers by July 1, 2004; the incorporation of a pressurized 

gas cap test to reduce hydrocarbon emissions; the reduction of cutpoints (maximum 

allowable levels of hydrocarbon emissions); diesel vehicles are required to be tested at 

change of ownership; vehicles defined as “gross polluters” are required to be repaired to 

reduce emissions below that threshold prior to being granted a waiver or time extension; time 

extension for repair has been limited to one year and one time per vehicle; vehicles in model 

years with inspection failure rates exceeding 25% (i.e. 1975-1985) are required to be tested 

annually or at each registration renewal; requirement that vehicles defined as “marginal 

passes” be issued a certificate valid only for a one-year registration. Testing heavy-duty 

vehicles and retiring high-emitting vehicles has also been considered. Therefore, progress 

has been made in that some of the GCVTC mobile source recommendations have been 

implemented. 

SECTION E. PROGRAMS RELATED TO FIRE 

Page 35753 in the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) discusses the requirements 

for fire sources. The States are required to: 1) document that the smoke management 

program and any other programs for prescribed fire have a mechanism in place for 

evaluating and addressing the degree of visibility impairment in the 16 Class I Areas, 2) 

adopt a statewide process for gathering the essential post-burn activity information to support 

emissions inventory and tracking systems for the five major pollutant types emitted from all 

fire sources, 3) adopt a process for identifying feasibly removable administrative barriers to 

the use of non-burning alternatives, 4) adopt an Enhanced Smoke Management Program 

(ESMP) for all fire sources in the State, and 5) adopt a process to establish annual emission 

goals for all fire sources except wildfire. 

Regarding administrative barriers to the use of non-burning alternatives, States may elect to 

establish a long-term collaborative process with key public and private entities, such as state 

departments of agriculture and forestry, and farming and forestry associations. One way to 

establish such a process would be for a state to sign a voluntary letter of agreement between 

these entities. If administrative barriers are found, the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air 

Quality Control Board (AQCB) will collaborate with the necessary entities to address them. 

(a) Definitions: 

Note: The definitions in this section apply only to this Implementation plan and 

correspond to the regulation 20.11.21 NMAC, Open Burning. 

“Agricultural Burning” means the burning of crop residues for field preparation or that 

is otherwise used for the production of a crop.

“Alternative to Burning” means a treatment employing manual, mechanical, chemical, 

or biological methods to manage vegetation and/or fuel loads, or land management 

practices that treat vegetation (fuel) without using fire. A treatment or practice may only 

be considered an alternative if it has successfully been used to take the place of fire for at 

least three consecutive years. Suggested alternatives to burning are listed in Section 

20.11.21.18 NMAC
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

61

“Environmentally Non-Essential Burning” means the open burning of any unwanted 

combustible material which could otherwise reasonably be altered, destroyed, reduced or 

removed to a suitable disposal site without the potential to cause environmental harm or 

damage. 

“Environmentally Poor Burning Substances” include but are not limited to: refuse, 

paper, rubbish, books, magazines, fiberboard, packaging, rags, fabrics, animal waste, 

waste oil, liquid or gelatinous hydrocarbons, tar, paints and solvents, chemically treated 

wood, plastic or rubber, office records, sensitive or classified wastes, hazardous or toxic 

substances, interiors of wrecked vehicle bodies or other materials which are difficult to 

burn without producing significant amounts of noxious and/or toxic fumes or dense 

smoke. 

“Fire” means “wildfire, wildland fire (including prescribed natural fire), prescribed fire, 

and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands 

and farmlands” [40 CFR 51.309(b)(4)]. Prescribed natural fire has been functionally 

replaced by wildland fire managed for resource benefit or “Wildland Fire Use” (WFU) 

under the National Fire Plan. Except where “prescribed fire” is noted, the term “fire” shall 

apply to the sources identified herein. 

“No-burn Period” means a period of time, declared by the Director, during which no 

person with authority or power to control the operation of a solid fuel heating device shall 

allow the operation of a solid fuel heating device to continue, following a burn down 

period, within the wood smoke impacted area, unless the device is a wood heater that 

has been emission certified by the EPA. Exemptions may be granted by the Director per 

20.11.22.2 NMAC. No-burn periods may be declared any time from October 1 through 

February 28. The Director shall declare a no-burn period after reviewing available 

meteorological data, air pollution monitoring data, and other relevant information and 

determining that expected atmospheric conditions will not adequately disperse wood 

smoke. 

“Open Burning” means the combustion of any substance which is not confined in a 

device having controllable fuel/air mixture capable of achieving nearly complete 

combustion, and from which combustion products are discharged into the open air 

without passing through a stack, duct, chimney, or vent. 

“PB-I” or “Level I Prescribed Burn” means a smoke management burn project that 

emits less than one ton of PM10 emissions per day or burns less than 5,000 cubic feet 

pile volume of vegetative material per day. 

“PB-II” or “Level II Prescribed Burn” means a smoke management burn project that 

emits one ton or more of PM10 emissions per day or burns 5,000 cubic feet or more pile 

volume of vegetative material per day. 

"Prescribed Fire" Or “Prescribed Burn” or “PB” means any fire ignited by any person 

to meet specific land management objectives. For the purposes of 20.11.21 NMAC, 

wildland fire use is considered a prescribed fire. 

“Ventilation Index” means a technical rating used to establish the potential for smoke or 

other pollutants to ventilate away from its source. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

62

“Ventilation Index Category” means a category in the ventilation index that is 

determined as provided in Section 20.11.21.17 NMAC and is rated as excellent, very 

good, good, fair, or poor. 

“Wildfire” means an unplanned and/or unwanted fire that burns vegetative material in a 

natural or modified state. 

“Wildland” means an area in which there is minimal development, except for roads, 

railroads, power lines, and similar utilities and transportation facilities. Structures, if any, 

are widely scattered. 

“Wildland Fire Use” means the management of wildfire within a wildland that is ignited 

by natural forces, such as by lightning or volcanic eruption, following a decision to allow 

the wildfire to burn to accomplish specific pre-stated resource objectives in predefined 

geographic areas, also known as fire use, wildfire use, prescribed natural fire, and fire for 

resource benefit. 

“Winter pollution Advisory Season” Or “No-Burn Season” means the period from 

October 1st through February 28th each year when no-burn calls are made. The no-burn 

call is a control strategy designed to protect the air quality in Bernalillo County. This 

strategy helps mitigate particulate matter and carbon monoxide buildup during the colder 

months of the year when temperature inversions trap pollutants closer to ground level. 

“Wood Smoke Impacted Area” means that portion of Bernalillo County that is the most 

adversely affected by the burning of wood during atmospheric conditions that the Director 

concludes may not adequately disperse wood smoke. The wood smoke impacted area is 

bounded on the north and south by the Bernalillo county line, on the west by the universal 

transverse meridian (UTM) line 337000mE and on the east by the UTM line 367000mE, 

Zone 13. 

(b) Prescribed Fire Program Evaluation: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i), the Department has evaluated its smoke 

management program and all Federal, State, and private prescribed fire smoke 

management programs in Bernalillo County based on the potential to contribute to 

visibility impairment in the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau, and how visibility 

protection from smoke is addressed in planning and operation. 

The Department has also evaluated whether its smoke management program and these 

prescribed fire smoke management programs contain the following elements: actions to 

minimize emissions; evaluation of smoke dispersion; alternatives to fire; public 

notification; air quality monitoring; surveillance and enforcement; and program evaluation. 

Tables 11 and 12 describe the results of these evaluations in detail. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

63

Table 11: Prescribed Fire Programs that Impact Bernalillo County 

Types of Prescribed Fire Programs 

Federal State Local 

(Bernalillo County) Private 

U.S. Forest ServiceCibola National 

Forest 

State of New Mexico 

Open Burning Rule, 

20.2.60 NMAC & 

Smoke Mgmt. Rule, 

20.2.65 NMAC 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo 

County Open Burning

Regulation, 

20.11.21 NMAC 

None known at this 

time. 

The regulation, Open Burning, 20.11.21 NMAC, is the foundation of the Open Burning 

Program, which the Department administers and enforces. Per 20.11.21.12 NMAC, 

unless otherwise exempted, open burning by any person is prohibited in Bernalillo 

County. The goal of this regulation is to eliminate environmentally non-essential burning.

20.11.21.13 NMAC conditionally allows open burning for certain activities with a permit. 

Permits are issued for either a single event or multiple events. Most of the multiple event 

open burning permits are for detonations for research and development purposes. For 

timber and forest management, a single event open burning permit is required for burns 

of 1⁄4 acre or more. In recent years, the U.S.D.A. Forest Service has obtained a multipleevent open burning permit for the Cibola National Forest. For each burn, the permittee 

must specify where the burn will occur and provide a 48-hour notice to the Department. 

The permittee must also verify that a No-Burn Alert has not been called by the 

Department, prior to engaging in any burning activities. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

64

Table 12: Comparison of the AQCB Regulation, Open Burning, 20.11.21 NMAC, before 

and after incorporating the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) Requirements 

RHR Requirement / 

ESMP 

Recommendation 

Previous Open 

Burning Regulation, 

20.11.21 NMAC, 

(Before 2003 Regional 

Haze amendments) 

Amended Open Burning Regulation 

(Effective 12/31/03) 

Actions to 

minimize 

emissions 

Restrictions on what can 

be burned and when 

For burns over 1 ton PM-10 emissions per 

day, requires use of at least one ERT* 

Evaluation of 

smoke dispersion 

None. “PBII”: For burns exceeding 1 ton PM10

emissions per day, requires visual 

monitoring; The Department may decide to 

conduct instrument monitoring. Burns can 

only be conducted if ventilation category is 

"Good" or better. “PBI”: For burns less than 

1-ton PM10 emissions per day, requires 300-

foot setback from occupied structure or place 

where people congregate and burn only 

during certain hours; or burner may choose to 

follow visual monitoring and ventilation 

category requirements under ‘PBII’. 

Alternatives to fire Permit requires burner 

to state: “What 

alternatives to burning 

have been considered 

and why they were not 

chosen instead of 

burning” 

{20.11.21.13.B(3)(d) 

NMAC}. 

For burns exceeding 1 ton PM10 emissions 

per day, requires documentation of 

alternatives analysis. 

Public notification None “PBI” & “PBII”. Requires notification of 

Bernalillo County Fire Department along with 

local fire authority; as well as public 

notification. 

Air quality 

monitoring 

None “PBII”. For burns exceeding 1 ton PM10

emissions per day, requires visual 

monitoring; The Department may decide to 

conduct instrument monitoring on burns close 

to populations. 

Surveillance and 

enforcement 

Regulatory 

requirements, if not met, 

are subject to 

enforcement 

All prescribed burning is subject to 

inspection. The Department may revoke 

permits and take any other enforcement 

action authorized under state or federal 

statutes, rules and regulations 

Program 

evaluation 

None Annual program evaluation and meeting with 

burners and other stakeholders. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

65

RHR Requirement / 

ESMP 

Recommendation 

Previous Open 

Burning Regulation, 

20.11.21 NMAC, 

(Before 2003 Regional 

Haze amendments) 

Amended Open Burning Regulation 

(Effective 12/31/03) 

Regional 

coordination 

None The Department will use notifications to 

predict air shed capacity; The Department will 

work with the WRAP and the State of New 

Mexico on inter-jurisdictional coordination. 

Tracking/emission 

inventory 

Filed permits All burners are required to submit tracking 

forms; The Department will use this 

information to calculate emissions. 

Burn authorization Permits issued by the 

Department to federal or 

state burners. 

"Permit-by-rule" – burners are required to 

register in advance of burns, submit 

notification one day in advance for burns 

greater than 1-ton PM10 emission per day; 

The Department determines air shed capacity 

and may require burners to modify or 

postpone burns. 

The AQCB made changes to elements of the smoke management program (as listed 

above) to bring the previous Open Burning regulation, 20.11.21 NMAC, into alignment 

with the Regional Haze Rule. These changes are reflected as amendments to the Open 

Burning regulation. These amendments were adopted by the AQCB on 11/12/03 and 

became effective within Bernalillo County on 12/31/03. 

(c) Emissions Inventory and Tracking System. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(ii), a system has been established to develop a tracking 

system and an emissions inventory for the following pollutants: VOC, NOx, elemental 

carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC) and PM 2.5 (fine particulate) for fire sources within 

Bernalillo County. The Department will implement an emissions tracking system that 

follows the WRAP Fire Tracking System Policy (see Appendix K-O), which identifies a 

process for gathering the essential post-burn activity information necessary to 

consistently calculate emissions and uniformly assess fire impact on regional haze on an 

annual basis. The fire tracking system described in this policy consists of seven 

components: (1) date of burn, (2) burn location, (3) area of burn, (4) fuel type, (5) preburn fuel loading, (6) type of burn, and (7) “anthropogenic” or “natural” classification or 

information to support this classification. This policy serves as the basis for creating a 

fire emissions inventory within Bernalillo County. 

Appendix K-SIP of this implementation plan contains information on the emissions 

inventory and tracking system that the WRAP developed for fire emissions. Note that 

existing emissions inventories prepared by the Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) satisfy 

the requirement for a statewide inventory and emissions tracking system for VOC, NOx, 

elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC) and PM 2.5. 

All sources of fire in Bernalillo County are required to submit tracking information 

following completion of burns. Burners are required to submit information on acreage or 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

66

pile-volume of burns and emission reduction techniques utilized. This tracking 

information will be used to develop an emissions inventory for emissions from all sources 

of fire in Bernalillo County. Emission factors will be applied to each burn to develop 

emissions estimates. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) is expected to 

follow this same procedure. See Appendix L-O for guidance on how to calculate 

emissions using emission factors and how to estimate fuel loading. 

The following processes will be used by the AQCB and the Department for tracking 

emissions from fire sources: 

3⁄4 For “PBI” and “PBII” prescribed burns, including those involving timber or agricultural 

lands, the Burner will notify the Department of its plan to conduct a burn prior to initiating 

the burn. Initial estimates are made by the Burner on the quantity of material or acres to 

be burned. 

3⁄4 20.11.21.15 NMAC requires the Burner to submit to the Department quantitative 

information regarding the fuel types, fuel consumption, and type of burn once the 

prescribed burn has been completed. 

3⁄4 The Department shall use the quantitative information submitted by the Burner to 

calculate the emissions estimates for VOCs, NOX, EC, OC, and PM2.5 for each regulated 

burn. Each year the Department will complete an emissions inventory for these 

pollutants and submit a report to the AQCB, the State of New Mexico Environment 

Department, and any participating tribes in New Mexico. The AQCB may solicit public 

comment regarding the annual report. The report will discuss the overall level of fire 

emissions in Bernalillo County and compare these results to the annual emissions goals 

for Bernalillo County. In addition, the Department will submit emissions inventory reports 

to the WRAP upon completion. 

3⁄4 The Department shall maintain all records pertaining to prescribed burns regulated 

pursuant to 20.11.21 NMAC. In addition, the Department shall archive all emission 

inventory reports. All prescribed burn records and the completed annual emissions 

inventory reports will be made available to the public, upon request. It is also expected 

that the WRAP summaries of fire emissions for the Western states will be available to the 

public on the WRAP website. 

3⁄4 The Department shall work collaboratively with the New Mexico Environment 

Department and participating tribes to compile statewide emission inventories and track 

the emissions in a temporal and spatial manner. Statewide inventories and tracking 

information will be made available to the public upon request. 

(d) Strategy for Use of Non-Burning Alternatives. 

The Department shall develop a process to coordinate with key public and private 

entities, (such as the state departments of agriculture and forestry, farming and forestry 

associations), to identify and remove administrative barriers to the use of non-burning 

alternatives to prescribed fire on federal, state, and private lands in a manner consistent 

with 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iii). The process will be collaborative and provide for 

continuing identification and removal of administrative barriers, and will consider 

economic, safety, technical and environmental feasibility criteria and land management 

objectives. In developing this process, the Department will rely on two documents: (1) 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

67

Non-burning Alternatives for Vegetation and Fuel Management, and (2) Burning 

Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States, prepared 

by the WRAP, that describe a variety of non-burning alternatives and methods of 

assessing their potential applicability (see Appendix 2007-E). The WRAP Fire Emissions 

Forum recommends that these documents be used as reference guides in state and land 

manager decision-making processes for evaluating non-burning alternatives. The Forum 

also recommends that states identify in their 309 SIPs the administrative barriers they 

know to exist in their state, and the steps or process they will follow to remove them 

where it is feasible to do so. 

During the development of the required smoke management revisions to the regulation, 

Open Burning, 20.11.21 NMAC, the Department identified administrative barriers to the 

use of a Non-Burning alternative, namely the use of air curtain incinerators (ACI). 

Subsection B of 20.11.68.200 NMAC of the AQCB regulation Incinerators and 

Crematories, is entitled, Construction/Operation, and states that: “The construction, use 

or operation of an incinerator, even if an ‘affected facility’ pursuant to 40 CFR 60, Subpart 

Ea as amended, on any property is prohibited, except for certain crematories as allowed 

by this part”. In addition, it is possible that 20.11.41 NMAC, Authority to Construct, may 

become an impediment to the use of air curtain incinerators if a permit is required. There 

have not been any requests for a variance from the requirements of 20.11.68 NMAC 

submitted to the Department by burners in order to operate an ACI. Therefore no 

amendments have been proposed. If in the future, the Department receives a request for 

a variance to allow the operation of an ACI, then, the AQCB may direct the Department to 

take actions necessary to propose revisions to the regulation(s) and hold the necessary 

public hearings to modify the regulation(s) in order to remove the barriers. 

The Department’s ongoing efforts to identify administrative barriers shall include the 

periodic review of registration forms and permits submitted by burners. In the registration 

form required for burns conducted under Prescribed Burn II (PBII), or under a permit, 

burners are required to identify why alternatives to burning have not been used. The 

Department shall collect this data and analyze it to determine whether administrative 

barriers to the use of alternatives exist. Should it determine that a specific administrative 

barrier exists, the Department shall meet with the appropriate agency(ies) to discuss how 

any barriers might be removed and will work collaboratively with the agency(ies) and the 

burners to remove the barrier. 

(e) Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP). 

Pursuant to CFR 51.309(d)(6)(iv), all smoke management programs that operate within 

Bernalillo County shall be consistent with the WRAP’s Enhanced Smoke Management 

Programs for Visibility Policy (see Appendix M-O). This policy calls for programs to be 

based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land 

management objectives and reduction of visibility impacts. The WRAP policy report lists 

the previously identified elements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(i) as well as adding “burn 

authorization” and “regional coordination” elements to ensure visibility protection and 

meet the designation of “enhanced”. 

Table 12 contains a more detailed assessment of specific elements of the AQCB’s 

current smoke management program which are embodied in the previous (September 

2003) Open Burning regulation and compares this previous regulation to the amended 

regulation. Table 12 demonstrates that the amended regulation meets the Enhanced 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

68

Smoke Management Program (ESMP) policy and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

requirements. The amended regulation was adopted by the AQCB on 11/12/03, and, 

became effective on 12/31/03. 

The amended Open Burning regulation, 20.11.21 NMAC, which became effective on 

December 31, 2003, specifically addresses sources of fire over 10 acres in size or 

greater than 1,000 cubic feet in pile-volume. The amended Open Burning regulation 

requires the use of at least one emission reduction technique for all burns with emissions 

of PM10 greater than one ton per day. These burns must also only be conducted under 

dispersion conditions rated ‘good’ or better. All burners with burns greater than 10 acres 

per day or 1000 cubic feet pile-volume per day are required to register the burn project 

prior to burn and follow up after the burn with tracking, including documentation of the 

use of emission reduction techniques. For burns with emissions of greater than one ton 

of PM10 emissions per day, burners are required to provide an explanation on the 

registration form why they did not utilize alternatives to burning. 

(f) Annual Emission Goals (AEGs) 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6)(v), efforts will be made within Bernalillo County to 

minimize emission increases from fire, excluding wildfire, to the maximum extent feasible, 

through the establishment of annual emission goals, in accordance with the WRAP’s 

Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy (see Appendix N-O). This policy recognizes that 

Emission Reduction Techniques (ERTs) can be used to minimize emissions from fire. 

