BART Refinements 110507b.doc 1 of 13 

## PNM San Juan Generating Station

Refined BART Visibility Results November 5, 2007

Introduction PNM submitted its BART engineering and modeling application dated June 6, 2007 for San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) Units 1-4. The conclusion of this study was that the SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid systems minimally impact visibility improvements and would require significant ca pital expenditure and modifications that will impact many areas of the plant incl uding boiler draft systems, air heater performance, SO 3 

### emissions, and ash handling. Th erefore, LNB, OFA and NN were
recommended as BART for NO x 

### control on the SJGS units. Since the submittal of the BART report, PNM has investigated additio nal refinements to the BART CALPUFF air dispersion modeling analyses. These refinements include nitr ate repartitioning and more realistic ammonia background concentrations. These two refinements are described in
more detail below.

Nitrate Repartitioning
The first refinement for the SJGS BART visibility analyses was to better account for the amount of particulate nitrate (NO 3 

### ) by limiting the available ammonia when individual unit puffs overlap. The original visibility modeling did not incorporate repartitioning of available ammonia (MNITR ATE = 0). However, the refinements did not allow each overlapping puff(s) to use the full ammonia background value but instead only a portion of the ammonia available (MNITR ATE = 1). This concept is reflected in Section 3.1.2.6 of the WRAP protocol.

Ammonia Background Concentration
As described in Section 8.1 of the BART application, the air dispersion modeling analyses presented were conducted in accordance with the CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States dated August 15, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the WRAP Pr otocol). Specifically, the SJGS BART modeling was performed usi ng the same high fixed background ammonia level of 1 ppb that was used for the in itial modeling perfor med by WRAP RMC. However, there is limited real-time or historic ambient concentration information for ammonia within the modeling domain and at the individual Class I areas from sources
such as CASNET which could be used to verify whether the assumed 1 ppb ammonia background concentration is representative. In fact colder temp eratures and limitedBART Refinements 110507b.doc 2 of 13 

### agriculture activity, among other variables, could limit the amount of ammonia present in the ambient atmosphere and that which would be available to chemically react to form sulfates and nitrates to reduce visibility. Section 3.1.2.6 of WRAP prot ocol indicates that the 1 ppb value would be initially used a nd the issue revisited at a later time:

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

No additional information from th e WRAP regarding refined ammonia background concentrations was available. Ther efore, an investigation was completed to locate more realistic ammonia background va lues. The Sithe Global Power, LLC’s Desert Rock Energy Facility and the Toquop Energy Project visi bility analyses located in the southwestern U.S. used variable monthly background ammonia concentrations. Based on this information, refinements to SJGS’s BART modeling reflected these previously used values which have been included in Table 1 for reference.

Table 1 Variable Monthly Ammonia Background Concentration

Month Background Ammonia Concentration (ppb) January 0.2 February 0.2

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

October 0.5 November 0.5 December 0.5BART Refinements 110507b.doc 3 of 13 

### Visibility Summary
Based on the aforementioned refinements in background ammonia concentrations and nitrate repartitioning re vised CALPUFF visibility modeling was performed. It is important to note that all other modeling optio ns as described in the BART application were unchanged. The results of the refined visibility modeling, assuming the same control technology is installed on all four units, are illustrate d in Tables 2 and 5. These
tables summarize the scenarios and the maximu m visibility (deciview) impact seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over th e 2001 to 2003 period. The results of this analysis, using the aforementioned refinements, indicates a decrease in visibility impact
at each of the 16 Class I areas from those visibility impacts indicated in the BART application document. Of particular inte rest, the visibility impacts at Mesa Verde represent the maximum visibili ty impact at any of the Class I areas. However, these impacts also decrease from those impacts previously reported. For the two control scenarios, the visibility impacts are greater than the baseline’s visibility impact. Thus, there is no visibility improvement realized. The maximum visibility (deciview) impr ovement seen at any of the 16 Class I areas at any time over the 2001 to 2003 period is illustrated in Table 6 for each scenario. The expected degree of visibility improveme nt for each control scenario for each unit analyzed was determined by the difference in the maximum visibility improvement for each receptor at each of the si xteen Class I areas. Again, it is important to note that the control technology associated with the consent decree formulated the SJGS's baseline case for the purposes of this analysis. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness for the potential BART control technologies from th e BART application were used to for the determination of the visibility improvement cost-effectiveness in $/deciview ($/dv). Three major scenarios are shown in the vi sibility improvement cost effectiveness summary in Table 6:
1.0 Pre-consent decree to consent decree.
2.0 Consent decree to additional NO x 

