CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Placer County Air Pollution Control District

Rule No(s): 250 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: 10/8/2015

Rule Title(s): Stationary Gas Turbines

Date Submitted to ARB: 10/15/2015

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): Adopted 10/17/1994

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No (If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: John Finnell Phone Number: 530-745-2324 E-mail Address: jfinnell@placer.ca.gov

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Rule 250, Stationary Gas Turbines, applies to all stationary gas turbines rated 0.3 megawatts (MW) and larger. 

Currently, there are two facilities, Roseville Energy Park and City of Roseville Power Plant #2, subject to this rule.

This rule amendment was prompted by a notification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 

that Rule 250 did not meet current Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements. This finding 

was provided as a result of the U.S. EPA’s review of the District’s 2014 RACT SIP Analysis Report.

This amendment removed several exemptions, added limits during startup and shutdown, updated the rule 

standards, and eliminate outdated references and definitions.

The most notable proposed changes are:

• The exemptions for pipeline and chemical processing gas turbines have been removed. 

• References to efficiency have been removed from the rule standards, as they are no longer required. 

• Limits during start-up and shutdown periods have been added for both simple cycle gas turbines and for 

combined cycle gas turbines.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach reference(s) for emission factor(s) 

and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: N/A

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: N/A Area Affected: N/A

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible):

N/A
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): N/A

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): N/A

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and 

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: 2

Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100%

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: 0 Percent in Nonattainment Area: NA%

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as 

necessary): N/A

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) Section 300, Standards, Section 301, Limitations of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are: N/A

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): Section 301, Limitations Work Practice Standards in Section(s): Section 303, 

Startup/shutdown Simple Cycle Units

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): Section 502, Recordkeeping Reporting Requirements in Section(s): Section 

502, Recordkeeping, Sections 502.4 and 502.5.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002

3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

 No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion: The rule amendment was proposed to meet current Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements. It was not part of attainment planning.