The Department will establish a collaborative mechanism for setting annual emission 

goals and developing a process for tracking their attainment on a yearly basis. 

The projection and tracking of ERT use is a minimum element of the quantifiable annual 

emission goal. The AEG should utilize the projection of total emissions inventory for 

prescribed fire and agricultural burning such that the effect of projected ERTs or 

percent-use of ERTs are shown in relation to projected total emissions. Should projected 

annual emissions not be available, the Department must develop such an inventory and 

submit a timeline for developing the inventory. This timeline will coincide with the 

capacity of the WRAP’s Emissions Data Management System (EDMS) and/or WRAP’s 

Fire Emissions Tracking System (FETS), to provide such an inventory, or prior to the first 

SIP revision period. Where ERT’s or other emission reduction methods cannot be 

quantified with confidence due to the current state of the science, such as for agricultural 

burning, states should say so and support efforts toward further refinements in emission 

reduction (or emissions averted) calculation methodologies. 

The Department intends to use this policy and quantify the ERTs that are being used 

within Bernalillo County on a project-specific basis to reduce the total amount of 

emissions being generated from areas where prescribed fire is being used. The use of 

ERTs to meet this rule requirement is subject to economic, safety, technical and 

environmental feasibility, and land management objectives. 

The AQCB and the Department shall work to establish AEGs in a cooperative process 

with stakeholders, who shall include the State of New Mexico Environment Department, 

participating tribes, affected federal land management agencies including a 

representative from the Cibola National Forest and affected private entities. In 

developing the AEGs, the Department shall review the registration data provided by 

burners for the upcoming burn year, the tracking data submitted by burners for the 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

69

previous year, and evaluate the use of emission reduction techniques (both those tracked 

for the previous year and those planned for the upcoming year). These data will permit 

the evaluation of the potential (for the upcoming year) and actual (from the previous year) 

emissions from fire in the absence of the use of ERTs and to determine the amount of 

emissions that were averted by the use of ERTs. The amended Open Burning regulation 

requires the use of at least one ERT for all prescribed fires with emissions exceeding one 

ton of PM10 per day. 

The Department shall review the gathered data with stakeholders on an annual basis. 

This data shall be used to establish the AEGs for the upcoming year. After the 

Department has completed the technical evaluations regarding the establishment of the 

AEGs, the Department shall submit the proposed AEGs to the AQCB. The first set of 

AEGs shall be established by the AQCB by resolution no later than April 30, 2009 and 

the public will be given an opportunity to review the proposed AEGs and submit 

comments to the AQCB. The AEGs shall be reviewed annually and updated as 

appropriate following the same process. The AEGs shall be made available to the public 

upon request. The AQCB shall also review the emissions inventory data and other 

information related to fire emissions to evaluate whether the AEGs have been met or 

exceeded. 

SECTION F. PAVED & UNPAVED ROAD DUST 

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) required states to assess the impact of dust emissions on 

regional haze in the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau in the first implementation 

plan submitted in December of 2003, and was to include a projection of visibility conditions 

through 2018 for the least and most impaired days. Page 35753 of the Preamble to the RHR 

discusses the requirements for paved and unpaved road dust. 

If dust emissions were determined to be a significant contributor to visibility impairment, the 

state would have been required to implement emissions management strategies to address 

their impact. The road dust assessment was limited to the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. 

(a) Impact of Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 

assessed the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads from transport 

region states on the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau. 

(b) Contribution to Visibility Impairment Finding: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(7), the results of the aforementioned assessment of the 

impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads from transport region states on 

the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau performed by the WRAP (described below) 

the Department has determined that regional scale dust emissions for the purpose of the 

RHR are not a significant contributor to visibility impairment within the 16 Colorado 

Plateau Class I Areas. Based on these findings, no specific emission management 

strategies have been identified for inclusion in this SIP submittal. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

70

The Department will continue to work with EPA and other entities to research the effects 

of road dust on visibility impairment, and will re-evaluate whether or not additional dust 

control strategies should be developed to address regional haze. 

WRAP Modeling Results. 

Road dust emission inventories were developed for WRAP states and the significance of 

road dust was then tested using the regional air quality model. Across WRAP states, 

paved road dust emissions are predicted to increase by about 3% per year from 1996 to 

2018, concurrent with the forecasted increase in vehicle miles traveled. Unpaved road 

dust emissions are projected to decrease between 1996 and 2018, by about 0.75 % per 

year, because of reductions in unpaved road mileage over time as more roads are paved. 

As a result, unpaved road dust emissions are about 80% of road dust PM10 emissions in 

1996, and are estimated to be about 65% of road dust PM10 emissions in 2018. Overall, 

projected road dust PM10 emissions increase by about 6% from 1996 to 2018. 

The modeled regional impact of road dust emissions at the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I 

Areas ranged from 0.31 deciviews (3.1% of natural conditions to be reached by 2064) at 

the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to 0.08 deciviews (0.8% of natural 

conditions to be reached by 2064) at the Weminuche Wilderness. From these 

preliminary results, the WRAP has determined that the regional impacts of road dust 

emissions are not significant at the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas at this time. 

However, based upon the WRAP’s most recent analysis and a recognition that the 

modeling will improve, the Department has determined that further research will be 

needed. Unpaved road dust will be reevaluated as part of the SIP revision due in 2013.

(c) Tracking of Road Dust Emissions: 

The Department shall track road dust emissions with the assistance of the WRAP, 

consistent with provisions of the RHR and other relevant EPA and WRAP guidance. The 

Department shall provide an update on paved and unpaved road dust emission trends, 

including any modeling or monitoring information regarding the impact of these emissions 

on visibility in the 16 Colorado Plateau Class I Areas. These updates shall include a reevaluation of whether road dust is a significant contributor to visibility impairment. These 

updates shall be part of the periodic implementation plan revisions pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.309(d)(10). 

Current Efforts to Control Paved and Unpaved Road Dust Emissions 

The AQCB has taken a proactive approach towards reducing PM10 emissions to keep 

Bernalillo County in attainment status and protect the health of the community. On 

January 14, 2004, the AQCB repealed the regulation, Airborne Particulate Matter, and 

replaced it with a more rigorous regulation, Fugitive Dust Control, 20.11.20 NMAC, which 

became effective on 3/1/04 (see Appendix 2007-G). The intent of the regulation is to 

control fugitive dust generated by human impact on the environment. Reducing fugitive 

dust reduces the adverse health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 and it improves the quality of 

life for all residents. Preventing fugitive dust is also important for safety and general 

welfare of the community. 

The new regulation requires that persons must use reasonably available control 

measures (RACMs) to reduce fugitive dust and keep dust on the site where it is 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

71

generated. Active operations are prohibited from causing fugitive dust that adversely 

affects health, public welfare, and safety, impairs visibility or the reasonable use of 

property. Also, visible fugitive dust caused by active operations cannot cross a property 

line for more than 15 minutes in one hour. Inactive disturbed areas must be stabilized to 

prevent fugitive dust. 

With some exceptions, a person who plans to disturb 3⁄4 of an acre or more is required to 

obtain a permit and pay fees. A new form of permit called a Programmatic Permit is 

issued to public agencies on an annual basis for routine maintenance activities. The new 

regulation places restrictions on the construction of new unpaved roadways longer than 

1⁄4 mile in length, unpaved short-cuts, and unpaved parking areas. New unpaved areas 

will need to be stabilized to limit fugitive dust. 

For the first time, the fugitive dust regulation includes a wide range of reasonably 

available control measures in the regulation itself. (i.e. Silt fencing around construction 

sites, re-vegetation of a new roadway project, seed specifications, access control to 

unpaved roadways, early construction of walls around housing projects, use of water 

trucks, installation of paving and curbing, use of millings on shoulders, an access 

controlled maintenance road, and a swale with revegetation, etc.). 

SECTION G. POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) 

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires a detailed assessment of Pollution Prevention (P2) 

programs and activities in each state, and an estimate of emission reductions and visibility 

improvements that could result from these programs and activities. This requirement is for 

an assessment only; a state does not have to adopt any specific energy-related strategies or 

regulations. Page 35754 in the Preamble to the RHR discusses the P2 requirements for 

regional haze. 

A state’s 309 SIP must include the following: 1) a summary of all P2 programs currently in 

place, 2) total energy generation capacity and production in the state and the percentage that 

is renewable, 3) any incentive programs that reward efforts that go beyond compliance, 4) 

any programs that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts, 5) any specific areas 

where there is the potential for renewable energy to supply power in a cost-effective manner, 

6) projections of the short and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost 

savings and secondary benefits associated with renewable energy goals and energy 

efficiency and pollution prevention activities, and 7) the state’s anticipated contribution 

toward the renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015. 

(a) Summary of P2 Programs in the State. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Tables 13 through 17 below summarize all P2 

programs in place in New Mexico (as of 2003) that could affect Bernalillo County. Table 

18 summarizes all renewable energy generation capacity and production in use or 

planned as of 2002 in Bernalillo County. The renewable energy generation capacity and 

production in use or planned for the State of New Mexico as of 2002 is presented in 

Appendix O-O for comparison. Table 19 summarizes the total energy generation 

capacity and production in Bernalillo County, and the percent of the total that is 

renewable. Total energy generation capacity and production in the State of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

72

and the percent of the total that is renewable, is presented in Appendix O-O for 

comparison. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

73

Table 13: Policy Mechanisms to Promote Renewable Energy 

Program Title Program Description 

Renewable 

Portfolio Standard 

Eligible Technologies: Solar, Thermal, Electric, Photovoltaic, 

Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydro, Geothermal Electric, Fuel Cells

Standard: 5% in 2006, rising to 10% in 2011 

Technology Minimum: No 

Credit Trading: Yes 

Date Enacted: 12/17/02 

Effective Date: 7/1/2003 

Website: http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/utility.htm 

Authority 1: NM PRC Case No. 3619 

Authority 2: 17.9.572 NMAC 

Summary: 

 This rule requires public utility companies to produce 5% of all 

energy they generate for New Mexico customers from solar, wind, 

hydropower, biomass, or geothermal sources by 2006. Generation 

from renewables must increase by at least 1% per year until the 

portfolio standard (RPS) of 10% is attained in the year 2011. 

 Utilities document compliance with the RPS with Renewable 

Energy Certificates (REC), which represent kilowatt hours (kWH) of 

renewable energy produced. 

 One kWH of electricity generated by wind or hydroelectric 

technologies is worth one kWH toward compliance with the RPS; 

One kWH of biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, or fuel cell power is 

worth two kWH REC; and One kWH of solar power is worth three 

kWH REC 

 Investor owned utilities and electric cooperatives are required to 

offer a voluntary renewable energy tariff (green pricing program) for 

those customers who want the option to purchase additional 

renewable energy. El Paso Electric has filed an appeal with the 

state Supreme Court, taking issue with the rule. That case is 

currently pending with the court. 

John Curl 

NM Public Regulation Commission 

224 East Palace Ave., Marian Hall 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

Phone: (505) 827-6960 

 E-Mail: john.curl@state.nm.us 

 Web site: http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/ 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

74

Program Title Program Description 

Mandatory Utility 

Green Power Option Incentive Type: Mandatory Utility Green Power Option 

Eligible Technologies: Photovoltaic, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, 

Hydro, Geothermal Electric, Fuel Cells 

Applicable Sectors: Utilities 

Date Enacted: 12/17/02 

Authority 1: 17.9.572.10D NMAC

Authority 2: NMPRC Case No. 3619 

Summary: 

 The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) has 

approved a renewable energy rule that requires investor owned 

utilities and electric cooperatives to offer a voluntary renewable 

energy tariff (green pricing program) for those customers who 

want the option to purchase additional renewable energy. These 

utilities must also develop an educational program on its voluntary 

renewable energy program. The renewable energy tariffs must be 

filed with the NMPRC by the end of September 1, 2003. 

 The rule also requires public utility companies to produce 5% of 

all energy they generate for New Mexico customers from solar, 

wind, hydropower, biomass, or geothermal sources by 2006. 

Generation from renewables must increase by at least 1% per 

year until the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 10% is 

attained in the year 2011. 

Contact: 

John Curl 

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission 

224 East Palace Ave. 

Marian Hall 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

Phone: (505) 827-6960 

E-Mail: john.curl@state.nm.us 

Web site: http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/ 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

75

Program Title Program Description 

Net Metering Incentive Type: Net Metering Rules 

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential 

Limit on System Size: 10 kW 

Limit on Overall Enrollment: None 

Treatment of Net Excess: Avoided cost or credited to the following month 

Utilities Involved: All utilities 

Interconnection Stds. for Net Metering? Yes 

Date Enacted: 1998, amended 1999 

Effective Date: 12/31/98 

Expiration Date: none 

Authority 1: 17 NMAC 10.571

Authority 2: 1998 NM PUC Order 2847

Summary: 

 The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) has issued a 

rule requiring all utilities regulated by the PRC to offer net metering for 

cogeneration facilities and small power producers with systems of 10 kW 

or less. Municipal utilities are exempt because they are not regulated by 

the PRC. There is no statewide cap on the number of systems eligible for 

net metering. 

 Net excess electricity generated by a qualifying system must be 

credited to the customer on the next bill by either (1) crediting or paying 

the customer for the net energy supplied to the utility at the utility's 

"energy rate"; or (2) crediting the customer for the net kilowatt-hours of 

energy supplied to the utility. Unused credits shall be carried forward 

from month to month. In this case, if a customer leaves the system, 

utilities must pay the customer for any unused credits at the utility's 

"energy rate". 

 This rule amended New Mexico's November 30, 1998, net metering 

ruling, PSC Final Order Case #2847. Under this rule, net excess 

generation was credited to the customer's next monthly bill with any 

unused credited granted to the utility at the end of the year. 

Contact: 

John Curl 

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission 

224 East Palace Ave. / Marian Hall 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

Phone: (505) 827-6960 E-Mail: john.curl@state.nm.us 

Web site: http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/ 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

76

Program Title Program Description 

System Benefits Charge The Electric Utility Industry Re-structuring Act of 1999 [Sections62-

3A-1 to -23, NMSA 1978] 

 Under this Act, retail competition for electricity supplies was 

scheduled to begin in New Mexico on January 1, 2002. 

 A “System Benefits Charge” of three-hundredths of one cent 

($0.0003) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity sold is imposed by 

the Act. The charge rises to six-hundredths of a cent ($0.0006) per 

kWh beginning in 2007. Money resulting from this charge on all 

customers’ electric bills will be deposited in a newly established 

“System Benefits Fund.” Currently, this collection began on January 

1, 2002. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) is to 

disburse money from the Fund for PRC public education programs 

($500,000 annually); low-income energy assistance (no less than 

$500,000 annually); renewable energy for cities, counties and 

school districts (no more than $4 million annually); and for 

renewable energy and transmission lines in low-income areas with 

little or no electrical service (no more than $4 million annually). The 

money in this fund will be used in New Mexico for several “public 

benefit” purposes: 

1. Consumer education 

2. Weatherization projects 

3. Initiation, development, & evaluation of renewable energy 

projects 

4. Electric service to unserved and underserved areas 

www.emnrd.state.nm.us/Mining/resrpt/00/5Second.pdf 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

77

Program Title Program Description 

Line Extension Incentive Type: Line Extension Analysis 

Eligible Technologies: Photovoltaic 

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Residential, Utilities 

Availability: none 

Requirements: none 

Service: Information provided by utility 

Expiration Date: none 

Authority 1: NMPUC Case Number 2476 

Summary: 

 Due to New Mexico Public Utility Commission Case 

Number 2476, electric utilities in the state are required to 

provide information on alternative energy systems to 

remote customers with less than a 25-kW load who 

request line extensions. This requirement applies when 

the cost of the requested line extension is greater than 15 

times the estimated annual revenue from the line 

extension. In such cases, utilities must provide 

customers with information on suppliers of alternative 

energy systems. 

Contact: 

John Curl 

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission 

224 East Palace Ave. 

Marian Hall 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

Phone: (505) 827-6960 

E-Mail: john.curl@state.nm.us 

Web site: http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/ 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

78

Table 14: Financial Incentives to Promote Renewable Energy 

Program Title Program Description 

New Mexico 

Renewable 

Energy Production 

Tax Credit 

Incentive Type: Corporate Tax Credit 

Eligible Technologies: Solar; Thermal, Electric, Photovoltaic, Wind, 

Biomass 

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial 

Amount: 1 cent/kWh 

Max. Limit: First 400,000 MWh 

Terms: Eligible for 10 consecutive years 

Date Enacted: 3/4/02 

Effective Date: 7/1/02 

Website: http://www.state.nm.us/tax/forms/year02/rpd41227.pdf 

Authority 1: New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Section 7-2A-19. 

Authority 2: 3.13.19 NMAC 

Summary: 

 This tax incentive was enacted into law during the 2002 New Mexico 

Legislative Session. It originally provided a tax incentive in the amount of 

one cent ($0.01) per kilowatt-hour for each kilowatt-hour of electricity 

generated from solar or wind energy resources. The credit is applied 

against a company’s state income tax liability. Qualifying facilities had to be 

at least 20 megawatts in size, with the credit available up to a maximum of 

400,000 megawatt-hours per year per company or 800,000 megawatt-hours 

per year in the aggregate for all companies. The statute was amended in 

2003 to include biomass as a qualifying form of source material. Other 

amendments included lowering the minimum megawatt limit for qualifying 

projects from 20MW to 10MW to allow smaller wind, solar and biomass 

projects to qualify; and increasing the total amount of the credit available 

each year from 800,000 megawatt-hours to 2,000,000 megawatt-hours. 

Contact: 

Harold Trujillo 

NM Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Dept 

Energy Conservation and Management Division 

P.O. Box 1948 / 1220 South Saint Francis Drive 

Santa Fe, NM 87504 

Phone: (505) 827-7804 Fax: (505) 827-3903 

E-Mail: hjtrujillo@state.nm.us 

Web site: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ecmd 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

79

Industrial Revenue 

Bond (IRB) 

Financing 

Statutory/Regulatory Citation: 

New Mexico Statutes 

Annotated: NM Industrial 

Revenue Bond Act (Section 

3-32-1 et seq.); and County 

Industrial Revenue Bond Act 

(Section 4-59-1 et seq.) 

[http://www.legis.state.nm.us] 

Description: 

The cited laws provide that any county or 

municipality may issue Industrial Revenue 

Bonds (IRBs) for the purpose of financing 

electric generating plants, including those 

fueled by renewable resources. The 

significance of IRB financing is the 

associated tax advantages. 

Gross Receipts 

Tax Exemption for 

Wind Equipment 

Statutory/Regulatory Citation: 

New Mexico Statutes 

Annotated, Section 7-9-54.3 

[http://www.legis.state.nm.us]; 

Description: 

This law provides wind developers an 

exemption from the gross receipts tax for 

certain wind equipment, including nacelles 

and rotors, provided the project is financed 

with Industrial Revenue Bonds (Section 7-

9-54.3 NMSA 1978). 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

80

Table 15: Programs to Promote Renewable Energy 

Policy Program 

Title 

Program Description 

State Energy 

Program 

State Energy Program

 The State Energy Office administers the U.S. DOE State Energy 

Program grant and implements program goals to encourage energy 

efficiency and renewable-energy usage, provide energy education and 

community outreach, offer policy advise to the Executive and Legislative 

branches, and help New Mexico citizens reduce their utility bills and 

improve their comfort and safety. 

 The Energy Office is funded through a combination of federal funds and 

Petroleum Violation Escrow funds. 