### control technology a lternatives scenario.
3.0 Pre-consent decree to additional NO x 

### control technology alternatives
scenario. These maximum visibility improvements be tween the consent decree and the two control scenarios range from 0.01 dv to 0.38 dv of expected visibility improvement above the consent decree technology baseline case. The results indicate that adding additional
NO x 

### control technology beyond the consent decree does not yield a signi ficant visibility improvement (> 0.5 dv) at any Class I area.BART Refinements 110507b.doc 4 of 13 

### Based on the visibility improvement mode led and the total annual cost evaluated in the impact analysis stage of the BART a pplication document, the cost-effectiveness for visibility improvement (annual cost per improve ment in visibility, $/dv), was determined
for SJGS. The costs for installation of SCRs for all four units is $256 million/dv while the costs to install a hybrid system is $587 million/dv. These minimal visibility improvements do not merit the large capital expenditure required to install SCR or SNCR/SCR Hybrid. In addition to the proh ibitive cost associ ated with SCR and SNCR/SCR Hybrid, there are ot her important reasons that LNB, OFA and NN should be
considered BART for the SJGS units. Fi rst, the LNB, OFA and NN systems being
installed to meet the consent decree are stat e-of-the-art combustion controls. State-ofthe-art combustion controls comprising of LN B, OFA and NN technologies were used to form the basis for the BART presumptive limits for NO x 

### in the BART guidelines. Second, installation of SCR or SNCR/SC R Hybrid uses ammonia to reduce NO x 

### emissions. Specifically, in a SCR system, amm onia is injected into the flue gas stream just upstream of a catalytic reactor. Th e ammonia molecules in the presence of the catalyst dissociate NO x 

### into nitrogen and water. Any unreacted ammonia passes through
the reactor and out the stack as ammonia em issions or ammonia slip. This additional
ammonia would then be available to add to the ammonia background concentration, chemically react to form nitrat es and sulfates and potentially further increase the visibility impacts at the Class I areas. The additional ammonia slip was not considered in this analysis. Finally, the visibility results impl y that visibility impacts are influenced more by the SJGS’s sulfur emissions (SO 2 

### and additional SO 3 

### from the NO x 

### control devices) than by the reduction of NO x 

### . However, sulfur emission s are not subject to BART requirements because New Mexico participates in the WRAP emissions trading program. Therefore, LNB, OFA and NN shoul d be considered BART for NO x 

### control on the SJGS
units. A summary of the 98th per centile visibility impact for the four modeled technology scenarios (i.e., Pre-Consent Decree, Consent Decree, SCR, and hybrid scenarios) and include the numb er of days above 0.5 dv threshold and the contribution of each pollutant associated w ith the 98th percentile visibility impact for
each class I area has been included as Attachment 1.

Conclusion As previously noted in the BART anal ysis, the recommended BART control for SJGS is LNB, OFA, and a NN for NO x 

### control and PJFF for PM control.BART Refinements 110507b.doc 5 of 13 

### Table 2 Pre-Consent Decree Modeling Results New Ammonia Background a nd Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.92 1.76 1.82 1.83 1.92 Bandelier 1.31 1.86 1.51 1.56 1.86 Black Canyon 1.14 1.34 1.40 1.29 1.40 Canyonlands 2.59 2.04 2.00 2.21 2.59 Capitol Reef 1.97 1.16 1.34 1.49 1.97 Grand Canyon 1.14 0.93 0.81 0.96 1.14 Great Sand Dunes 0.85 1.00 0.82 0.89 1.00 La Garita 1.15 1.30 1.14 1.20 1.30 Maroon Bells 0.67 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.78 Mesa Verde 4.20 4.09 4.85 4.38 4.85 Pecos 1.40 1.33 1.26 1.33 1.40 Petrified Forest 1.13 0.79 0.74 0.88 1.13 San Pedro 1.78 2.37 1.96 2.04 2.37 West Elk 0.99 1.15 0.94 1.03 1.15 Weminuche 1.51 1.85 1.69 1.69 1.85 Wheeler Peak 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 1.05 Overall 1.53 4.85BART Refinements 110507b.doc 6 of 13 

### Table 3 Baseline (Consent Decree) Visibility Modeling Results New Ammonia Background a nd Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum

Arches 1.69 1.65 1.49 1.61 1.69 Bandelier 1.04 1.56 1.20 1.27 1.56 Black Canyon 0.95 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.15 Canyonlands 2.26 1.73 1.68 1.89 2.26 Capitol Reef 1.81 0.82 1.05 1.23 1.81 Grand Canyon 0.97 0.76 0.57 0.77 0.97 Great Sand Dunes 0.63 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.71 La Garita 0.86 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.94 Maroon Bells 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.56 Mesa Verde 3.38 3.53 3.80 3.57 3.80 Pecos 1.05 1.09 1.00 1.05 1.09 Petrified Forest 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.65 0.82 San Pedro 1.40 2.01 1.56 1.66 2.01 West Elk 0.80 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.91 Weminuche 1.15 1.48 1.34 1.33 1.48 Wheeler Peak 0.75 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Overall 1.24 3.80BART Refinements 110507b.doc 7 of 13 

### Table 4 SCR Visibility Modeling Results New Ammonia Background a nd Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.72 1.41 1.48 1.54 1.72 Bandelier 0.94 1.30 1.23 1.16 1.30 Black Canyon 0.82 0.83 0.92 0.85 0.92 Canyonlands 2.38 1.73 1.92 2.01 2.38 Capitol Reef 1.43 0.76 0.98 1.06 1.43 Grand Canyon 0.73 0.60 0.56 0.63 0.73 Great Sand Dunes 0.58 0.55 0.47 0.53 0.58 La Garita 0.62 0.70 0.67 0.66 0.70 Maroon Bells 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.42 Mesa Verde 5.34 5.32 6.00 5.55 6.00 Pecos 0.85 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.99 Petrified Forest 0.73 0.53 0.55 0.61 0.73 San Pedro 1.73 2.05 1.83 1.87 2.05 West Elk 0.64 0.66 0.62 0.64 0.66 Weminuche 1.14 1.61 1.45 1.40 1.61 Wheeler Peak 0.69 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.69 Overall 1.28 6.00BART Refinements 110507b.doc 8 of 13 

### Table 5 Hybrid Visibility Modeling Results New Ammonia Background a nd Nitrate Repartitioning 98th Percentile Impact for Each Year (dv)

Class I Area 2001 2002 2003 Average Maximum
Arches 1.75 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.75 Bandelier 1.03 1.52 1.27 1.27 1.52 Black Canyon 0.91 1.03 1.06 1.00 1.06 Canyonlands 2.41 1.72 1.89 2.01 2.41 Capitol Reef 1.67 0.74 1.13 1.18 1.67 Grand Canyon 0.87 0.71 0.64 0.74 0.87 Great Sand Dunes 0.72 0.72 0.58 0.67 0.72 La Garita 0.79 0.85 0.82 0.82 0.85 Maroon Bells 0.53 0.55 0.45 0.51 0.55 Mesa Verde 5.17 5.07 5.55 5.26 5.55 Pecos 0.93 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.01 Petrified Forest 0.79 0.56 0.58 0.64 0.79 San Pedro 1.69 2.14 1.81 1.88 2.14 West Elk 0.72 0.80 0.74 0.75 0.80 Weminuche 1.17 1.72 1.34 1.41 1.72 Wheeler Peak 0.81 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.84 Overall 1.35 5.55BART Refinements 110507b.doc 9 of 13Table 6Visibility Improvement Cost Effectiveness for Each Class 1 Area (Based on Maximum Visibility Modeling Results)New Ammonia Background and Nitrate RepartitioningMaximum Visibility Modeling Results (dv) Visibility Improvements (dv) Improvement ($/dv)(98th Percentile, see Note 1) Calculated from Maximum Visibility Results (for each Class 1 Area) (see Note 4)Class 1 AreaPre-ConsentDecree Consent Decree SCR HybridPre-ConsentDecree toConsent DecreeConsent Decreeto SCRConsent Decreeto HybridPre-ConsentDecree to SCRPre-ConsentDecree toHybridPre-ConsentDecree to ConsentDecreeConsent Decree toSCRConsent Decree toHybridPre-ConsentDecree to SCRPre-ConsentDecree to HybridArches1.92 1.69 1.72 1.75 0.23 NI NI 0.20 0.17224,751,092 NA NA 751,691,919 792,941,176Bandelier1.86 1.56 1.30 1.52 0.31 0.26 0.040.57 0.35 167,648,208 374,488,462 2,136,717,949 262,495,591 389,595,376Black Canyon1.40 1.15 0.92 1.06 0.26 0.23 0.09 0.49 0.34 201,835,294 421,502,165957,839,080 306,244,856 394,152,047Canyonlands2.59 2.26 2.38 2.41 0.33 NI NI 0.21 0.17158,363,077 NA NA 715,552,885 774,712,644Capitol Reef1.97 1.81 1.43 1.67 0.16 0.38 0.14 0.54 0.30 319,677,019 256,228,947586,845,070 275,110,906 444,884,488Grand Canyon1.14 0.97 0.73 0.87 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.41 0.27 304,544,379 409,105,042816,980,392 365,687,961 497,416,974Great Sand Dunes1.00 0.71 0.58 0.72 0.29 0.13 NI 0.42 0.28 179,331,010 726,619,403 NA 353,527,316 481,428,571La Garita1.30 0.94 0.70 0.85 0.36 0.24 0.09 0.60 0.45 142,966,667 402,342,975905,782,609 247,234,219 298,230,088Maroon Bells0.78 0.56 0.42 0.55 0.22 0.14 0.010.36 0.23 236,091,743 705,557,971 9,259,111,111 418,075,843 593,832,599Mesa Verde4.85 3.80 6.00 5.55 1.06 NI NI NI NI 48,692,526 NA NA NA NAPecos1.40 1.09 0.99 1.01 0.31 0.11 0.080.41 0.39 168,196,078 901,546,296 1,004,000,000 359,504,831 346,529,563Petrified Forest1.13 0.82 0.73 0.79 0.31 0.08 0.030.40 0.34 165,491,961 1,159,130,952 3,205,076,923 376,797,468 400,000,000San Pedro2.37 2.01 2.05 2.14 0.36 NI NI 0.32 0.24142,966,667 NA NA 466,567,398 573,617,021West Elk1.15 0.91 0.66 0.80 0.24 0.26 0.11 0.49 0.35 216,252,101 381,831,373737,451,327 301,896,552 384,045,584Weminuche1.85 1.48 1.61 1.72 0.37 NI NI 0.24 0.14138,727,763 NA NA 625,357,143 998,518,519Wheeler Peak1.05 0.89 0.69 0.84 0.16 0.20 0.050.36 0.21 323,698,113 477,289,216 1,543,185,185 410,013,774 632,863,850Notes:1. Maximum of 2001, 2002 and 2003 visibility data taken from Tables 1-4 for each Class I Area.2. NI = No Improvement3. NA = Not Applicable4. Total Annualized Costs used in calculating Improvement are as follows (in $1,000):Pre-Consent Decree to Consent Decree $51,468Consent Decree to SCR $97,367Consent Decree to Hybrid $83,332Pre-Consent Decree to SCR $148,835Pre-Consent Decree to Hybrid $134,800BART Refinements 110507b.doc 10 of 13 