Director: Chris Wentz 

(505) 476-3312 

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us 

Special Projects 

 The State Energy Office administers the State Energy Program – 

Special Project Grants. Each year states submit proposals in response to 

a DOE solicitation identifying how specific technologies could be 

implemented in their region of the country. DOE then selects the projects 

that best meet national energy goals. The Energy Office publicizes grant 

availability, helps prepare grant applications, selects partners for project 

implementation and administers grants. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

81

Policy 

Program Title 

Program Description 

Solar 

Development 

and Use 

New Mexico Million Solar Roofs Partnership 

Incentive Type: Outreach Program 

Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat, Active Solar Space Heat, 

Photovoltaic, Solar Pool Heating Systems 

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential, General Public, 

Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, Utilities, State Government, 

Tribal Government 

Goal: Install 600 solar systems in New Mexico, and one million 

nationwide by the year 2010 

Date Enacted: 1997 

Website: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ecmd/html/solar.htm 

Summary: 

 The Energy Conservation and Management Division of the New 

Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department lead the 

New Mexico Million Solar Roofs Initiative (MSRI). The U.S. DOE, 

through its Regional Offices, focuses its efforts on national, state and 

local partnerships. These partnerships are made up of the building 

industry, other federal agencies, local and state governments, utilities, 

energy service providers, the solar energy industry, financial institutions, 

and non-governmental organizations. The goal is to remove market 

barriers to solar energy use, develop, and strengthen local demand for 

solar energy products and applications. 

Contact: 

Michael McDiarmid, P.E. 

NM Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Dept 

Energy Conservation and Management Division 

1220 South Saint Francis Drive 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Phone: (505) 476-3319 Fax: (505) 476-3322 

E-Mail: mmcdiarmid@state.nm.us 

Schools with Sol Solar Demonstration 

 The Schools with Sol program is managed by ECMD to implement one of 

Governor Richardson’s conservation agenda goals, which is to provide solar 

power to 10 schools each year. Solar energy systems will be installed at New 

Mexico schools, competitively selected, to be used as demonstrations in 

renewable energy education for K-12 students, as well as reduce energy 

consumption. Both photovoltaic and solar domestic water heating systems will 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

82

Policy 

Program Title 

Program Description 

be used. A teacher at each participating school will “champion” their system 

through educational activities in renewable energy. System installers will be 

selected from statewide price agreements. ECMD is using $100,000 in federal 

funds to implement the current FY2004 cycle of 10 school installations, with an 

additional $18,000 provided by Public Service Company of New Mexico and inkind contributions provided by participating schools. 

Solar Rights Act of 1978 

Incentive Type: Solar Access Law/Guideline 

Eligible Technologies: Passive Solar Space Heat, Solar Water Heat, 

Active Solar Space Heat, Solar Thermal Electric, Solar Thermal Process 

Heat, Photovoltaics 

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential 

Easement: Yes 

Covenant: No 

Zoning/Development: Yes 

Date Enacted: 1/1/78 

Expiration Date: none 

Authority 1: New Mexico Code 47-3-1 -- 47-3-5 

Summary: 

New Mexico's Solar Rights Act of 1978 allows property owners to create 

solar easements for the purpose of protecting and maintaining proper 

access to sunlight. The New Mexico Energy Conservation and 

Management Division reports that three to five solar easements are 

granted each year. The Solar Rights Act also includes provisions 

allowing local governments to create their own ordinances or zoning 

rules pertaining to the protection of solar rights. 

Contact: 

Harold Trujillo 

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 

Energy Conservation and Management Division 

P.O. Box 1948 

1220 South Saint Francis Drive 

Santa Fe, NM 87504 

Phone: (505) 827-7804 

Fax: (505) 827-3903 

E-Mail: hjtrujillo@state.nm.us 

Web site: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ecmd 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

83

Policy 

Program Title 

Program Description 

Solar Recordation Act 

Authority 1: New Mexico Code 47-3-9 http://www.legis.state.nm.us 

Description: 

 The Solar Recordation Act declares that solar energy is a viable energy 

source in New Mexico and, as such, its development should be encouraged. 

The purpose of the Act is to accomplish such encouragement through the 

protection of solar rights necessary for small-scale installations. A solar right is 

considered an “easement appurtenant” and may be claimed by an owner of real 

property upon which a solar collector has been placed. The solar right is 

claimed and recorded by filing a declaration with the county clerk of the 

applicable county where the property is located; a sample declaration is 

included in the statute as are provisions for notification of affected property 

owners. The statute also provides for the transfer of solar rights when a 

property changes ownership. 

Solar Energy Development Act 

Authority 1: New Mexico Code 71-6-1 to -3 http://www.legis.state.nm.us 

Description: 

 The purpose of Solar Energy Development Act is to promote development 

and use of solar energy in New Mexico, by both industry and government, for 

the benefit of New Mexico and United States citizens. It is proposed to 

accomplish this purpose through active measures to encourage the location 

within New Mexico of research to discover practical and feasible methods to 

harness solar energy, as well as development of a vigorous and productive 

solar energy industrial complex. The New Mexico Economic Development 

Department is charged with various responsibilities under the Act, including 

establishment and operation of a program to encourage investment in the 

research and application of solar energy within New Mexico; development of 

necessary promotional material to be used in the process of attracting new 

investment capital within the solar energy field; employing sufficient staff to 

carry out the purpose of this law; and cooperation with private firms and all 

agencies of the state and federal government in furthering research and 

investment in solar energy use in New Mexico. 

Solar Collector Standards Act 

Authority 1: New Mexico Code 71-6-4 to -10 http://www.legis.state.nm.us 

Description: 

The purpose of the Solar Collector Standards Act is To develop and implement 

a program to promote solar industry and stimulate a demand for high quality 

solar components and systems. The New Mexico Energy, Minerals and 

Natural Resources (EMNRD) is charged with the responsibility under the Act to 

promulgate regulations to define minimum standards for the durability and 

reliability of solar collectors; and to establish criteria for testing the durability, 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

84

Policy 

Program Title 

Program Description 

reliability and thermal efficiency of solar collectors. The Department is also 

authorized to develop and implement a solar collector certification program. 

EMNRD promulgated appropriate regulations and implemented the specified 

certification program in the mid-1980s until the expiration of federal and state 

solar tax credits. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

85

Program Title Program Description 

Biomass 

Development and 

Use Program 

Western Regional Biomass Program 

Biomass Industry Development Working Group 

 The Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department is serving as 

the convener of a Biomass Industry Development Work Group in New 

Mexico. The purpose of this group is to develop a coordination process to 

encourage and assist in the development of a viable biomass industry in 

New Mexico, resulting in improved forest health and increased use of 

domestic biomass resources to stimulate economic development. This 

process will include assessing opportunities, current projects, end products 

(biofuels, biopower and bioproducts), supply, technologies, incentives, 

barriers, funding and economics. 

Wind Development 

and Use Program 

Wind Powering America Program 

NM Wind Energy Working Group 

 The New Mexico Wind Energy Working Group was established in 

December 2000. It is an informal organization of representatives from both 

the public and private sectors, including wind developers, related 

businesses, federal/state/tribal/local governments, national laboratories, 

electric utilities, universities, and renewable energy advocates. 

Approximately 80 individuals are now included on the NM Wind Working 

Group e-mail address list. The Energy Conservation and Management 

Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources 

Department coordinates the group, with assistance from Sandia National 

Laboratories-Albuquerque and the U.S. DOE’s Wind Powering America

program. 

 A primary role of the Working Group is to function as a stakeholder 

organization that can act and speak collectively on behalf of geothermal 

interests operating in New Mexico. Key tasks and activities of the NM 

Wind Energy Working Group are: serve as a forum for networking, 

communications and coordination among wind stakeholders; acquisition 

and dissemination of information about existing wind resources, their 

development and use in electric generation; identification and delineation of 

the issues that impede expansion of wind applications; and removal of 

barriers to geothermal advancement. 

New Mexico Wind Energy Center 

 PNM and FPL Energy in October 2002 announced an agreement to 

develop the New Mexico Wind Energy Center, to be built in eastern New 

Mexico. Power produced at the energy center in eastern New Mexico will 

flow onto the PNM-owned electric grid. PNM has introduced a "green 

tariff," subject to approval by state regulators which would allow customers 

to sign up for and support energy from this renewable project through 

payment of a small monthly premium. To the extent customers subscribe 

to the program, PNM will direct that amount of energy toward meeting local 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

86

(jurisdictional) needs. PNM will seek to sell the remainder of the power on 

the wholesale market, either within or outside of New Mexico. PNM’s 

involvement with the New Mexico Wind Energy Center represents the 

largest private-sector investment in renewable energy in New Mexico 

history. PNM hopes to use residential and business participation in the 

voluntary green tariff program as a way to gauge support for these kinds of 

projects. PNM will use this information to guide any renewable projects it 

may undertake in the future. Three factors — improvements in wind 

technology, the scale of this project and the existence of both federal and 

state tax credits — make power from the New Mexico Wind Energy Center 

more cost-effective than power from other renewable energy sources 

currently available. The addition of energy from the New Mexico Wind 

Energy Center will change PNM's generation portfolio. Wind will comprise 

8 % of PNM's overall generation capacity, which is the portfolio's peak 

potential output. However, because of the intermittent nature of wind, the 

facility is expected to comprise about 4 % of the energy actually produced 

by or for PNM over the course of a given year. (From “New Mexico Wind 

Energy Center” prepared by Public Service Company of New Mexico 

http://www.pnm.com/systems/nmwec.htm ) 

ConservationSmart from Xcel EnergySM - Windsource® 

Incentive Type: Green Pricing Program 

Eligible Technologies: Wind 

Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Xcel 

Energy electric customers 

Premium: $3.00 per block per month, 1 block = 100 kWh 

Commitment: 1 year residential; 3 years commercial 

Effective Date: 1999 

Website:http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,2795,1-1-

2_735_777-221-2_68_132-0,00.html 

Summary: 

 Conservation Smart from Xcel EnergySM supports the 

Windsource® program in Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico. 

All residential, commercial and industrial electric customers are 

invited to participate in this program, which supports grid-connected 

wind turbines. Residential customers can sign up for one year 

periods and buy wind energy at $3.00/month for 100 kWh blocks; 

commercial customers can sign up for three year periods and either 

choose the "Leader" plan, buying all their energy from renewable 

resources, or the "Supporter" plan, buying in blocks similar to 

residential customers. Xcel Energy has used bill inserts and media 

events to market Windsource® and is working with environmental 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

87

groups to further promote the program. 

To sign up for Windsource®, call 1-800-824-1688 or download, print 

and mail in the sign-up form from the Windsource® website. 

Contact: 

Andy Sulkko 

Xcel Energy -Marketing Division 

1225 17th Street, Suite 1100 

Denver, CO 80202-5533 

Phone: (303) 294-2554 

E-Mail: andy.sulkko@xcelenergy.com 

Web site: http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/

Hydrogen 

Development and 

Use Program 

Hydrogen Technology Partnership (HyTep) 

 The Energy Conservation and Management Division is administering 

the U.S. DOE Industries of the Future (IOF) program in New Mexico. The 

Industries of the Future program seeks to bring together industry, 

academia, and state agencies to address industrial energy efficiency and 

pollution prevention. These public-private coalitions facilitate industry 

solutions locally and enhance economic development. New Mexico is 

currently focusing on the mining and forest products industry because of 

their high energy use, opportunities for pollution prevention and important 

role in New Mexico’s economic development 
Table 16: Policy Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency/Energy 

Conservation 

Policy Program Title Program Description 

Governor’s Executive 

Order: Resource 

Efficiency in State 

Government 

 Since 1992 New Mexico State Government has been directed through 

Executive orders to reduce energy consumption and costs in state 

buildings. To accomplish the directive the State Energy Office has provided 

technical assistance, financial assistance grants, and worked with state 

agencies to develop and implement energy plans. New Executive Order 

currently being developed. 

Public Facility Energy 

Efficiency and Water 

Conservation Act 

New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Sections 6-23-1 to-10 

http://www.legis.state.nm.us 

 This legislation allows state agencies, school districts, and universities to 

enter into ‘Performance contracts’ whereby private sector energy service 

companies provide the up-front costs of energy saving measures (such as 

installation of more efficient lighting, motors, and heating systems) and 

guarantee energy savings to recoup their investment through the utility cost 

savings over the period of up to 10 years. By statute, the State Energy 

Office is responsible for review of the proposed contracts to ensure that 

savings estimates are accurate and reasonable prior to agencies entering 

into performance contracts. 

Green Purchasing: 

Energy Star 

Partnership 

 New Mexico is working with the U.S. DOE and the Environmental 

Protection Agency to become a partner in the Energy Star Program to 

promote the benefits of energy efficient homes, buildings, and products. 

According to Energy Star Program if all available opportunities for energy 

efficiency improvements were taken advantage of more than $229 million 

would be saved annually and 2.5 billion pounds of CO2, 6 million pounds of 

NOx, and 5.7 million pounds of SO2 would be prevented each year in New 

Mexico. 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

88
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

89

Table 17: Programs to Promote Energy Efficiency/Energy Conservation 

Policy Program 

Title 

Program Description 

State Government 

Energy 

Management 

Program 

Electric/Gas Utility Database 

 Professional engineering staff with the State Energy Office maintains a 

utility database that tracks utility usage by state agencies. 30 utility 

companies provide the data across the state. The database is the sole 

centralized repository for information on the State’s $13 million building 

energy expenditures. 

Energy Performance Contracting 

Public Schools 

Energy Efficiency 

Program 

Construction Plan Review 

 Professional energy engineers within the State Energy office continue to 

work with school districts throughout New Mexico in an effort to improve 

their facilities’ energy efficiency. Under an agreement with the State 

Department of Education the construction plans are reviewed to ensure 

compliance with applicable building energy codes. 

Energy Performance Contracting 

New Mexico school districts utilize “performance contracts” to implement 

energy efficiency projects in school buildings that are paid from guaranteed 

energy savings. Private-sector energy service companies provide the upfront investment and installation of the energy efficient measures 

Public Schools 

Energy Efficiency 

Program 

Construction Plan Review 

 Professional energy engineers within the State Energy office continue to 

work with school districts throughout New Mexico in an effort to improve 

their facilities’ energy efficiency. Under an agreement with the State 

Department of Education the construction plans are reviewed to ensure 

compliance with applicable building energy codes. 

Energy Performance Contracting 

New Mexico school districts utilize “performance contracts” to implement 

energy efficiency projects in school buildings that are paid from guaranteed 

energy savings. Private-sector energy service companies provide the upfront investment and installation of the energy efficient measures 

Commercial and 

Industrial Sector 

Energy Efficiency 

Program 

Building America Program 

Building Energy Codes/Standards 

 The State Energy office has participated in several code technical 

advisory group meetings, provided graphical comparisons between old and 

new code requirements, and has been working with the Construction 

Industries Commission (CIC) to upgrade New Mexico’s residential and 

commercial building energy codes. Currently Energy Office efforts on 

codes are being concentrated in the areas of 1) codes adoption, and 2) 

training provided to the building industry designed to help insure that 

structures designed to code will be more energy efficient 

Current Residential Energy Code: 1992 MEC with state amendments, 

mandatory statewide. 

Current Commercial Energy Code: ASHRAE 90A-1980 and 90B-1975, 

mandatory statewide; ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989 mandatory for state-
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

90

Policy Program 

Title 

Program Description 

funded buildings. 

Code Change: Most recent code update effective 10/1/1994. 

(http://www.bcap-energy.org/backissues.html ) 

Green Zia Environmental Excellence Program 

 The Green Zia Environmental Excellence program is a voluntary 

program designed to support and assist all New Mexico businesses to 

achieve environmental excellence through continuous improvement and 

effective energy management. The program encourages integration of 

environmental excellence into business operations and management 

practices through establishment of a prevention-based environmental 

management system. The Governor of New Mexico recognizes and 

presents awards annually to organizations that successfully participate in 

the program. 

Rebuild America/Rebuild NM Program 

 Lead Organization: Rebuild New Mexico/NM Energy, Minerals and 

Natural Resources Department (NM EMNRD) 

The City of Albuquerque joined Rebuild America in 1998. By 1999, this 

partnership had morphed into the larger Rebuild Central New Mexico. IRS 

designated Rebuild Central N.M. with 501(c)3 status in 2002. 

 Rebuild NM supports reducing energy costs, water consumption and 

pollution to save energy, boost the economy and support national security. 

Partners include businesses, local governments, schools, and community 

and professional organizations 

 Rebuild Central New Mexico received two DOE grants for FY 2002: 1. 

Promote updated Codes and Standards to the construction industry, 

including architectural surety and energy efficiency; 2. Provide broad 

educational programs, partner development and workshops on energy 

efficiency. Administration's energy goals include: generation of 10% of the 

State's energy from renewables, becoming one of the top three wind 

producing states by the end of 2006, expanding net metering, achieving 

increased energy savings in state buildings and putting clean, fuel efficient 

vehicles on the roads. 

 Albuquerque Public Schools–saved 489,617 KWh and $36,971 

compared to the 2000-01 school year due to behavior changes in the use 

of energy by students, teachers and staff. In the 1st quarter of 2002-2003, 

31 participating schools have saved 1,096,126 KWh and $82,594 

compared to 2000-2001. The City of Albuquerque’s recently enacted 1% 

of the Capital Program for Energy Conservation Projects, and is a national 

milestone. 

 Albuquerque Housing Authority is implementing Performance 

Contracting as a financing option to save energy and costs long term. 

 Rebuild NM received Rebuild America’s Energy Champion Award for 

Commercial Buildings in 2002 for its audit work. Efforts are currently 

underway to follow up these audits with implementation plans and 

strategies, which will provide more insight regarding retrofit and cost 

savings. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

91

Policy Program 

Title 

Program Description 

( http://www.rebuild.org/news/newsdetail.asp?NewsID=1583 ) 

Julie Stephens, Coordinator 

Partnership Main Contact 

Rebuild Central New Mexico 

1801 Fourth Street NW - Bldg. B 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

Phone: (505) 768-5346 

Fax: 505 768-5317 

E-Mail: info@rebuildnewmexico.org; rebuildnmjulie@aol.com

http://www.rebuild.org/sectors/communitylocal_state.asp?OrganizationID=8

3 

Industries of the Future Program 

The US DOE Program seeks to broaden the impact of investments in 

advanced industrial technologies and practices for energy efficiency and 

waste reduction through implementation of nationally developed IOF vision 

and technology roadmaps. New Mexico is currently conducting inventories 

of energy use and pollution prevention within the mining and forest 

industries in the state and will be working on a sustainability plan.

Residential Sector 

Energy Efficiency 

Program 

Weatherization Assistance Program 

The New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority through an Agreement with 

the State of New Mexico administers New Mexico’s Weatherization 

Assistance Program (federal and private funds), low-income, 

weatherization program The primary mission of this program is to reduce 

the energy required for space heating and cooling for income eligible 

households applying for assistance through the process sub-grantees, 

statewide. This program receives its primary funding from the U.S. DOE 

and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program 

also leverages additional funds through partnership with utilities, and other 

federal and state housing programs. Many aspects of the Residential 

Training and Technical Assistance Programs are now incorporated into the 

training of Weatherization sub-grantees, which assures that savings are 

maximized. 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP ) 

LIHEAP is a Federally-funded program that helps low-income households 

with their home energy bills. LIHEAP assists low-income households in 

meeting the costs of heating and cooling their homes. States, Tribes and 

Insular areas, which assist low-income households with high-energy 

burdens and vulnerable members may apply for LIHEAP block grant 

funds. LIHEAP benefits include heating or cooling assistance; energy 

crisis interventions to cope with weather-related and supply-shortage 

home energy emergencies; low-cost residential weatherization and other 

energy-related home repairs to assist in safely increasing the efficiency of 

home energy consumption. The Office of Community Services 

administers this program. Hub activities are limited to referral services and 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

92

Policy Program 

Title 

Program Description 

general information dissemination activities regarding grant opportunities 

and announcements 

Lori Williams, LIHEAP Program Mgmr 

Income Support Division 

Community Development & Commodities Bureau 

New Mexico Human Services Department 

5301 Central NE, Suite 1520 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 

TEL: (505) 841-6535 (Albuquerque area) or 1-800-283-4465 (statewide) 

FAX: (505) 841-6522 

E-MAIL: Loretta.Williams@state.nm.us

www.state.nm.us/hsd/isd.html

Paisano-Weatherization Program 

6729 4th St. NW 

Albuquerque, NM 

Phone (505) 344-7211 

Weatherization program for low-income residents of Bernalillo, Sandoval, 

Torrance and Valencia Counties. 

High-Efficiency Washing Machine Program 

Sponsor: City of Albuquerque 

Energy Star Platform: No 

Service Territory: 480,000 residents of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico 

Goals & Objectives: To encourage utility customers to buy high-efficiency 

machines and to help bring down the cost of the machines by increasing 

the volume of sales. The program goal for 2002 is to provide 1,100 

credits. 

Program Description: The City of Albuquerque provides a credit on the 

water bills of customers who purchase a CEE-qualified washer. 

Incentives: Clothes Washers: $100 credit on water bills for CEE-qualified 

clothes washers. 

Field Support: City of Albuquerque provides rebate information and forms 

to participating retailers. 

Marketing: bill inserts, and newspaper articles. 

Budget: FY2002 $110,000 

Further Information: Jean Witherspoon 505-768-3633 jasw@cabq.gov 

www.cee1.org/resid/seha/02seha-progsum.pdf
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

93

Table 18: Summary of Renewable Energy Generation Capacity and Production in Use 

or Planned as of 2002 in Bernalillo County

Categories Year 2002 (kW) Existing & Planned 

as of 2002 (kW) 

Total kWh in 2002 

Solar 6.6 6.6 6.6 

BioGas 2200 2200 2200 

TOTAL 2206.6 2206.6 2206.6 

(From Custom Report: Plant Name, Utility, City, Year Operational, Operational Status, Unit 

Number, and Capacity (kW) by State, Technology, and Fuel, prepared by Renewable Electric 

Plant Information System (REPiS), Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy. http://analysis.nrel.gov/ repis/online_reports.asp and Operating Facilities 

by Technology in the State of New Mexico, prepared by the Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy program of DOE 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy/opfacbytech.cfm?state=NM) 

Table 19: Total Energy Generation Capacity and Production in Bernalillo County. 

Operator Plant Name Fuel MW 

Percent Of 

Total That Is 

Renewable 

PNM Reeves Station Natural gas 154 0 

Delta Power 

LLC 

Delta-Person 

Generating 

Station 

Natural gas 132 0 

TOTAL 286 MW 0 

After “Power Plants” prepared by Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). 

http://www.pnm.com/systems/plants.htm 

(b) Summary of the Anticipated Contribution Toward the Renewable Energy Goals 

for 2005 and 2015. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(i), Appendix O-O summarizes the State’s anticipated 

contribution toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015. 

See also Section H of this chapter. Bernalillo County’s anticipated contribution toward 

meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015 is negligible. 

(c) Incentive Programs: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(ii), Table 19 identifies incentive programs in the State of 

New Mexico that reward efforts to go beyond compliance and/or achieve early 

compliance with air pollution related requirements and subsequently affect Albuquerque/ 

Bernalillo County. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

94

Table 20: Summary of New Mexico’s Incentive Programs that Affect Bernalillo County 

Program Title Program Description 

Green Zia Environmental 

Excellence Program 

 The Green Zia Environmental Excellence Program is a 

voluntary program designed to support and assist all New Mexico 

businesses to achieve environmental excellence through 

continuous improvement and effective energy management. The 

program encourages integration of environmental excellence into 

business operations and management practices through the 

establishment of a prevention-based environmental management 

system. The Governor of New Mexico makes recognitions and 

awards annually to organizations that successfully participate in 

the program. 

 The Six Core Values of the Green Zia Environmental 

Excellence Program are: 

•Leadership Commitment 

•Efficient Product, Service and Process Design 

•Continuous Improvement and Organizational and Personal 

Learning 

•Valuing Employees and Partners 

•Management by Fact 

•Sustainability 

New Mexico Environment Department 

Office of the Secretary 

Dave Wunker 

PO Box 26110 

1190 St. Francis Drive 

Santa Fe, NM 87502 

(505) 827-0677 

(505) 827-2836 

davewunker@nmenv.state.nm.us 

Program Title Program Description 

Industry and 

Government 

Partnership Pollution 

Prevention (P2

) 

Awards 

 In 1997, the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department's Air 

Quality Division and New Mexico Facility Managers' Network (NMFMN) 

initiated the Industry and Government Partnership Pollution Prevention 

(P2

) Awards to recognize industrial pollution prevention efforts. The 

goals of this partnership are to promote P2

, encourage the exchange of 

technical and managerial methods, and to facilitate innovative solutions 

to environmental impacts to air, water and land pollution. 

 Joint Industry and Government Pollution Prevention Award Year 

2001 Innovative Air P2

 Awarded to: Coronado Center-Randy Sanchez. 

Coronado Center supports local efforts to minimize air pollution in the 

community by providing park and ride programs for the New Mexico 

State Fair, International Balloon Fiesta and other events to significantly 

reduce the amount of pollution from motor vehicles. During the winter 

holiday season, Coronado Center initiates the "Carpool Corral" by 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

95

reserving 40 parking spaces for multi- occupant vehicles. The seasonal 

pollution reduction for the six week winter holiday season in calendar 

year 2000 was approximately 1.14 tons of carbon monoxide. These 

initiatives help to sustain air quality during the Winter Pollution Advisory 

Season, conserve energy and support the local economy. 

Joint Industry and Government Pollution Prevention Award Year 2001 

Large Business Air Quality P2

 Award presented to: DOE Sandia 

National Laboratories / NM Michael duMond 

 In 1997, The DOE / Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) initiated a 

study to improve operation of the Steam Plant that provides steam to 

energy services for Technical Area One and East Kirtland Air Force 

Base. The goal of the project was three-fold: maximize combustion 

efficiency, and reduce fuel usage and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. 

The 2001 construction phase involved, retrofit of flue gas recirculation 

on boilers to complete the Steam Plant Optimization and Emission 

Reduction Project. The direct result of the initiatives is an increase in 

1.5 percent efficiency and a total NOx reduction of 2.3 tons per year, 

with an additional 39.8 tons per year NOx reduction from the flue gas 

recirculation. The program also sustains a cost savings for natural gas 

consumption of over $46,000 per year. 

Joint Industry and Government Pollution Prevention Award Year 200l 

Small-Medium Business Air P2 Award presented to: Rust Tractor T.J. 

Carr 

 Rust Tractor is a local supplier of heavy equipment, including gas 

and diesel powered generators and boilers. Air Quality Division staff 

nominated Rust Tractor because of their long-term commitment to 

Bernalillo County air quality. In 1994, Rust Tractor's engineering staff 

initiated a policy to provide air quality registration documentation with all 

applicable equipment. This policy may not directly reduce carbon 

monoxide emissions, but educates their customers on the appropriate 

operation of generators or boilers. The service provides a streamlined 

purchase and registration process, saving time and money for the 

customer and assisting local air quality representatives in efficient 

permit processing 

http://www.nmfmn.com/Pages/Prc/Awards/2001_awards.htm#Top 

Supplemental 

Environmental 

Project (SEP) 

Authority 

The Albuquerque Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board through 

the Department can utilize supplemental environmental projects in 

enforcement cases for pollution prevention projects. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

96

(d) Programs that Preserve and Expand Energy Conservation Efforts: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iii), Tables 13 through 17 identify programs in New 

Mexico that preserve and expand energy conservation efforts which have a direct effect 

on Bernalillo County. 

(e) Potential for Renewable Energy: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(iv), the State of New Mexico has made an assessment 

of areas where there is the potential for renewable energy to supply power in a costeffective manner. This assessment is described in Appendix O-O.

(f) Projections of Renewable Energy Goals, Energy Efficiency and Pollution 

Prevention Activities: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(v), the WRAP has made regional projections of the 

short and long term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and 

secondary benefits associated with “renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and 

pollution prevention activities”. A complete description of these projections is provided in 

Appendix O-O of this Implementation Plan. Projections of visibility improvements for the 

16 Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau are provided in Table 2a and Table 2b. 

These projections include the combined effects of all measures in this SIP, including air 

pollution prevention programs. Although emission reductions and visibility improvements 

from air pollution prevention programs are expected at some level, they were not 

explicitly calculated because the resolution of the regional air quality modeling system is 

not currently sufficient to show any significant visibility changes resulting from the 

marginal nitrogen oxide emission reductions described above for air pollution prevention 

programs. 

(g) Demonstration of Progress in Achieving the GCVTC Renewable Energy Goal: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), Appendix O-O and Tables 13 through 17 of this 

Implementation plan list the programs relied upon by the State of New Mexico to 

demonstrate progress in achieving the renewable energy goal of the GCVTC—that 

renewable energy comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 

percent by 2015. Appendix O-O provides additional information on how these programs 

are meeting the 10/20 goals, and a discussion of a regional modeling analysis showing 

progress in meeting these goals. Appendix O-O includes documentation of the potential 

for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy associated with 

new power generation projects implemented or planned, and the renewable energy 

generation capacity and production in use and planned in the state. Note that Bernalillo 

County is included in this documentation. 

(h) Future Progress Reports: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(8)(vi), the Department shall submit progress reports in 

2013, and 2018, describing Bernalillo County’s share of New Mexico’s contribution 

toward meeting the GCVTC renewable energy goals. This description shall be consistent 

with Section (g) above. To the extent that it is not feasible for Bernalillo County to meet 

its contribution to these goals, the Department shall identify what measures were 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

97

implemented to achieve its contribution, and explain why meeting Bernalillo County’s 

contribution was not feasible. 

SECTION H. IMPLEMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

Section 51.309(d)(9) of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires states to evaluate the 

additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) recommendations, and 

determine if any of these recommendations, which were not originally included in Section 

309, are practical in their particular states and therefore should still be addressed. Page 

35755 of the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) discusses the requirements for 

implementation of additional recommendations. The RHR does not require adoption of any 

control measures unless the state determines they are appropriate. Any measures adopted 

would need to be enforceable like the other Section 309 required measures. 

Note that neither the RHR regulatory language nor the RHR Preamble identifies these 

additional recommendations. Therefore, states will need to review the GCVTC’s report 

Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas (June 10, 1996). States must identify those 

recommendations not incorporated into Section 309 as the “additional” recommendations. 

By not specifically identifying these recommendations in the final RHR, EPA has left it up to 

each state to decide which additional recommendations it needs to address in its SIP. 

(a) Evaluation of Additional Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission 

(GCVTC) Recommendations 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the Department has evaluated the GCVTC’s 

“additional” recommendations to determine if any of these recommendations can be 

practicably included in this Implementation plan. At this time, the AQCB has elected not 

to adopt any of the report’s additional recommendations, which is permissible under the 

309 SIP option. 

To make this determination, the Department has reviewed the GCVTC Commission’s 

1996 report Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas to identify those 

recommendations that were not incorporated into Section 309 of the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Department identified several recommendations in this report that were not 

incorporated into Section 309 of the RHR. The results of this evaluation are presented in 

detail below. 

Listed by report section, the following GCVTC recommendations are not included in the 

final RHR: 

(1) Pollution Prevention 

 Encourage zero and near-zero emitting technologies 

 Consider charging emission fees 

 Promote education and public outreach efforts on preventing pollution 

 Introduce product labeling 

 Promote the use of clean fuels 

(2) Stationary Sources 

 Implement existing Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements through the year 2000 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

98

 The ultimate SO2 emissions target, for the year 2040, locks in the 50-70% reduction 

in SO2 emissions 

 By 1997, facility owners and operators should notify states of pollution control or 

prevention measures 

 Progress in complying with emissions target(s) will be assessed in the year 2000 and 

at 5-year intervals thereafter. 

 The GCVTC encourages EPA to complete the study at the Mohave Power Project. 

(3) Mobile Sources 

 Establish a regional emissions budget 

 The GCVTC promotes the following strategies on a national level: 

-adopt LEV standards (49 states) 

 -support development of heavy-duty vehicle standards 

 -adopt off-road vehicle standards 

 -promote broader application of cleaner fuels 

 -pursue control strategies for diesel locomotives, boats, airplanes and 

 federal vehicles 

 -support improved control of evaporative emissions 

 The GCVTC promotes the following strategies on a regional level: 

 -establish clean fuel demonstration zones 

 -analyze pricing and incentive approaches 

 -explore an inspection program for heavy-duty vehicles 

 -promote vehicle maintenance 

 The GCVTC promotes the following initiatives on a local level: 

 -promote incentives for innovative and effective approaches 

-encourage better integration of transportation, land use and air quality planning 

 -establish mobile source emissions budgets for selected major urban areas 

 -suggest retiring high-emitting vehicles 

(4) Area Sources-Dust from Paved & Unpaved Roads 

 Take voluntary measures to control dust emissions 

(5) Fire Emissions 

 Improve integrated assessment of emissions 

 Develop cooperative funding mechanisms 

 Promote public education programs 

(6) Clean Air Corridors 

 (All recommendations are incorporated into the final RHR) 

(7) Emissions within and near Class 1 Areas 

Although the final RHR does not have a section dedicated to emissions within and near 

Class 1 Areas, the GCVTC goals to: a) Implement park and wilderness planning 

processes, b) Develop strategies for nearby communities and activities, c) Apply existing 

regulatory requirements, and d) Utilize other planning processes, are addressed at 

various places in the final RHR. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

99

(8) Transboundary Emissions from Mexico 

 Develop community mechanisms for cooperative transboundary planning 

 Finance air pollution control projects 

 Provide incentives for transboundary investment in pollution control 

(b) Implementation of Additional Recommendations: 

Based on the Department’s evaluation of the GCVTC recommendations, and the fact that 

the WRAP has not modeled nor recommended any additional GCVTC recommendations, 

it is impracticable for the Department to include any additional recommendations in this 

implementation plan. Though it will address all of the requirements as delineated in the 

final RHR, the Department opts not to include any of the GCVTC’s additional 

recommendations at this time. 

(c) Future Progress Reports: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(9), the Department shall prepare a progress report in 

2013, and 2018 that contains an evaluation in accordance with Sections (a) and (b) 

above. The copy of this report shall be provided to EPA and made available to the 

general public. 

SECTION I. PERIODIC SIP REVISIONS 

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) required states to submit progress reports in the form 

of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions in 2008, 2013 and 2018. The SIP revisions 

must comply with the procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 for public hearings and 

51.103 for submission of plans. Page 35755 of the Preamble to the RHR discusses the 

requirements for periodic SIP revisions. 

Unless a state chose to address “other” Class I Areas (those within their own state) in their 

2003 SIP, it would have needed to do so in 2008, in accordance with 51.309(g). The SIP 

revisions required under 309(d)(10) must therefore include assessments for Class I Areas 

located within the state and for the Class I Areas outside the state that are affected by 

emissions from the state. Note that EPA views these SIP revisions as a periodic check on 

progress, rather than a thorough revision of regional strategies. 

However, because the time-clock for the State’s first SIP revision was based on a December 

31, 2003 submittal deadline, and these submittals have been unavoidably delayed for four 

years by litigation, the first “periodic” revision to the 2007 SIP is not anticipated until 2013. 

(a) Periodic Progress Reports for Demonstrating Reasonable Progress: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i), the Department shall submit to EPA, as a SIP 

revision, periodic progress reports for the years 2013, and 2018 for the purpose of 

demonstrating reasonable progress in Class I Areas within Bernalillo County, and Class I 

Areas outside Bernalillo County, that are affected by emissions from Bernalillo County. 

This demonstration may be conducted by the WRAP, with assistance from the 

Department, and shall address the elements listed under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A) 

through (G), as summarized in (1) through (7) below: 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

100

(1) Implementation status of 2003 SIP measures; 

(2) Summary of emissions reductions; 

(3) Assessment of most/least impaired days; 

(4) Analysis of emission reductions by pollutant; 

(5) Significant changes in anthropogenic emissions; 

(6) Assessment of 2003 SIP sufficiency; and 

(7) Assessment of visibility monitoring strategy. 

(b) Actions to be Taken Concurrent with Periodic Progress Reports. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)(ii), the Department shall take one of the following 

actions based upon information contained in each periodic progress report: 

(1) Provide a negative declaration statement to EPA saying that no implementation 

plan revision is needed if reasonable progress is being made, in accordance with 

Section (a) above; 

(2) If the Department finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure 

reasonable progress due to emissions from outside Bernalillo County, the 

Department shall notify EPA and the other contributing state(s), and initiate efforts 

through a regional planning process to address the emissions in question. The 

Department shall identify in the next progress report the outcome of this regional 

planning effort, including any additional strategies that were developed to address the 

implementation plan’s deficiencies; 

(3) If the Department finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure 

reasonable progress due to emissions from another country, the Department shall 

notify EPA and provide information on the impairment being caused by these 

emissions; or 

(4) If the Department finds that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure 

reasonable progress due to emissions from within Bernalillo County, the Department 

shall develop additional strategies to address the implementation plan deficiencies 

and revise the implementation plan no later than one year from the date that the 

progress report was due. 

SECTION J. STATE PLANNING AND INTERSTATE COORDINATION 

The requirements for state planning and interstate coordination, and tribal implementation 

are discussed on Pages 35755-35756 of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) Preamble. Both 

Sections 51.309(d)(11) & (12), allow states and tribes to use the work of regional planning 

bodies like the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in their individual SIPs/TIPs. 

Section 51.309(d)(11) allows states to participate in regional planning efforts, such as the 

WRAP, in developing their 309 SIPs. The interstate strategies that are developed need to 

document each state’s contribution to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I Areas, how 

coordination between state implementation plans will be accomplished, and how compliance 

will be determined. It also allows states to develop their own programs without relying on a 

regional entity such as the WRAP. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

101

Section 51.309(d)(12) clarifies that all tribes within transport region have the option to 

implement Section 309, not just those who were originally members of the GCVTC. The 

Tribal Authority Rule (40 CFR Part 49) gives tribes in the transport region the option of 

implementing 51.308 or 51.309. 

(a) Participation in Regional Planning and Coordination: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(11), the Department has participated in regional planning 

and coordination with other states in developing its emission reduction strategies under 

40 CFR 51.309, related to protecting the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau. This 

participation was through the WRAP and with the State of New Mexico. The Department 

has not participated in any regional planning outside of its participation with the WRAP. 

The Department has worked with the WRAP to obtain guidance regarding technical 

information and county-level data as necessary. In addition, the Department has 

participated in interstate coordination efforts with the State of New Mexico. 

(b) Tribal Implementation. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(12), and in accordance with the Tribal Authority Rule, any 

[no] Tribes whose lands extend into, or are surrounded by, Bernalillo County, have the 

option to develop a regional haze TIP for their lands to assure reasonable progress in the 

16 Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau. To date, no neighboring tribes have elected to 

develop a regional haze TIP. 

(c) Federal Implementation: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 49.11(a), the Administrator under Sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) 

shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal implementation provisions as 

are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of 

304(a) and 301(d)(4), if a Tribe does not submit a TIP, meeting the completeness criteria 

of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted TIP. 

SECTION K. GEOGRAPHIC ENHANCEMENT 

The requirements for geographic enhancement are discussed on page 35757 in the 

Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). These requirements are related to Section 

51.309(f)(1), which describes requirements for the Annex. The Annex allows states to 

submit a SIP, or tribes a TIP, which adopts an alternative measure to regional haze Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART). 

Geographic enhancement is a voluntary approach that can be included in the Annex for 

addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) for stationary sources, under 

the provisions of Section 51.302(c). RAVI is different from regional haze in that it addresses 

“hot spots” or situations where visibility impairment in a Class I Area is reasonably 

attributable to a single source or small group of sources in relatively close proximity to the 

Class I Area. The geographic enhancement approach would allow states or tribes to use the 

efficiencies and reduced cost provided by the market trading program in the Annex to 

accommodate situations where RAVI needs to be addressed. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

102

(a) Procedure for addressing Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) 

under the Regional Haze Rule: 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(f)(4), the Department shall use the following process to 

address reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) in any Class I Area, and the 

potential need for BART, as specified in 40 CFR § 302(c): 

(1) The Department and applicable Federal Land Managers (FLMs) have agreed 

upon the principles that will be followed for addressing RAVI within the context of 

regional SO2 milestones and a backstop emission trading program that have been 

developed to address regional haze. These principles are outlined in a draft template 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that the WRAP Market Trading Forum (MTF) 

produced. The use of this template MOA is optional. 