# Attachment 1BART Refinements 110507b.doc 11 of 13 PNM SJGS BART Modeling New NH3 Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 2001

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 59 1.92 71.14 23.07 1.46 0.89 1.08 2.36 100 BAND 70 1.31 35.48 59.51 1.32 0.81 0.83 2.06 100 BLCA 40 1.14 52.26 45.03 0.71 0.44 0.43 1.13 100 CANY 80 2.59 65.05 28.99 1.51 0.92 1.08 2.44 100 CARE 31 1.97 51.54 43.71 1.15 0.71 1.06 1.83 100 GRCA 14 1.14 42.20 54.25 0.90 0.55 0.65 1.45 100 GRSA 23 0.85 77.31 14.03 2.38 1.46 1.09 3.75 100 LAGA 35 1.15 42.48 54.54 0.77 0.47 0.50 1.24 100 MABE 16 0.67 41.50 54.30 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.70 100 MEVE 184 4.20 84.29 1.94 3.21 1.97 3.57 5.03 100 PECO 53 1.40 43.19 52.60 1.08 0.66 0.76 1.71 100 PEFO 18 1.13 84.94 9.80 1.30 0.79 1.11 2.06 100 SAPE 111 1.78 79.88 8.73 2.70 1.65 2.83 4.20 100 WEEL 34 0.99 40.76 54.57 1.20 0.73 0.85 1.89 100 WEMI 74 1.51 26.70 66.76 1.53 0.94 1.66 2.40 100 WHPE 37 1.00 32.06 63.10 1.28 0.78 0.76 2.02 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 47 1.69 33.57 62.13 1.88 0.48 0.48 1.46 100 BAND 49 1.04 30.40 66.83 1.26 0.32 0.23 0.97 100 BLCA 26 0.95 37.13 57.66 2.28 0.58 0.58 1.76 100 CANY 67 2.26 55.66 38.57 2.53 0.65 0.62 1.98 100 CARE 28 1.81 52.95 42.68 1.91 0.49 0.48 1.49 100 GRCA 12 0.97 38.14 59.75 0.93 0.24 0.19 0.75 100 GRSA 14 0.63 38.82 54.18 3.18 0.81 0.53 2.47 100 LAGA 20 0.86 38.38 59.80 0.81 0.21 0.15 0.65 100 MABE 10 0.54 69.46 25.41 2.29 0.59 0.43 1.83 100 MEVE 157 3.38 75.39 9.84 6.26 1.60 2.09 4.82 100 PECO 35 1.05 80.51 15.41 1.83 0.47 0.36 1.43 100 PEFO 14 0.82 27.95 69.41 1.18 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 SAPE 93 1.40 39.89 53.93 2.71 0.69 0.68 2.09 100 WEEL 19 0.80 37.76 60.62 0.70 0.18 0.19 0.55 100 WEMI 53 1.15 28.74 65.59 2.44 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 WHPE 27 0.75 30.82 66.18 1.36 0.35 0.23 1.06 100