The FLMs have an obligation to protect the National Parks and Wilderness Areas that 

have been designated as mandatory federal Class I Areas. The MOA does not 

restrict their authority to fulfill this obligation. In the course of certifying impairment, 

the FLMs may make recommendations to the Department regarding a source or 

sources to which impairment may be reasonably attributable. Within the context of 

established regional milestones for SO2 and a backstop trading program, the FLMs 

agree to use the following screening process in making these recommendations as 

part of the certification process: 

(i) The applicable Federal Land Management Agency determines that sulfate 

concentrations are not decreasing since the year 2000, based on ambient 

monitoring, and 

(ii) There are BART-eligible sources of SO2 within 100 miles of the mandatory 

Federal Class I Area, and 

(iii) The BART-eligible sources have not installed control technology to reduce 

SO2emissions at a rate equivalent to capture of 85% of potential annual 

emissions. 

(2) The AQCB shall conduct a public meeting to facilitate the exchange of information 

regarding current visibility monitoring data at Class I Areas in New Mexico or in nearby 

states within 100 miles of any BART-eligible sources located in Bernalillo County, as 

applicable. The purpose of the meeting will be to provide as much information as 

possible to all interested parties about the potential for a certification of visibility 

impairment to occur, based on the screening criteria in the MOA. The information will 

include visibility trends, as well as the type of impairment that is occurring at individual 

areas (haze, episodic impairment, etc.). The goal of this meeting is to provide 

information to sources and to the market so that potential problems could be 

addressed in the most cost-effective manner. For example, a large utility company 

with multiple units may use this information in decisions about where to apply limited 

resources when developing plans to install new control technology on some of its 

plants. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

103

(3) If a Federal Land Manager (FLM) certifies (visibility) impairment, the Department 

will fulfill its obligation to determine attribution and if necessary determine BART for the 

applicable source or group of sources. 

(i) The WESTAR report entitled Recommendations for Making Attribution 

Determinations in the Context of Reasonably Attributable BART (May 2003), 

supplemented by new techniques and information available at the time of review, 

will be used to provide a toolbox of appropriate technical criteria and methods for 

determining attribution. The WESTAR report is included in Appendix P-O of this 

implementation plan. 

(ii) If attribution is determined, then the following alternative remedy solutions will 

be considered when determining BART for the applicable source: 

(A) BART-level controls could be installed on the attributed source or group of 

sources; 

(B) SO2 emission reductions that may be more cost-effective or have other air 

quality benefits could be required at nearby sources in lieu of, or in 

combination with, controlling the attributed source to achieve greater visibility 

improvements than the application of BART. 

SECTION L. REASONABLE PROGRESS FOR ADDITIONAL CLASS I AREAS 

The requirements for reasonable progress for additional Class I Areas are discussed on 

page 35758 in the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). Section 309 of the final 

RHR required that the first SIP, due by December 2003, address the 16 Class I Areas of the 

Colorado Plateau. The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) has 

met this requirement by addressing the 16 Class I Areas of the Colorado Plateau in Chapter 

IV Section A, “Projection of Visibility Improvement”, of this Implementation plan. 

The term “Other Class I Areas” refers to federal Class I Areas that are NOT located in the 

Colorado Plateau region. For the first SIP submittal, Other Class I Areas within the nine 

transport region states were not required to be addressed until the first SIP revision, 

originally scheduled for 2008, but now deferred until 2013 due to litigation. The only 

requirement in Section 51.309(g) for states that followed this original timetable was under 

(g)(1), which required a declaration in the first Implementation plan indicating if the other 

Class I Areas in the state were going to be addressed under Section 308 or 309. 

The rest of Section 51.309(g) describes the requirements for addressing other Class I Areas 

in the “2008 SIP”, for states that followed Section 309. This necessitates a modeling 

demonstration including an analysis sufficient to meet the requirements defined in 

51.308(d)(1). The state may elect to use the control package adopted for the 16 Class I 

Areas on the Colorado Plateau if it can demonstrate that BART or better reductions will be 

met through 2018. The state may elect to select alternative controls to complete the 309 

package and adopt that package. Also, states had the option to address both the 16 Class I 

Areas on the Colorado Plateau and the other Class I Areas in 2003 and combine them both 

into one SIP. However, in the interim between the 2003 SIP submittal and today, EPA has 

amended the RHR so that now all 309 states are required to comply with 51.309(g), [see 

below]. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

104

(a) Declaration for Other Class I Areas – Albuquerque / Bernalillo County: 

Pursuant to the amended Regional Haze Rule, the Department declares that it will follow 

Section 309(g)(2) in supplementing this Regional Haze SIP, for the eight Class I Areas 

not on the Colorado Plateau within the State of New Mexico. 

A total of nine federal Class I Areas are located in the State of New Mexico. The San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness Area, is defined in 40 CFR 51.309(b)(1) as one of the 16 

Federal Class I Areas on the Colorado Plateau (see Chapter IV Section A of this 

Implementation plan). San Pedro Parks and the eight other federal Class I Areas in New 

Mexico are located in counties other than Bernalillo (see Table 21 on the following page). 

Therefore, since the AQCB’s jurisdiction for air quality planning purposes is limited to 

Bernalillo County only, the AQCB does not have jurisdiction over any of these federal 

Class I Areas in New Mexico for air quality planning purposes. Such jurisdiction 

corresponds to the State of New Mexico Environment Department. 
Table 21: All Federal Class I Areas in New Mexico 

Name Location 

Bandelier Wilderness Sandoval County 

Bosque del Apache Wilderness Socorro County 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park Eddy County 

Gila Wilderness Catron County 

Pecos Wilderness Mora County 

Salt Creek Wilderness Chaves County 

Wheeler Peak Wilderness Taos County 

White Mountain Wilderness Lincoln County 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area* Rio Arriba County 

*The San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area is one of the 16 federal Class I Areas on 

 the Colorado Plateau. The other areas are not thus classified. 

(b) Other Class I Areas to be Included in the 2007 SIP Submittal: 

The Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) did not include any 

additional federal Class I Areas, located on the Colorado Plateau or outside of it, in its 

2003 SIP submittal. The AQCB opted not to follow 40 CFR 51.309(g)(4), which allowed 

states to incorporate reasonable progress goals for additional Class I Areas into their SIPs. 

Consistent with the State of New Mexico’s approach, only the 16 Class I Areas on the 

Colorado Plateau were included in Bernalillo County’s 2003 SIP submittal. Pursuant to the 

newly revised 40 CFR 51.309(g), the Department included in their 2007 SIP submittal, 

reasonable progress goals for additional Class I Areas, and a demonstration that these 

goals will be met for the Other Class I Areas in New Mexico. 

The amended rule requirements for 309(g) are as follows: 

309(g) Additional Class I areas. Each Transport Region State implementing the provisions 

of this section as the basis for demonstrating reasonable progress for mandatory Class I 

Federal areas other than the 16 Class I areas must include the following provisions in its 

implementation plan. If a Transport Region State submits an implementation plan which is 

approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of this section, it will be deemed to comply 

with the requirements for reasonable progress for the period from approval of the plan to 

2018. 

(1) A demonstration of expected visibility conditions for the most impaired and least 

impaired days at the additional mandatory Class I Federal area(s) based on 

emissions projections from the long-term strategies in the implementation plan. This 

demonstration may be based on assessments conducted by the States and/or a 

regional planning body. 

(2) Provisions establishing reasonable progress goals and implementing any 

additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress for the additional 

mandatory Federal Class I areas. These provisions must comply with the provisions 

of §51.308(d)(1) through (4). 

Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

105
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

106

(i) In developing long-term strategies pursuant to §51.308(d)(3), the State may 

build upon the strategies implemented under paragraph (d) of this section, and 

take full credit for the visibility improvement achieved through these strategies. 

(ii) The requirement under §51.308(e) related to Best Available Retrofit 

Technology for regional haze is deemed to be satisfied for pollutants addressed 

by the milestones and backstop trading program if, in establishing the emission 

reductions milestones under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, it is shown that 

greater reasonable progress will be achieved for these additional Class I areas 

than would be achieved through the application of source-specific BART emission 

limitations under §51.308(e)(1). 

(iii) The Transport Region State may consider whether any strategies necessary 

to achieve the reasonable progress goals required by paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section are incompatible with the strategies implemented under paragraph (d) of 

this section to the extent the State adequately demonstrates that the 

incompatibility is related to the costs of the compliance, the time necessary for 

compliance, the energy and no air quality environmental impacts of compliance, 

or the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements. 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

107

VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT FOR OTHER CLASS I AREAS 

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has modeled the impacts of emissions on 

Class I areas in the west as part of their assistance in development of the Regional Haze 

SIPs for 309 and 308 states. However, the WRAP has not yet analyzed the effects on Class 

I Areas from emissions at the individual county scale. This puts Bernalillo County, which acts 

as a ‘state’, in a predicament. Without county-level modeling, the required analysis of the 

effects upon Class I Areas caused by Bernalillo County’s emissions, will be qualitative and 

not quantitative. It is anticipated that the WRAP will complete the modeling of Bernalillo 

County’s effects on visibility at Class I Areas within New Mexico, at its’ earliest convenience, 

and this data will be incorporated into a SIP revision in the future. Therefore, the qualitative 

analysis will consist of the following: 

1. Emissions inventory data showing emissions for each county within New Mexico including 

Bernalillo County. This data provides a rough estimate of the percentage of the State’s 

overall emissions that are generated by Bernalillo County, as well as the percentage of 

Bernalillo County’s share of the emissions inventory as it relates to the impact on visibility 

each pollutant has at each individual Class I Area. The pollutants included in this analysis 

include: Sulfur Oxide (SOx), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Organic Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon 

(EC), Fine Particulate Matter (PMf), Coarse Particulate Matter (PMc), Ammonia, Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Carbon Monoxide (CO). 

2. Bar graphs of the potential effects of New Mexico’s emissions on Class I Areas on 20% 

worst visibility days. These graphs give an estimate of which pollutant is the most significant 

in the impairment of visibility at that Class I Area. The pollutants included in this analysis 

include OC, EC, PMf, and PMc for each Class I Area in New Mexico. 

3. Mapping of the normalized weighted emission potential (WEP) for each pollutant using 

2000-04 baseline data and 2018 predicted emissions. WEP values are a function of 

emissions multiplied by residence time divided by distance from source. These maps will 

give a rough estimate as to the proximity of elevated WEP% values to Bernalillo County. 

The pollutants included in this analysis included OC, EC, PMf, and PMf, for each Class I 

Area in New Mexico. 

The results of this analysis are summarized below. The full analysis can be found at 

Appendix 2007-H. Additional analysis of nitrate/NOx and Sulfate/SOx were conducted, and 

are shown in the Addendum to Appendix 2007-H. 

When the large-scale projections generated by the WRAP were extrapolated down to the 

level of Bernalillo County, much of the predictive accuracy and value were lost. There are 

many factors that affect this inaccuracy. 

1. The 2002 Baseline is wrong. It is too high for Point and Area sources. (see 2002 NEI 

data). 

2. The growth rate is far too high. (see 2005 and 2008 NEI data. 

3. The growth rate for Bernalillo County is disproportionate to the rest of the state. A county 

with few existing point sources of significance should not be assigned the level of growth 

used in the WRAP model. 2005 and 2008 NEI data confirms that the projected growth rates 

shown below are wrong. 

 NO2 Predicted emission growth: Point Source Area Source 

 New Mexico (-25.7%) (34.4%) 

 Bernalillo County (+49.9%) (40.3%) 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

108

 SO2 predicted emission growth: Point Source Area Source 

 New Mexico (-13.5%) (207.6%) 

 Bernalillo County (+38.1%) (308.6%) 

4. The 2018 WRAP source apportionment model shows Bernalillo County disproportionately 

unbalanced with the rest of the state. Bernalillo County is home to a large amount of 

residential housing. The economy is based on education, medical, government, tourism and 

small business. It has no oil & gas development, no mining, and no large EGUs. The 

previously estimated mobile source emissions estimates were disproportionate. It is 

unfeasible that with 1% of the state area and 31% of the state’s population, that Bernalillo 

County would be responsible for 50% of New Mexico’s NO2 Area Source emissions and 

76.3% of the Area Source emissions of SO2. (see below) 

New Mexico 

Area 121,589 square miles 

Population 2,059,179 people 

Bernalillo County 

Area 1,166 square miles 

Population 642,527 people 

Area Source Emission: New Mexico Bernalillo County(%) 

 NO2 33,768 TPY 16,996 TPY (34.4%) 

 SO2 15,736 TPY 12,003 TPY (76.3%) 
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regiona ment 

Final Version June 8, 2011 

l Haze SIP Ele

Class I Area 

Visibility Impairment Species 

OC Source(s) / Visibility Impact? 

EC Source(s) / Visibility Impact? 

PM Fine Source(s) / Visibility Impact? 

PM Coarse Source(s) / Visibility Impact? 

Nitrate 

Source(s) / 

Visibility 

Impact?

Bandelier [BAND] 

Organic Mass Carbon (OMC) 

Natural Fire, Area; Improbable 

Natural Fire, OnRoad, Off-Road; Improbable 

Fugitive Dust, Wind Blown (WB) Dust, Area; Improbable 

Fugitive Dust, WB Dust, Road Dust; Improbable 

Point, Mobile, 

Area; 

Improbable

Bosque del Apache [BOAP] 

Coarse Mass (CM), OMC, AmmSO4 

Natural Fire, Area; Improbable 

Natural Fire, OffRoad, On-Road; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Road Dust; Improbable 

Mobile, Point, 

Area; 

Improbable

Gila [GICL] OMC Natural Fire; 

Improbable 

Natural Fire, OffRoad, On-Road; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Natural Fire; Improbable 

Mobile; 

Improbable

Carlsbad [GUMO] 

CM, AmmSO4 

Natural Fire; Improbable 

Natural Fire; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Road Dust; Improbable 

Point, Mobile,

Area; 

Improbable

San Pedro [SAPE] 

OMC, AmmSO4 

Natural Fire, Area; Improbable 

Natural Fire, OffRoad, On-Road; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Road Dust; Improbable 

Mobile, Point, 

Area; 

Improbable

Salt Creek [SACR] 

CM, AmmSO4, AmmNO3 

Point, Natural Fire, Area; Improbable 

Off-Road, Natural Fire, On-Road, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Road Dust; Improbable 

Point, Area, 

Mobile; 

Improbable

Wheeler Peak [WHPE] 

OMC, AmmSO4 

Natural Fire; Improbable 

Natural Fire; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Natural Fire, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust; Improbable 

Nat. Fire, 

Mobile, Point; 

Improbable

Na

White Mt. [WHIT] 

CM, OMC, AmmSO4 

Natural Fire, Area, Point, Anthropogenic Fire; Improbable 

Natural Fire, OffRoad, On-Road; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Area; Improbable 

WB Dust, Fugitive Dust, Road Dust; Improbable 

Mobile; 

Improbable
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, NM Regional Haze SIP Element 

Final Version June 8, 2011 
111

Until the WRAP has completed their analysis of county-level emissions on Other Class I 

Areas, it is impracticable to promulgate any further regulations in an attempt to reduce 

emissions that may or may not affect Other Class I Areas. However, in the interim, there are 

a number of effective regulations currently on the books. These regulations are outlined 

below. 

Regulation Description Pollutant 

Controlled 

20.11.20 NMAC Fugitive Dust Control PM 

20.11.46 NMAC SO2 Emissions Inventory Requirements; Western 

Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program 

SOx 

20.11.21 NMAC Open Burning OC, EC, CO, 

PM 

20.11.71 NMAC Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NMOC (i.e. CO) 

20.11.100 

NMAC 

Motor Vehicle Inspection – Decentralized CO, PM, HC 

20.11.102 

NMAC 

Oxygenated Fuels CO 

20.11.65 NMAC Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs 

20.11.103 

NMAC 

Motor Vehicle Visible Emissions PM 

20.11.22 NMAC Woodburning CO, PM 

20.11.66 NMAC Process Equipment PM 

20.11.67 NMAC Equipment, Emissions, Limitations SOx, NOx, PM 

20.11.104 

NMAC 

Emission Standards For New Motor Vehicles On-Road 

Mobile 
M. BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) DETERMINATION

Best Available Retrofit Technology – BART (Excerpted From Identification of BARTEligible Sources in the WRAP Region, Draft Report, for WRAP by ERG, # 30204-84, 

April 4, 2005- see Appendix 2007-F) 

Background: 

In July 1999, EPA published a final rule under the authority and requirements of sections 

169A and 169 B of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The rule addresses regional haze and requires 

states to improve visibility in 156 natural areas encompassing federally-protected parks and 

wilderness; these areas are referred to as “Class I areas”. 

The particular air pollutants that reduce visibility and contribute to regional haze are fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), and certain compounds which play a part in PM2.5 formation such 

as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and certain volatile organic compounds 

(VOC). The CAA requires certain existing sources to control these air pollutants in Class I 

areas by installing best available retrofit technology, also known as BART. 

However, on May 24, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

issued a ruling vacating the BART provisions to the regional haze rule. Furthermore, prior to 

the court’s decision, EPA had proposed BART guidelines intended to clarify the requirements 

of the BART provisions, yet these guidelines were remanded during the court’s ruling on May 

24, 2002. On April 15, 2004, the EPA proposed amendments to its July 1999 regional haze 

rule, predominantly; these amendments address the BART provisions and clarify previously 

submitted comments made during the July 1999 proposal by environmental groups, industry, 

and the public. The BART provisions are located in 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, EPA 

reproposes the BART guidelines which are contained in a new Appendix Y to 40 CFR 51. 

The new BART proposal requires all states to develop regional haze implementation plans 

known as “SIPs” by December 17, 2007. These plans should contain enforceable measures 

and strategies for reducing visibility-impairing pollution in Class I areas. The SIP must also 

include a determination of BART for each BART-eligible source. Accordingly, states must 

first identify sources that will have to install BART controls. This section is intended to 

discuss the steps for determining BART-eligible sources; in addition, changes and/or 

clarifications from the April 15, 2004 proposed amendments are discussed in further detail 

below. 

Identifying BART-eligible Sources: 

The regional haze rule, in 40 CFR 51.301, defines a stationary source as a “building, 

structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.” The rule further 

defines “building, structure, or facility” as: 

3⁄4 All of the pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the same industrial grouping 

(same 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification [SIC] code); and 

3⁄4 Are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties; and 

3⁄4 Are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control). 

The CAA uses the term “major stationary source” to describe those sources that are the 

focus of the BART requirement. To avoid confusion with other CAA requirements which also 

112
use the term “major stationary source” when referring to a somewhat different population of 

sources, the RHR uses the term “BART-eligible source”. 

Sources that are BART-eligible must meet the following three criteria: 

1. The source must be a stationary source of air pollutants that falls within one of 26 listed 

categories (see Table A-1); 

2. The source must have been put into operation between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 

1977; and 

3. The source must have the potential to emit 250 tons per year of any individual air pollutant 

(SO2, NOx, PM2.5, VOC, or NH3** 

Step 1 Identify the emission units in the BART categories (See Table A-1) 

Step 2 Identify the start-up dates of those emission units 

Step 3 Compare the potential emissions from units identified in Steps 1 and 2 to the 250 

ton per year cutoff 

Step 4 Identify the emission units and pollutants that constitute the BART-eligible source 

Clarification to Each Step: 

Step 1 - Identify the emission units in the BART categories 

The CAA uses the 26 source category titles, which can be found in Table A-1, to describe the 

types of stationary sources that are BART-eligible. Most of the source category titles are 

general descriptors that are inclusive of all the operations at a given plant. However, certain 

plant sites may have only some emission units meeting one of these 26 descriptions; not 

every emission unit at a particular site will meet one of the 26 categories. States should 

identify all emission units at a plant site meeting one or more of the source category 

descriptions. 

 

** EPA originally proposed to include ammonia (NH3) on the visibility-impairing pollutant list however based on 

comments received and the current state of knowledge regarding the role of ammonia in PM2.5 formation and the 

affects of regional haze that would be expected from reductions in ammonia emissions, EPA no longer believes 

that ammonia should be included on this list. In the April 15, 2004 proposed amendments, EPA has taken 

ammonia (NH3) off of the visibility-impairing pollutant list. 

113
Source Category EPA Clarification 

1. The source category interpretation of the word “plants” is best read to aggregate 

boiler capacities to determine if the 250 million BTU/hr threshold is reached. 

For this category, states do aggregate all boilers to verify if all site boilers that were 

put in place within the 1962-1977 time period total up to greater than 250 million 

BTU/hr. 

2. EPA clarifies that the definition of “steam electric plants of more than 250 

million BTU/hr heat input” refers only to plants that generate electricity for sale. 

 3. “Fossil-fuel boilers” refers to boilers burning greater than 50 percent fossil 

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric fuels. 

plants of more than 250 million 

British thermal units (BTU) per 

hour heat input (#1 in Table A1) 

4. Enforceable operational limits for a multi-fuel boiler would be relevant to 

determining whether its “fossil fuel” capacity exceeds 250 million BTU/hr and that 

it would be reasonable for states to take such limitations into account. 

An example of this situation would be a boiler that has a rated heat input capacity 

of 500 million BTU/hr, yet is limited to a heat input of 150 million BTU/hr in the 

Title V permit. This particular boiler would not be considered (alone) to fall into 

this category because the boiler is not operating above 250 million BTU/hr due to 

the enforceable limit. However, the boiler could fall into this category when 

aggregating to verify if all site boilers (that were put into place within the 1962-

1977 time period) total up to greater than 250 million BTU/hr. In such a case, the 

state would still use the enforceable heat input limit of 150 million BTU/hr when 

aggregating all boilers. 

This source category should be interpreted broadly to include all types of phosphate 

rock processing facilities, including elemental phosphorous plants as well as 

fertilizer production plants. 

Phosphate rock and processing 

plants (#13 in Table A-1) 

When identifying unique “secondary metal production facilities” that are not in any 

other BART category, states may identify those unique facilities based upon SIC 

code 3341 to determine if the facility falls under the source category “secondary 

metal production facilities”. 

However, for informational purposes only, this source category “secondary metal 

production facilities” is actually broader than SIC code 3341. Yet, many 

“secondary metal production facilities” that do not fall under SIC code 3341 would 

fall into another source category. For instance, the secondary ferrous metals 

facilities such as secondary iron and steel facilities are not included under SIC code 

3341, but these facilities are included under another source category “iron and steel 

mill plants”. 

Secondary metal production 

facilities (#20 in Table A-1) 

This source category should be interpreted to include all facilities within 2-digit 

SIC code 28. Accordingly, this source category includes pharmaceutical 

manufacturing facilities. 

Chemical process plants (#21 in 

Table A-1) 

114
Source Category EPA Clarification 

1. The source category interpretation is best read to include only those boilers at a 

power plant individually greater than 250 million BTU/hr. For this category, states 

do not aggregate all boilers to verify if all site boilers that were put in place within 

the 1962-1977 time period total up to greater than 250 million BTU/hr. 

2. “Fossil-fuel boilers” refers to boilers burning greater than 50 percent fossil fuels. 

3. Enforceable operational limits for a multi-fuel boiler would be relevant to 

determining whether its “fossil fuel” capacity exceeds 250 million BTU/hr and that 

it would be reasonable for States to take such limitations into account. 

Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 

250 million BTU/hr heat input 

(#22 in Table A-1) 

An example of this situation would be a boiler that has a rated heat input capacity 

of 500 million BTU/hr, yet it is limited to a heat input of 150 million BTU/hr in the 

Title V permit. This particular boiler would not be considered under this category 

because the boiler is not operating above 250 million BTU/hr due to the 

enforceable limit. However, the boiler could be subject to BART if it was part of a 

process description at a plant that is in a different source category, for example, the 

boiler was considered to be part of the source category “chemical process plant” 

and fell under SIC code 28. 

1. The 300,000 barrel cutoff refers to total, facility-wide tank capacity for tanks that 

were put in place within the 1962-1977 time period, and includes gasoline and 

other petroleum-derived liquids. 

2. EPA states that there was a comment made about this source category, however 

Petroleum storage and transfer EPA does not say what the actual comment was. 

facilities with a capacity 

exceeding 300,000 barrels (#23 

in Table A-1) 

EPA states that the comment “is largely moot given that these storage and transfer 

facilities are already subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards and in many cases stringent SIP regulations related to ozone 

nonattainment. Regardless of the interpretation [of this source category], we [EPA] 

believe that it is unlikely that BART emissions limitations will require further 

controls.” 

This source category should be interpreted to include charcoal briquette 

manufacturing and activated carbon production. Charcoal production facilities 

(#26 in Table A-1) 

115
Step 2 - Identify the start-up dates of those emission units 

States should identify all emission units within the listed categories as determined in Step 1, 

which meet the following two criteria listed in the table below: 

Criteria Clarification 

Did the unit begin operation after August 7, 1962? “In operation” is defined as “engaged in activity 

related to the primary design function of the 

source.” This means that a source must have 

begun actual operations by August 7, 1962 to 

satisfy this test. 

On or prior to August 7, 1977: “the owner or 

operator has obtained all necessary 

preconstruction approvals or permits required by 

Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and 

air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) 

begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program 

of physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) 

entered into binding agreements or contractual 

obligations, which cannot be canceled or modified 

without substantial loss to the owner or operator, 

to undertake a program of construction of the 

facility to be completed in a reasonable time.” 40 

CFR 51.301. 

Was the unit “in existence” on August 7, 1977? 

As this definition is essentially identical to the 

definition of “commence construction” as 

that term is used in the PSD regulations, the two 

terms mean the same thing. See 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xvi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(9). 

Under this definition, an emissions unit 

could be “in existence” even if it did not begin 

operating until several years after 1977. 

Be aware that a reconstructed source may be BART-eligible. A reconstructed source is an 

existing source that is completely or substantially rebuilt such that “the fixed capital cost of 

the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely 

new source.” A reconstructed source could actually be a BART-eligible source if it was in 

operation before August 7, 1962, however it would have to have been reconstructed during 

the August 1962 to August 7, 1977 time period. {40 CFR 51.301} 

An important clarification: under Step 2 for identifying BART-eligible units, and using boilers 

as the example emission unit, states should identify only those boilers that were put in place 

(or reconstructed) within the 1962 – 1977 time period. Only these boilers are carried over to 

Step 3, and only these boilers would be subject to a BART engineering analysis. This is true 

for any emission unit. 

116
Step 3 - Compare the potential emissions from units identified in Steps 1 and 2 to the 

250 ton per year cutoff 

The “potential to emit” means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a 

pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitations on 

the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant including air pollution control equipment and 

restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or 

processes, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on 

emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the 

potential to emit of a stationary source. 

To be a BART-eligible source, the source must have emission units that meet the category 

description and time window criteria described in Steps 1 and 2 above, and it must have the 

potential to emit 250 tons or more of any of the following pollutants: SO2, NOx, particulate 

matter, or VOC. 

When calculating potential to emit and for the purposes of the regional haze rule, states must 

group emissions from all emission units put in place between the 1962-1977 time period that 

are within the same 2-digit SIC code, even if those emission units are in different BART 

source categories. 

However, be aware of “support facilities” when grouping pollutant-emitting activities by 2-digit 

category according to the SIC manual. Some emission units, for purposes of other air 

programs, might be considered subject to an air program even if the unit(s) serves as a 

“support facility”. A “support facility” is a facility that conveys, stores, or otherwise assists in 

the production of the principle product and falls within the same industrial grouping as the 

primary facility. However, an emission unit, even if it is a “support facility” for purposes of 

other air programs, would not be considered for BART-eligibility unless the unit fell within one 

of the 26 listed source categories, and unless it was put in place within the 1962 to 1977 time 

period. 

An important note for PM2.5: 

States may use PM10 as the indicator for particulate matter. Emissions of PM10 included the 

components of PM2.5 as a subset. There is no need to have separate 250 ton thresholds for 

PM10 and PM2.5, because 250 tons of PM10 represents at most 250 tons of PM2.5, and at 

most 250 tons of individual particulate species such as elemental carbon, crustal material, 

etc. 

An important note for VOCs 

Because many industrial sources and most mobile sources of organic gases have been 

subjected to VOC control requirements that have the effect of reducing emissions of the 

particular compounds that are PM2.5 precursors, EPA is requesting comment on whether the 

states should focus greater control requirements on VOC emissions from BART sources 

located in urban areas. EPA also is requesting comment on the circumstances under which, 

in rural areas, for sources subject to BART, states may determine that BART would be no 

control for VOC. 

An important note for ammonia: 

117
Because of the uncertainties in assessing the impact of ammonia emissions reduction on 

visibility, and because PM2.5 will decrease due to SO2 and NOx controls, EPA proposed not 

to include ammonia on the pollutant list at this time. 

Step 4 - Identify the emission units and pollutants that constitute the BART-eligible 

source 

The final step in the identification of BART-eligible sources would be to use the result from 

the previous three steps to identify the equipment that is BART-eligible. If the total allowable 

emissions from the stationary source exceed a potential to emit of 250 tons per year for any 

individual pollutant listed in Step 3, then that collection of emission units is a BART-eligible 

source. Once this BART-eligible source is determined, states must determine the 

appropriate level of BART control for each source subject to BART. The table below provides 

examples for determining a BART-eligible source: 

Example Would BART be required? 

A source has two emission units having cumulative Yes, BART would be required for all three 

emissions exceeding 250 tons for SO2, but not for pollutants. 

NOx and PM2.5. 

A source has potential emissions that are less than No, BART would not be required for any of the 

250 pollutants. 

tons for each individual pollutant, but more than 250 

tons from the sum over all pollutants. 

A source has potential emissions of 500 tons per year Yes, BART would be required for SO2, however, 

of SO2, and potential emissions of 1 ton per year of BART may or may not be required for PM2.5 

PM2.5. depending on whether the state has implemented a 

de minimis level for PM2.5. 

An important clarification for de minimis levels: 

Some BART-eligible sources emit individual pollutants listed in Step 3 at levels that would 

make a very small contribution to regional haze. A 1 ton per year amount from a given 

BART-eligible source would likely represent a de minimis fraction of a total regional 

inventory. Therefore, EPA is proposing in the April 15, 2004 amendments that states should 

be allowed the flexibility to identify de minimis levels of pollutants at BART eligible sources. 

However, any de minimis values adopted by a state, shall not be higher than PSD levels: 40 

tons per year of SO2, NOx, and VOC, and 15 tons per year for PM10. 

Identifying Which BART-eligible Sources Are Subject to BART: 

Once the four steps above are completed, the state should have a list of BART-eligible 

sources. The state must then determine which of the BART-eligible sources may “emit any 

air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area.” 

118
Table A-1. Source Categories Subject to BART Requirements 

BART 

Category 

ID # 

Category (BART) SCC SIC 

1 Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants > 250 

MM BTU per hour 101xxxxx 4911 

2 Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers) 305010xx 1100, 2999 

3 Kraft pulp mills 307001xx 2611, 2621, 

2631 

4 Portland cement plants 305006xx, 305007xx 3241 

5 Primary zinc smelters 30303002 33xx, 3339 

6 Iron and steel mill plants 303015xx 3312, 332x 

7 Primary aluminum ore reduction plants 303001xx 3334 

8 Primary copper smelters 303005xx 3331 

9 Municipal incinerators capable of charging > 

250 tons of refuse per day 501001xx, 502005xx 4953 

10 Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants 301070xx 2819, 2899 

11 Petroleum refineries 306xxxxx 2911 

12 Lime plants 305016xx 3274 

13 Phosphate rock processing plants 305019xx 1429, 1475 

14 Coke oven batteries 303003xx, 303004xx 3312 

15 Sulfur recovery plants 30603301, 31000208 2819 

16 Carbon black plants (furnace process) 30100509, 30100503 2895 

17 Primary lead smelters 303010xx 3339 

18 Fuel conversion plants n/a n/a 

19 Sintering plants n/a n/a 

20 Secondary metal production facilities 304xxxxx 3341, 334x 

21 Chemical process plants 301xxxxx 2899, 28xx 

102001xx through 

102007 103001xx 

through 103007 

Fossil fuel-fired boilers > 250 MM BTU per 

hour 22 n/a 

Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with 

a capacity > 300,000 barrels 23 306xxxxx 5171 

24 Taconite ore processing plants 303023xx 1011, 3295 

25 Glass fiber processing plants 305012xx 32xx 

26 Charcoal production facilities 301006xx 2819, 2861 

119
EXAMPLES OF BART CATEGORIES FOUND IN BERNALILLO COUNTY 

‘BART 01’ – Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Electric Plants with Total Heat Capacity Greater 

than 250 million Btu per hour 

A fossil fuel-fired steam electric plant often includes a steam turbine and electric generator. 

Steam is used to drive the steam turbine which in turn drives an electric generator. The 

steam is created by either boilers and/or through a combined cycle turbine. The U.S. EPA 

proposed BART guidelines clarify that this source category “fossil fuel-fired steam electric 

plants” includes both boilers and combined cycle turbines. 

A combined cycle turbine consists of a gas turbine and a heat recovery steam generator 

(HRSG). The gas turbine creates electricity. Hot exhaust gases from the gas turbine are 

routed through a HRSG to generate steam. The steam created is used to drive a steam 

turbine which also drives an electric generator. A supplementary gas-fired burner, duct 

burner, or boiler can be used to increase the steam production by the HRSG. 

When examining whether the source meets the 250 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr) criteria, 

the U.S. EPA proposed BART guidelines state that the aggregate of all heat input to the 

“plant” should be totaled. This would include the heat input of the combined-cycle turbine as 

well as any boiler or dust burner. In a letter dated September 30, 1987. U.S. EPA 

addressed the PSD source category “Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plants.” The U.S. EPA 

states that the term “plant” is inclusive of all heat generating equipment. A restrictive 

definition was not used in this case but the broad word “plant” was used, and, therefore, it is 

appropriate to include all heat generating equipment in determining the applicability for the 

fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants. 

If a plant makes electricity only for its own use it should not be considered in this category. A 

steam electric plant must sell electricity. However, this type of plant may be considered a 

BART-22 source category if it has boilers greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. Enforceable 

operational limits should be taken into account when determining whether a boiler’s “fossil 

fuel” capacity exceeds 250 MMBtu/hr. Also to be considered a fossil fuel-fired combustor, a 

given unit must burn at least 50 percent fossil fuel. 

A New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for fossil-fuel-fired steam generators (40 CFR 

60, Subpart D) regulates fossil-fuel-fired steam generating units that commenced 

construction or modification after August 17, 1971 and has a heat input rate of 250 MMBtu/hr 

or greater. Fossil-fuel-fired steam generating units of more than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input 

which commenced construction or modification after September 18, 1978 are subject to 40 

CFR 60, Subpart Da. Any unit covered under 40 CFR 60, Subpart Da is not regulated by 40 

CFR 60, Subpart D. Additionally, Subpart Da includes provisions for electric utility combined 

cycle gas turbines that are capable of combusting more than 250 MMBtu/hr heat input of 

fossil-fuel in the steam generator. However, only emissions resulting from combustion of 

fuels in the steam generating unit are subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart Da. Gas turbines that 

commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after October 3, 1977, with a heat 

input at peak load equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/hr, are subject to Standards of 

Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines (40 CFR 60, Subpart GG). The combustion turbine 

portion of any stationary combined cycle steam/electric generating system is regulated by the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion 

120
Turbines (40 CFR 63, Subpart YYYY). These regulations are mentioned for information only 

and are not pertinent to determining BART-eligibility. 

4.0 BART 04 – Portland Cement Plants 

Portland cement is a fine powder, gray or white in color, which consists of a mixture of 

hydraulic cement materials comprising primarily calcium silicates, aluminates and 

aluminoferrites. More than 30 raw materials are known to be used in the manufacture of 

Portland cement. These materials are chemically combined through pyroprocessing and 

subjected to subsequent mechanical processing operations to form gray and white Portland 

cement. The process can be divided into the following components: raw materials 

acquisition and handling, kiln feed preparation, pyroprocessing, and finished cement 

grinding. The heart of the Portland cement manufacturing process is the pyroprocessing 

system. This system transforms the raw mix into clinkers, which are gray, glass-hard, 

spherically shaped nodules. The pyroprocessing takes place in kilns. 

Portland cement plants which commenced construction or modification after August 17, 1971 

are regulated by the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), Standards of Performance 

for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR 60, Subpart F). This regulation is applicable to the kiln, 

clinker cooler, raw mill system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage, clinker 

storage, finished product storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and 

uploading systems. Portland cement plants may also be subject to the National Emission 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (40 

CRF 63, Subpart LLL). These regulations are mentioned for information only and are not 

required to determine BART-eligibility. 

BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN BERNALILLO COUNTY

The WRAP identified three potential BART-eligible sources in Bernalillo County. These 

were: PNM Reeves Generating Station, GCC Rio Grande Inc, and Cobisa Person Power 

Project. After analysis by the Department, all three sources were determined to be NOT 

BART-eligible. (See BART determination below) 

121
PNM Reeves 

1) How to determine whether a source is BART-eligible: 

Step 1: Identify emission units in the BART categories. Does the plant contain 

emissions units in one or more of the 26 source categories? 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ Proceed to Step 2 

 

YES. Units 1, 2, & 3 

Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of these emission units. Do any of these emissions units 

meet the following two tests? 

In existence on August 7, 1977 AND 

Began operation after August 7, 1962 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ Proceed to Step 3 

No. 

Step 3: Compare the potential emissions from these emission units to the 250 ton/yr 

cutoff Identify the ‘‘stationary source’’ that includes the emission units you identified in 

Step 2. Add the current potential emissions from all the emission units identified in 

Steps 1 and 2 that are included within the ‘‘stationary source’’ boundary. Are the 

potential emissions from these units 250 tons per year or more for any visibilityimpairing pollutant? 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ These emissions units comprise the ‘‘BART-eligible source.’’ 

2) If any of these facilities (even the non-BART eligible ones) have implemented controls 

since 2004 to the present, please record that as well. 

122
Delta Person Generating Station 

1) How to determine whether a source is BART-eligible: 

Step 1: Identify emission units in the BART categories. Does the plant contain 

emissions units in one or more of the 26 source categories? 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ Proceed to Step 2 

 

No. Unit 1 does not fit into any of the source categories because it is a simple 

cycle gas turbine. 

Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of these emission units. Do any of these emissions units 

meet the following two tests? 

In existence on August 7, 1977 AND 

Began operation after August 7, 1962 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ Proceed to Step 3 

Step 3: Compare the potential emissions from these emission units to the 250 ton/yr 

cutoff. Identify the ‘‘stationary source’’ that includes the emission units you identified 

in Step 2. Add the current potential emissions from all the emission units identified in 

Steps 1 and 2 that are included within the ‘‘stationary source’’ boundary. Are the 

potential emissions from these units 250 tons per year or more for any visibilityimpairing pollutant? 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ These emissions units comprise the ‘‘BART-eligible source.’’ 

 

2) If any of these facilities (even the non-BART eligible ones) have implemented controls 

since 2004 to the present, please record that as well. 

123
GCC Rio Grande 

1) How to determine whether a source is BART-eligible: 

Step 1: Identify emission units in the BART categories. Does the plant contain 

emissions units in one or more of the 26 source categories? 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ Proceed to Step 2 

 

YES. Unit 1 

Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of these emission units. Do any of these emissions units 

meet the following two tests? 

In existence on August 7, 1977 AND 

Began operation after August 7, 1962 

➜ No ➜ Stop 

➜ Yes ➜ Proceed to Step 3 

No. 

Step 3: Compare the potential emissions from these emission units to the 250 ton/yr 

cutoff. Identify the ‘‘stationary source’’ that includes the emission units you identified 

in Step 2. Add the current potential emissions from all the emission units identified in 

Steps 1 and 2 that are included within the ‘‘stationary source’’ boundary. Are the 

potential emissions from these units 250 tons per year or more for any visibilityimpairing pollutant? 

No ➜ Stop 

Yes ➜ These emissions units comprise the ‘‘BART-eligible source.’’ 

2) If any of these facilities (even the non-BART eligible ones) have implemented controls 

since 2004 to the present, please record that as well. 

124
125

 

N. Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than 

BART 

A. Background 

In 1996 the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) submitted 

recommendations to EPA to improve visibility in the 16 Class I Areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. The GCVTC concluded that a broad-based approach that addressed multiple 

pollutants and source categories was necessary to reduce regional haze. The report 

recommended a series of strategies to address stationary sources, mobile sources, fire, 

pollution prevention, fugitive dust, and clean air corridors. 

On July 1, 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published regulations to 

address regional haze visibility impairment. The regulations required States to address Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for regional haze visibility impairment, 

and allowed nine western states to develop plans that were based on the GCVTC 

recommendations for stationary sources in lieu of BART. 

In 2000, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) submitted an Annex to the GCVTC 

recommendations that provided more details regarding the regional SO2 milestones and 

backstop trading program that had been recommended in the GCVTC Report, and included 

a demonstration that the milestones achieved greater reasonable progress than would have 

been achieved by the application of BART in the region. The Annex was approved by EPA 

in 2003, but this approval was later vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 due 

to problems with the methodology that was required in the regional haze rule for 

demonstrating greater reasonable progress than BART.†† 

On July 6, 2005 EPA revised the regional haze rule in response to the judicial challenges to 

the BART requirements. On October 13, 2006 EPA published additional revisions to address 

alternatives to source-specific BART determinations. 

Five western states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) and the City of 

Albuquerque had submitted State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in 2003 under 40 CFR 

§51.309. Three of those states (New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and the City of 

Albuquerque plan to update their SIPs to include new milestones that are based on more 

recent emission inventories as well as the revised BART requirements in the regional haze 

rule. Arizona and Oregon are no longer participating in the program. This demonstration 

shows that the SO2 milestones will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have 

been achieved from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in 

the participating states in accordance with the revised regional haze rule. 

B. RH Rule Requirements 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) states, “The milestones must be shown to provide for greater 

reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART pursuant to 

§51.308(e)(2).” 

†† Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, February 18, 2005; American Corn 

Growers Association v. EPA, May 24, 2002. 
40 CFR 51.308(e) 

(2) A State may opt to implement or require participation in an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART 

to install, operate, and maintain BART. Such an emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and operation of BART. For all such emission 

trading programs or other alternative measures, the State must submit an 

implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include 

documentation for all required analyses: 

(i) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative 

measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have 

resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject 

to BART in the State and covered by the alternative program. This 

demonstration must be based on the following: 

(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State. 

(B) A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories 

covered by the alternative program. The State is not required to 

include every BART source category or every BART-eligible source 

within a BART source category in an alternative program, but each 

BART-eligible source in the State must be subject to the requirements 

of the alternative program, have a federally enforceable emission 

limitation determined by the State and approved by EPA as meeting 

BART in accordance with section 302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, or otherwise addressed under paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(4)of 

this section. 

(C) An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control 

technology available and associated emission reductions achievable 

for each source within the State subject to BART and covered by the 

alternative program. This analysis must be conducted by making a 

determination of BART for each source subject to BART and covered 

by the alternative program as provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, unless the emissions trading program or other alternative 

measure has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART 

(such as the core requirement to have a long-term strategy to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals established by States). In this case, the 

State may determine the best system of continuous emission control 

technology and associated emission reductions for similar types of 

sources within a source category based on both source-specific and 

category-wide information, as appropriate. 

(D) An analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable 

through the trading program or other alternative measure. 

(E) A determination under paragraph (e)(3) of this section or otherwise 

based on the clear weight of evidence that the trading program or 

other alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than 

126
would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at 

the covered sources. 

C. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources and Sources Subject to BART. 

Establishing BART emission limitations under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) is a three step process 

(70 FR 39106): 

• States identify sources which meet the definition of BART eligible 

• States determine which BART eligible sources are “subject to BART” 

• For each source subject to BART the State identifies the appropriate control 

technology. 

1. BART-Eligible Sources. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), States submitting §309 SIPs are required to list all 

BART-eligible sources covered by the alternative program. BART-eligible sources are 

identified as those sources that fall within one of 26 specific source categories, were built 

between 1962 and 1977, and have potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year of any 

visibility impairing air pollutant [40 CFR 51.301]. The BART-eligible sources identified by the 

three §309 States are shown in Table 1. 

2. Subject to BART Determination. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B) and (e)(1)(ii), States are required to determine which 

BART-eligible sources are “subject to BART.” BART-eligible sources are subject to BART if 

they emit any air pollutant that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. §309 States have conducted 

individual source modeling to determine if a BART-eligible source causes or contributes to 

visibility impairment. 

Two of the §309 States (New Mexico and Utah) utilized the technical modeling services of 

the WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC). Modeling was performed according to the 

RMC modeling protocols (CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening 

Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States). For the WRAP BART exemption 

screening modeling, the RMC followed the EPA BART Guidelines (EPA, 2005) and the 

applicable CALMET/CALPUFF modeling guidance (e.g., IWAQM, 1998; FLAG, 2000; EPA, 

2003c) including EPA’s March 16, 2006 memorandum: “Dispersion Coefficients for 

Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF” (Atkinson and Fox, 2006). 

The basic assumptions of the WRAP BART CALMET/CALPUFF modeling protocols are as 

follows. 

• Three years (2001, 2002 and 2003) were modeled. 

• Visibility impacts due to emissions of SO2, NOx and primary PM emissions were 

calculated. 

• Visibility was calculated using the original IMPROVE equation and “Annual Average 

Natural Conditions”. 

• The effective range of CALPUFF modeling was set at 300km from the sources. 

127
• According to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y (EPA BART Guidelines; EPA, 2005), a 

BART-eligible source is considered to “contribute” to visibility impairment in a Class I 

area if the modeled 98th percentile change in deciviews is equal to or greater than 

the “contribution threshold.” 

• The threshold for visibility impact, for a single source, was a 0.5 deciview change or 

more to “contribute” to visibility impairment. This threshold is consistent with the EPA 

BART Guidelines (EPA 2005) that states, “As a general matter, any threshold that 

you use for determining whether a source ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment should 

not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.” This threshold is also consistent with longstanding visibility modeling practices. States have the discretion to set a lower 

threshold, but the three participating states have not determined that a lower 

threshold is needed or justified. 

The State of Wyoming performed modeling in-house that was also based on EPA BART 

Guidelines and the applicable CALMET/CALPUFF guidelines. The basic assumptions were 

the same as used in the RMC modeling with the following exception: meteorological data for 

1995, 1996, and 2001 that were prepared for a previous modeling analysis were used for the 

southwest Wyoming modeling domain. Wyoming’s BART Air Modeling Protocol, September 

2006, is posted at http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/BART.asp. 

128
Table 1. Subject to BART Status for §309 BART-Eligible Sources 

State Plant Name Unit BART 

Eligibl

e 

Subject 

to 

BART 

Modelin

g Entity 

BART 

Categor

y 

NM Amoco Empire Abo SRU Only Y N WRAP 15 

NM SWPS Cunningham Station (Xcel 

Energy) 

One Unit Y N WRAP 01 

NM Duke Energy Artesia Gas Plant SRU Only Y N WRAP 15 

NM Duke Energy Linam Ranch Gas 

Plant 

SRU Only Y N WRAP 15 

NM Dynegy Saunders SRU Only Y N WRAP 15 

NM Giant Refining San Juan Refinery Unit #1 FCCP 

ESP Stack 

Y N WRAP 11 

NM Giant Refining, Ciniza Refinery 4 B&W CO boiler Y N WRAP 11 

NM SWPS Maddox Station (Xcel 

Energy) 

One Unit Y N WRAP 01 

NM Marathon Indian Basin Gas Plant SRU Only Y N WRAP 15 

NM PNM, San Juan Units 1-4 Y Y WRAP 01 

NM Rio Grande Station One Unit Y N WRAP 01 

NM Western Gas Resources San Juan 

River Gas Plant 

SRU Only Y N WRAP 15 

UT PACIFICORP – Hunter Power 

Plant 

Units 1-2 Y Y WRAP 01 

UT PACIFICORP – Huntington Power 

Plant 

Units 1-2 Y Y WRAP 01 

WY BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOP 

– LARAMIE RIVER 

Units 1-3 Y Y WY DEQ 01 

WY BLACK HILLS POWER & LIGHT = 

NEIL SIMPSON 1 

Unit 1 Y N WY DEQ 01 

WY Dyno Nobel (formerly Coastal 

Chemical) 

9 Units Y N WY DEQ 10 

WY FMC CORP – GREEN RIVER 

SODA ASH PLANT 

3 Units Y Y WY DEQ 22 

WY FMC WYOMING CORP – 

GRANGER SODA ASH PLANT 

2 Units Y N WY DEQ 22 

WY GENERAL CHEMICAL – GREEN 

RIVER SODA ASH PLANT 

2 Units Y Y WY DEQ 22 

WY P4 PRODUCTION – ROCK 

SPRINGS COKING PLANT 

1 Unit Y N WY DEQ 22 

WY PACIFICORP – DAVE 

JOHNSTON 

Units 3-4 Y Y WY DEQ 01 

WY PACIFICORP – JIM BRIDGER Units 1-4 Y Y WY DEQ 01 

WY PACIFICORP – NAUGHTON Units 1-3 Y Y WY DEQ 01 

WY PACIFICORP –WYODAK Unit 1 (335 MW) Y Y WY DEQ 01 

WY SINCLAIR OIL CORP-SINCLAIR 

REFINERY 

16 units Y N WY DEQ 11 

WY SINCLAIR REFINERY – CASPER 1 unit Y N WY DEQ 11 

D. Baseline Inventory for 2018 

The Stationary Sources Joint Forum of the WRAP coordinated the development of a baseline 

inventory for 2018 that was used to update the SO2 milestones for the 3-state region. The 

inventory was estimated as described below. 

129
1. Electric Generating Units (EGU’s) 

The methodology for projecting existing EGU's into the future involves the following steps: 

a) the electricity production (MW's) for each individual unit at a plant was determined 

from the Energy Information Administration [EIA] (data available for 2002-05) 

b) the electricity generation design maximum capacity (MW's) was determined for 

each individual unit from EIA data 

c) an operating Capacity Factor was determined by dividing the year specific 

production by the design maximum capacity of the each individual plant unit 

d) all individual units were assumed to be operating at 85% capacity in 2018 (unless 

they were already operating above this level in 2002) 

e) the Growth Ratio necessary to achieve 85% capacity was determined by dividing 

0.85 by the Capacity Factor for each individual plant unit (averaged over four 

years) 

f) a Current Year Emission Factor (lb SO2/MM-Btu) was calculated for the latest year 

of available EIA data (2006), using the actual reported emissions (tons SO2) for 

each individual plant unit divided by the actual reported annual heat generation 

(MM Btu) 

g) the 2018 Emission Factor was assumed to be the same as the current emission 

factor, except for a few sources that had a new permitted emission rate. 

h) the 2018 Emission Rate (tons SO2) was calculated by multiplying current year 

emissions by the ratio of the 2018 to current year Emission Factors 

i) the Adjusted 2018 Emission Rate (tons SO2) was "grown" to 85% capacity by 

multiplying the 2018 Emission Rate by the Growth Ratio from Step 5 

(emissions from units already operating at or higher than the 85% capacity in the 

2002 data year, were not grown, but accepted at face value). 

2. Permitted/Future EGU’s 

The PRP 18b inventory is documented in the ERG Final Technical Memorandum dated 

October 16, 2009. The Memorandum projects the need for 61.99 billion kWh of future coalfired electricity generation between 2002 and 2018. Of this total, 36.37 billion kWh will be 

met by increased utilization of existing plants, and the addition of new plants that are already 

under construction. The remaining 25.62 billion kWh will be met by new coal plants in the 

WRAP region. The §309 States estimate that 25% of that total will be constructed in the 3-

state region, with an emission estimate of 2,600 tons SO2 by 2018. 

a) Growth estimates in 2008 SIPs. 

The previous SO2 milestones were finalized by the §309 States in the Spring of 

2008 and were adopted into the SIPs for Albuquerque, Utah, and Wyoming later 

that year. The milestones included a new source growth estimate of 20,000 tons 

SO2 for utilities. This new source growth estimate was drawn from the PRP18a 

inventory that relied on the 2007 EIA projections. As part of the technical 

demonstration for the SIPs, the §309 States identified projects that were under 

construction or had been permitted that would have consumed about 10,000 tons 

of the new source set-aside. 

b) Changes in Underlying Assumptions. 

130
During the last two years there have been significant changes in the EIA 

projections for future growth of coal-fired electricity generation. The PRP18b 

inventory that is documented in the ERG Final Technical Memorandum dated 

October 16, 2009 has scaled back the projections of growth of coal-fired utilities. 

EPA has indicated that this more recent information calls into question the 

estimates for future growth in coal-fired generation in the current milestones. In 

addition, the State of Arizona has elected to develop a SIP under Section 308 of 

the Regional Haze rule, further reducing the new source set-aside. 

c) Updated New Source Growth Estimates. 

The §309 States have reviewed the new Memorandum and have determined that 

the new source growth estimate should be reduced from 20,000 tons SO2 to 

6,600 tons SO2. Of this total, approximately 4,000 tons SO2 can be attributed to 

new units in Wyoming that are currently operating, or have commenced 

construction (Wygen Units II and III, Dry Fork Station, and Two Elk Unit 1). This 

leaves a remaining estimate of new source growth that has not been attributed to 

a specific plant of 2,600 tons SO2. 

This estimate is consistent with the 2009 ERG Final Technical Memorandum. As 

outlined in Table 3 of that Memorandum (summarized below) an additional 61.99 

billion kWh of coal-fired electricity generation will be needed between 2002 and 

2018. 

Future Coal-Fired Electricity Generation (billion kWh) 

258.7 2002 Electricity Generation 

320.69 2018 Electricity Generation 

61.99 Needed Generation 

Future Coal-Fired Electricity Generation from existing sources, and those 

under construction (billion kWh) 

16.6 Unused capacity at existing 2002 Facilities 

5.34 Capacity at post-2002 facilities 

14.43 

Estimated generation capacity of the 6 EGUs under 

construction 

36.37 Total 

25.62 New Source Growth needed in WRAP Region (billion kWh) 

As shown above, 36.37 billion kWh can be met by the combination of unused 

capacity from existing sources plus new sources that are in operation or under 

construction (including the three plants in Wyoming that are described above). 

This leaves a remaining 25.62 billion kWh that would be met by new coal plants in 

the region. 

The need for new source growth beyond what is already under construction is 

supported by estimates of future electricity demand in the region. For example, 

the Integrated Resource Plan submitted by PacifiCorp to the Utah Public Service 

Commission in May 2009 estimates a capacity deficit of 3,520 MW by 2018. The 

IRP meets that deficit through a combination of new natural gas-fired plants, 

131
renewable resources, and demand side management and does not include plans 

for new coal-fired generation. This is a change from the 2006 IRP (submitted in 

2007), that included plans for new coal generation in Utah (340 MW) and 

Wyoming (527 MW) by 2018. However, the 2008 IRP also increased the 

estimated front office transactions (power purchased on the open market), from 

249 MW in the 2006 IRP to 800 MW in the 2008 IRP for the year 2018. Because 

future demand exceeds existing capacity as shown in Table 3 of the ERG Final 

Technical Memorandum, it is reasonable to assume that new plants (including 

potential merchant plants built by other entities) will be needed to meet this 

demand for purchased power in 2018. 

Table 4 in the Final Technical Memorandum identifies 8,880 MW that are being 

permitted in the region. The Memorandum states, “However, if 39% of the new 

coal-fired EGU plant capacity currently in the permitting process is brought online, then the 2008 coal-fired EIA projection for 2018 will be met.” (see page 7). 

Therefore, the estimate of future coal-fired EGUs in the 12-state region is 3,463 

MW. Approximately 25% of the MWs listed in Table 4 as “being permitted” are 

located in Utah and Wyoming, therefore it is reasonable to estimate that 900 MWs 

(conservative emission estimate of 2,600 tons SO2) of future coal-fired EGUs be 

attributed to the §309 States. 

3. Non-EGU's 

The Methodology for projecting emissions from "Other Industrial Sources" is described in 

E.H. Pechan's October 2006 Report, 2018 SO2 Emissions Evaluation for Non-Utility SourcesFinal. The report is posted online at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/documents/eictts/projections.html. 

a) The SO2 emissions for 19 Natural Gas Processing Plants were updated by 

Environ in April 2007, with additional research into future O&G Operations. The 

September 2007 Final report with results of that update is posted at 

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/documents/eictts/oilgas.html. 

b) The 2005 SO2 Milestone Report had some sources which were not picked up in 

the Pechan report. In those cases, the 2005 emissions were used as a 

placeholder for the 2018 emission values. 

c) The projections do not specifically break out emissions from existing sources vs. 

new sources. For purposes of establishing a new source set-aside, 2006 

emissions were assumed to be the baseline emissions for existing sources, and 

the projected increase in emissions between 2006 and 2018 is attributed to new 

source growth. 

There have been steady SO2 emission reductions from the non-utility sector since 1990. 

Several major sources were shut down, including two copper smelters (BHP San Manuel and 

Phelps Dodge Chino: 69,491 tons SO2 in 1990) and a steel mill (Geneva Steel: 8,473 tons 

SO2 in 1990). Kennecott Utah Copper reduced SO2 emissions by 25,000 tons SO2 during 

the mid-1990s. During this same time period, oil and gas production increased substantially 

in all three states requiring upgrades to processing plants and other facilities to address 

potential air quality problems. These upgrades have largely been completed, and it is 

anticipated that future emissions will reflect growing demand for natural gas in the Western 

132
US. As can be seen in Figure 1, emissions have leveled off in recent years and are likely to 

increase as the US emerges from a major recession in coming years. The 2006 EH Pechan 

report describes in detail the methodology that was used to project future emissions for each 

source category. 

Nonutility SO2 Emission Trends 2000-2008

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Nonutility

Figure 1. Non-utility Emission Trends 

Table 2 summarizes the projected 2018 Baseline SO2 emissions for the 3-State region. 

Table 2. 2018 Baseline 

Projected 2018 SO2

Emissions 

Baseline 

Utility 128,409 

Non-Utility 49,961 

New Source Growth Utility 6,600 

New Source Growth Non-Utility 5,686 

Total 2018 Baseline 190,656 

133
E. Estimated Emission Reductions Due to BART 

The SO2 milestones and backstop trading program were designed primarily to achieve 

reasonable progress towards meeting the long-term visibility goal. As outlined in the regional 

haze rule, in cases where the an alternative program has been designed to meet 

requirements other than BART, States are not required to make BART determinations under 

40 CFR 51.308(e) and may use simplifying assumptions in establishing a BART benchmark 

based on an analysis of what BART is likely to be for similar types of sources within a source 

category. Emission estimates for 2018, assuming the application of BART for SO2 on all 

subject-to-BART sources in the three states, were prepared and are compiled in a 

spreadsheet named “8-11-10_milestone.xls” (see technical support documentation). The 

2018 estimates for these sources are estimates of actual emissions and therefore reflect 

greater emission reductions than would be enforceable in a case-by-case BART permit. The 

methodology that was used to estimate these emission reductions is described below. 

1. Utilities - Presumptive BART. 

All utilities that were determined to be subject to BART were assumed to be operating at the 

presumptive emission rate established in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y (0.15 lb/MMBtu). 

Actual emissions at this presumptive emission rate were estimated for 2018. 

2. Other sources. 

The SO2 milestones were primarily designed to achieve reasonable progress for all sources 

of SO2 in the 3-state region and therefore the regional haze rule allows States to use 

simplifying assumptions in establishing the BART benchmark. EPA has not established 

presumptive emission rates for nonutilities, therefore another approach was needed to 

estimate emission reductions from four boilers located at 2 trona facilities in SW Wyoming. . 

Recent pollution control projects achieved a 63% reduction in SO2 from two of the boilers, 

and represent reasonably stringent controls, considering the age and purpose of the facility. 

Therefore, the emission rate achieved by these projects is used as the BART benchmark for 

the four boilers. 

I. General Chemical Soda Ash Partners, Green River Plant 

C Boiler 

Constructed in 1/74 

Fuel Analysis for coal: 262,800 tons/year; 534 x 10e6 BTU/hr 

site rated capacity 

Emission limit for SO2 1.2 lb/MMBtu; 640.8 lb/hr; 2806.7 TPY 

D Boiler 

Constructed in 1/75 

Fuel Analysis for coal: 388,000 tons/year; 880 x 10e6BTU/hr 

site rated capacity 

Emission limit for SO2 1.2 lb/MMBtu; 1056.0 lb/hr; 4625.3 TPY 

II. FMC Wyoming Corporation Westvaco Facility 

NS-1A 

134
Constructed in 1975 

Modified 8/2007 (New chevron mist eliminators installed in 

venturi scrubber) 

Fuel Analysis coal: 380,888 tons/year; 887 x 10e6 BTU/hr site 

rated capacity 

Emissions limit for SO2 0.54 lb/MMBtu; 

NS-1B 

Constructed in 1975 

Modified 7/2008 (New chevron mist eliminators installed in 

venturi scrubber) 

Fuel Analysis coal: 380,888 tons/year; 887 x 10e6 BTU/hr site 

rated capacity 

Emission limit for SO2 0.54 lb/MMBtu 

All four boilers were originally constructed in SW Wyoming for purposes of processing trona 

in the mid 1970’s. As process units, these four boilers are subject to greater load swings 

than would be experienced at electric generating units which typically come up to full 

operating levels and stay there. All four boilers were at one time operating under emission 

limits of 1.2 lb/MMBtu. All four boilers are roughly the same size with site rated capacities 

between 880 MMBtu/hr and 887 MMBtu/hr except for the oldest boiler, C Boiler at General 

Chemical at Green River rated at 534 MMBtu/hr. All four boilers burn primarily coal with oil 

and gas used as start up fuels. All four units have been participating in the SO2 Backstop 

Trading Program, reporting inventories annually as required by Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations. 

Two of the four units, NS1A and NS1B operated by FMC, sought early SO2 reductions in 

2007 and 2008 respectively as participants in the 309 program. These two units reduced 

SO2 emissions by 55 percent or 5126 tons collectively from both units. New chevron mist 

eliminators were installed on venturi scrubbers to accomplish this reduction. Since that time, 

FMC has reviewed additional reductions resulting in a total reduction from the 2018 baseline 

of 5827 tons or an additional 701 tons. Total reduction from the 1.2 lb/MMBtu emission rate 

is a 63 percent removal rate. The State of Wyoming has reviewed these additional reductions 

and has determined that they represent reasonably stringent controls, considering the age 

and purpose of the facility. 

In a similar fashion, the State has reviewed potential SO2 reductions at the General Chemical 

facility at Green River and had concluded that a 63 percent removal rate is also appropriate 

for the two boilers located at that facility. As was mentioned above, these facilities are 

similar in age, and purpose. General Chemical boilers C and D are currently permitted at 

7,432 tons of SO2 operating at 1.2 lb/MMBtu. The State would expect that reasonably 

stringent controls at this facility would result in a similar 63 percent reduction from the same 

starting point of 1.2 lb/MMBtu. Reviewing reductions from the 2018 milestone baseline, the 

General Chemical boilers would be looking at reducing emissions by 2,669 tons. 

While the 2018 milestone baseline level is not the same for the two companies, the state 

has determined that equitable treatment of like facilities would require similar reductions from 

the two companies prior to the 309 program. Both companies would be reducing emissions 

from a starting point of 1.2 lb/MMBtu down to 0.45 lb/MMBtu. In the case of FMC, who made 

early reductions in the program, an additional 701 ton reduction is expected to be achieved. 

In the case of General Chemical, 2,669 tons will be achieved. The total reduction from both 

135
facilities has been estimated at 3,370 tons. The State has determined that these are 

reasonably stringent controls and the resulting emissions would serve as an adequate BART 

benchmark. 

 

3. Summary. 

The estimated emission reductions due to the application of BART in the §309 States are 

summarized in Table 3. 

Table 3. Emission Reduction due to BART 

2018 baseline SO2 2018 SO2 with BART Emission Reduction 

due to BART 

Utilities 128,409 82,972 45,437 

Non-Utilities 49,961 46,661 3,370 

Total 48,807 

F. 2018 BART Benchmark 

2018 Baseline 190,656 

Estimated BART Reductions -48,807

Total 141,849 

G. Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART 

The Regional SO2 milestone of 141,849 equals the BART benchmark, but provides greater 

reasonable progress than BART for the reasons outlined below. 

1. Early Reductions. 

The GCVTC recommended that the market trading program “contain specific provisions to 

encourage and reward early emission reductions, including reductions achieved before 

2000.”‡‡ The GCVTC committed to achieve a 13% reduction in SO2 emissions from 

stationary sources by the year 2000. The GCVTC also recognized that there was a good 

possibility that actual emission reductions would be greater than this 13% goal. A general 

plan was derived to give some early reductions credit to the region and some to the 

environment. The emission reductions that were greater than 13% were to be split, with 1⁄2 

going to the environment (through the establishment of milestones) and the other 1⁄2 

providing headroom.§§

Sulfur dioxide emissions decreased by 25% in the 9-state GCVTC region between 1990 and 

2000, and SO2 emissions in the three §309 states 33% in that same time period. 

The regional milestones have been in effect since 2003 when the original five participating 

states submitted regional haze SIPs, as required by section 309 of the regional haze rule. 

The 2003 SIP was designed to provide flexibility so that sources could find the most costeffective way to reduce SO2 emissions, including over-controlling some plants while opting 

for lower cost controls at other plants. The 2003 SIP was also designed to encourage early 

 ‡‡ Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas at 33 (June 1996).

§§ Id. at 34.

136
reductions by providing an extra allocation for sources that made reductions prior to the 

program trigger year. The 2003 SIP influenced the long term planning for sources in the 

region, and utilities began upgrading plants based on the provisions of the SIP years earlier 

than would have been required under a case-by-case BART determination in a §308 SIP. 

Emissions in the 3-state region decreased an additional 31% between 2000 and 2008.***

Figure 2 shows the emission reductions from 1990 baseline emissions in the §309 states that 

will have been achieved by 2018. This total 60% reduction from 1990 emissions is well on 

the way to the GCVTC goal of reducing SO2 emissions by 50% - 70% by the year 2040. 

Figure 3 shows the sulfate contribution to visibility at the long-term IMPROVE sites located 

on the Colorado Plateau. As can be seen from these graphs, there has been a steady 

decrease in the visibility impact due to sulfates. The trend is especially apparent on the 20% 

best days that are not affected by the variability of fire emissions in the region. 

 *** WRAP 2008 Regional Emissions and Milestone Report, March 31, 2010. 

137
138 

§309 SO2 Backstop Cap and Trade Program - 

Emissions, Modeling EI, and Milestone Program Data 

(no tribal sources)

-

50,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000

Tons per year

NM 140,177 79,011 37,918 31,068 31,012 UT 84,983 37,483 42,183 44,175 35,429 WY 133,204 122,373 120,991 113,465 96,809 3-State Total 358,364 238,867 201,092 188,708 200,722 155,940 163,250 141,84

1990 2000 2002 (Plan02d) 2006 Milestone Report 2008 Milestone 2013 Milestone 2018 (PRP18b) 2018 Miles

Figure 2. Emission Trends 
139 

Figure 3. Sulfate Contribution to Light Extinction at Class I Areas on the Colorado 

Plateau.††† 

Series – Aggregation: Best 20%, Worst 20%, Best 20% 2000-2004 Baseline, Worst 20% 

2000-2004 Baseline, Metadata – Program: IRHR2, Poc: 1, Parameter: ammSO4_bext, 

Method: RHR Dataset. 

 ††† Only those Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau with at least 15 years of data are included in this 

figure. 0 0

0 •

m

0 0

m 0

0 0

0

,

0 0

•

$

I +

$

,,

w

" "

"

II

.--- 0

w

I

w

-

p

I

0

'" , w

0 )

,

l

p

n0

m

• >

w

0

II

.,

Zl>

" "

z

II

c-<

'""'

....

I

"

0(

00

0

! w

0

l

0

0

w

Z

C

,

•
140 

0 0

•

m 0 0 0

o _

w

m

m

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 DOD

I ! I

•

$

$

\

Z

I

•

I +

$ I +

$

,,

w

•

" " ' , n " "

)

n

/

I 0

I 0

0

m

0

m

m

, m

-

, p

p

,

ro , ro

! 0 , '3: ! 0

i

',"

• > m

<

m",

II

•

0

o

m II 1 ro l>

" "

n

ro " "

./

"

n 0 ro

i z

0

I 0

I , 0 z

w 0 I , 0 c

, !

!

, ! •

"

}

(

w

•

•
141 

PEF01

Class I Area - Petrified Forest NP. AZ

10.0 I 0

~O ----. /\ 0

. 0 0

• eo V ..... V

,

"

0 0

s- o 0 0 s- A 0 0 0

"---, " 0 0 • •

CO

,eB '"" '"" '""' "'" "", =0

. "'" ___ Be,;! 20'4 • VIle.,;! 20'4

-Best 20% 200J_2004 Bos"" VIle.,;! 20% 200J_2004 Bos""

WEMI1

Class Iheas - Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP. CO La Garita W. CO Weminuche W. CO ,0

~O •

/\ OC \ .-" / "-

\ eo

'7 5.0

i 40

r

"

"

" ~~~ _.

<. . "

CO

,""

'"" '"" '"" '""' "'" "", =0

. "'" ___ Be,;! 20% • VIle.,;! 20%

-Be';! 20% 200J_2004 B","" VIle.,;! 20% 200J_2004 B",""
2. Additional Sources Included. 

The backstop trading program includes all stationary sources with emissions greater than 

100 tons/year of SO2. The §309 States designed this program as part of an overall strategy 

to address all sources of visibility impairing pollutants, rather than focusing on a subset of 

stationary sources. 

Number 

of 

Sources 

2006 

Emissions Percentage 

Subject to BART 10 121,542 62% 

Other 

Stationary Sources 63 73,038 38% 

The inclusion of all major SO2 sources in the program is necessary to create a viable trading 

program, and also serves a broader purpose to ensure that growth in emissions from 

sources that are not subject to BART does not undermine the progress that has been 

achieved. BART applied on a case-by-case basis would not affect these sources, and there 

would be no limitation on their future operations under their existing permit conditions. 

Because the milestones will cap these sources at actual emissions (which are less than 

current allowable emissions), the overall effect of their inclusion is to provide greater 

reasonable progress than would have been achieved if only sources that are subject to 

BART were included in the program. 

3. Cap on New Source Growth. 

When Congress established the visibility program in 1977 it declared as a national goal “the 

prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing” anthropogenic visibility 

impairment in mandatory class I federal areas.‡‡‡ BART is an emission limitation established 

at a specific source and is designed as a remedy to impairment at specific mandatory Class I 

areas. By contrast, the SO2 milestones developed by the §309 States serve the dual 

purpose of remedying existing impairment and preventing future impairment by requiring 

regional SO2 emissions reductions and capping emissions for stationary sources. Future 

impairment is prevented by capping emissions growth from sources not eligible under the 

BART requirements, from sources subject to BART that are expected to significantly 

increase utilization, and from entirely new sources in the region. 

The milestones include estimates for growth, but then lock these estimates in as an 

enforceable emission cap. The milestone approach is consistent with the statutory goal of 

preventing any future visibility impairment that results from man-made air pollution. The 

entire region is experiencing rapid growth which could erode the progress that has been 

achieved in the last two decades towards improving visibility. BART applied on a case-bycase basis would have no impact on future growth, and in the long run would not achieve the 

regional emission reductions that are guaranteed by the program. 

4. Commission Strategies are a Total Package. 

 ‡‡‡ CAA § 169A(a)(1).

142 
The GCVTC recommendations were developed as a comprehensive strategy includes 

strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed fire, pollution prevention, and Clean Air 

Corridors. The stationary source strategies need to be viewed as part of this overall 

package. Visibility impairment in the west is caused by multiple sources and pollutants, and 

a narrow focus on stationary sources may not achieve the same results as a broad-based 

program. When viewed as part of the entire SIP, the milestones achieve much greater 

reasonable progress than BART. 

5. Mass Based Cap has Inherent Advantages over BART 

The baseline emission projections and assumed reductions due to the assumption of BARTlevel emission rates on all sources subject to BART are all based on actual emissions, using 

2006 as the baseline. The use of actual emissions has an effect in several ways. If the 

BART process was applied on a case-by-case basis to individual sources, emission 

limitations would typically be established as an emission rate (lbs/hr or lbs/MMBtu) that 

would account for variations in the sulfur content of fuel and alternative operating scenarios. 

The difference between actual emissions and allowable emissions is particularly large when 

a source is permitted to burn two different fuel types, such as oil and natural gas, or when the 

source is part of a cyclical industry where production varies from year to year due to the 

changing demand for their product. A mass-based cap that is based on actual emissions is 

more stringent because it does not allow a source to consistently use this difference between 

current actual and allowable emissions. 

Another difference is that mass-based limits will include excess emissions that may occur 

due to malfunctions or during the start-up or shut-down of emission units. A good example of 

this difference is the requirement in the acid rain program that emissions must be assumed 

to be the highest value recorded from the past year during the time period that continuous 

emission monitors are not functioning on a stack. These higher emissions are calculated as 

part of the overall tons/year, and must be accounted for under the mass-based cap for the 

acid rain program. 

6. Tribal Set-aside 

The GCVTC recommended a market based program to address stationary source emissions 

of SO2. The GCVTC recommended that the market based program include allocations to 

tribes that are of practical benefit.§§§ This recognized the concern that “tribes, by and large, 

have not contributed to the visibility problem in the region” and that “[t]ribal economies are 

much less developed than those of states, and tribes must have the opportunity to progress 

to reach some degree of parity with states in this regard.”  The tribes specifically 

recommended that if an emission trading strategy is adopted to achieve SO2 reductions from 

stationary sources that allocations be based on considerations of equity rather than historical 

emissions: 

Credits should not be based on historical emissions, but should be based on 

equitable factors, including the need to preserve opportunities for economic 

 §§§ Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas (June 1996). at 35. 

** **Id. at 66-67. 

143 
development on tribal lands. In general, these lands are currently lacking in 

economic bases and have not contributed to the visibility problems.††††

Accordingly, the backstop trading program contains a 2,500 allocation to tribes in the GCVTC 

region. Case-by-case BART permits would not provide this practical benefit to tribes that 

was an integral part of the GCVTC recommendations. 

7. Other Class I Areas Also Show Improvement in Visibility 

In addition to demonstrating successful SO2 emission reductions, §309 states have also 

relied on visibility modeling conducted by the WRAP to demonstrate improvement at Class I 

areas. The complete modeling demonstration showing deciview values was included as part 

of the visibility improvement section in each of the state §309 SIPs, but the SO2 portion of the 

demonstration has been included below as Table 4 to underscore the improvements 

associated with 309 SO2 reductions and further demonstrate why the 309 program is better 

than BART. 40 CFR 51.309(g)(2)(i) allows states to build upon the strategies implemented in 

a 309 program and take full credit for visibility improvement achieved through these 

strategies when addressing additional Class I areas. This table demonstrates achievements 

in visibility in these additional Class I areas (off the Colorado Plateau) in and surrounding the 

three states participating in the 309 program. For the most part, the table shows projected 

visibility improvement for 2018 with respect to SO2 on the worst days and no degradation on 

the best days. There is one Class I area in New Mexico off the Colorado Plateau that is not 

showing improvement on the worst days. The State of New Mexico has reviewed the 

emissions data related to impacts in the Gila Wilderness and has determined that the 

visibility degradation is largely due to increasing point source emissions from Mexico. 

 ††††Id. at 71.

144 
Table 4. Visibility - Sulfate Extinction Only 

20% Worst Visibility Days 20% Best Visibility Days 

(Monthly Average, Mm-1) (Monthly Average, Mm-1) 

Class I Area Monitor 

(Class I Areas Represented) 2018 1

Base Case 

(Base 18b) 

2018 2

Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress Case 

(PRP18a) 

2018 2

Preliminary 

Reasonable 

Progress Case 

2018 1

Base Case 

(Base 18b) 

(PRP18a) 

Bridger, WY 

(Bridger WA and Fitzpatrick WA) 5.2 4.3 1.6 1.3 

North Absaroka, WY 4.8 4.5 1.1 1.1 (North Absaroka WA and Washakie WA) 

Yellowstone, WY 

(Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and 4.3 3.9 1.6 1.4 

Teton WA) 

Badlands, SD 17.8 16.0 3.5 3.1 

Wind Cave, SD 13.0 12.1 2.7 2.5 

Great Sand Dunes NM, CO 5.3 4.9 2.0 1.8 

Mount Zirkel, CO 4.6 4.1 1.4 1.3 (Mt. Zirkel WA and Rawah WA) 

Rocky Mountain, CO 6.8 6.2 1.3 1.1 

Gates of the Mountains, MT 5.3 5.1 1.0 1.0 

UL Bend, MT 9.7 9.6 1.8 1.7 

Craters of the Moon, ID 5.8 5.5 1.5 1.5 

Sawtooth, ID 3.0 2.8 1.2 1.1 

Bandelier NM, NM 6.4 5.9 2.4 2.2 

Bosque del Apache NWRW, NM 7.0 6.6 2.7 2.5 

Gila W, NM 6.2 6.7 1.8 1.8 

Salt Creek NWRW, NM 14.4 14.0 3.3 3.1 

Wheeler Peak, NM 4.7 4.4 1.1 (Pecos W and Wheeler Peak W) 1.0 

White Mountain W, NM 8.9 8.7 1.8 1.7 

Great Basin NP, NV 4.1 4.1 1.2 1.2 

Jarbidge W, NV 3.8 3.4 1.3 1.2 

Chiricahua, AZ 

(Chiricahua NM, Chiricahua W, Galiuro 

W) 

7.4 7.4 2.2 2.1 

Ike’s Backbone, AZ 

(Mazatzal W, Pine Mountain W) 6.1 5.9 2.2 2.1 

Queen Valley, AZ 7.5 7.5 3.0 3.0 

Saguaro NM, AZ 7.1 6.8 2.6 2.5 

Saguaro West, AZ 7.3 7.1 3.2 3.1 

Sierra Ancha, AZ 6.0 5.8 2.2 2.1 

Superstition, AZ 6.7 6.5 2.7 2.6 

Guadalupe Mountains NP, TX 

(Carlsbad Caverns NP, NM and 

Guadalupe Mountains NP, TX) 

13.7 13.6 3.3 3.2 

1

 Represents 2018 Base Case growth plus all established controls as of Dec. 2004. No BART or SO2 Milestone 

assumptions were included. 

2

 Represents 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress growth estimates and established SO2 limits. 

145 
146 

 

H. Comparison of Trading vs. Command and Control BART Requirements 

During the development of the Annex, the WRAP conducted modeling to determine whether 

the distribution of emissions under the backstop trading program would differ substantially 

from the distribution of emissions assuming installation of BART or would disproportionately 

impact any Class I area due to a geographic concentration of emissions. The results of this 

modeling are included in Tables 2 and 3 of Attachment C to the Annex‡‡‡‡.

 Attachment C, 

Section G concludes, “The results of this analysis showed that the maximum difference 

between the two scenarios at any of the Class I areas was only 0.1 deciviews.§§§§” 

‡‡‡‡ Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in Nine 

Western States and A Backstop Market Trading Program, an Annex to the Report of the Grand 

Canyon Visibiltiy Transport Commission (September 2000) at C-15 and 16. 

§§§§ Id. at C-21. 
In separate document: 

ATTACHMENT B 

Attachment B contains a copy of the Hearing Exhibits/or the June 8, 2011 hearing 

ATTACHMENT C 

Attachment C contains copy of the Hearing Transcripts for the June 8. 2011 Hearing