SCR (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 50 1.72 94.35 0.92 2.11 0.54 0.37 1.71 100 BAND 48 0.94 85.85 8.21 2.65 0.68 0.56 2.06 100 BLCA 23 0.82 81.07 12.87 2.66 0.68 0.67 2.05 100 CANY 77 2.38 89.46 5.07 2.40 0.61 0.58 1.87 100 CARE 27 1.43 90.43 3.73 2.54 0.65 0.66 1.99 100 GRCA 11 0.73 85.62 9.25 2.24 0.57 0.54 1.77 100 GRSA 10 0.58 93.53 2.68 1.67 0.43 0.41 1.29 100 LAGA 13 0.62 94.70 0.31 2.25 0.57 0.42 1.75 100 MABE 5 0.42 94.65 1.90 1.53 0.39 0.33 1.20 100 MEVE 174 5.34 93.13 1.46 2.33 0.60 0.68 1.80 100 PECO 30 0.85 88.59 7.59 1.71 0.44 0.35 1.33 100 PEFO 13 0.73 92.85 1.81 2.34 0.60 0.58 1.81 100 SAPE 93 1.73 89.63 1.59 3.83 0.98 1.02 2.95 100 WEEL 14 0.64 91.43 4.42 1.84 0.47 0.37 1.46 100 WEMI 44 1.14 83.29 13.93 1.24 0.32 0.24 0.99 100 WHPE 19 0.69 79.78 16.37 1.73 0.44 0.33 1.34 100

Hybrid (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 54 1.75 86.81 7.39 2.56 0.65 0.58 2.01 100 BAND 51 1.03 72.28 22.33 2.41 0.61 0.50 1.87 100 BLCA 25 0.91 66.97 27.65 2.36 0.60 0.60 1.82 100 CANY 79 2.41 84.50 10.46 2.19 0.56 0.58 1.71 100 CARE 29 1.67 54.89 43.68 0.63 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRCA 11 0.87 60.05 37.58 1.05 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 GRSA 14 0.72 73.17 20.08 3.08 0.79 0.51 2.38 100 LAGA 16 0.79 46.38 50.73 1.26 0.32 0.33 0.97 100 MABE 9 0.53 62.93 33.71 1.52 0.39 0.27 1.19 100 MEVE 174 5.17 90.57 3.81 2.43 0.62 0.70 1.88 100 PECO 37 0.93 77.26 19.26 1.55 0.40 0.32 1.21 100 PEFO 14 0.79 51.23 46.41 1.02 0.26 0.29 0.79 100 SAPE 102 1.69 88.26 6.70 2.18 0.56 0.63 1.68 100 WEEL 19 0.72 55.94 42.36 0.77 0.20 0.13 0.61 100 WEMI 52 1.17 56.13 39.71 1.82 0.46 0.47 1.41 100 WHPE 23 0.81 81.91 13.74 1.94 0.49 0.41 1.51 100BART Refinements 110507b.doc 12 of 13 PNM SJGS BART Modeling New NH3 Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 2002

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 46 1.76 43.87 46.41 2.37 1.45 2.20 3.70 100 BAND 87 1.86 44.28 49.89 1.45 0.89 1.18 2.31 100 BLCA 54 1.34 35.37 59.23 1.36 0.83 1.04 2.17 100 CANY 67 2.04 83.50 1.79 3.67 2.25 3.05 5.74 100 CARE 24 1.16 33.88 63.47 0.67 0.41 0.49 1.09 100 GRCA 15 0.93 89.85 2.03 2.09 1.28 1.45 3.30 100 GRSA 28 1.00 82.39 12.99 1.20 0.73 0.78 1.90 100 LAGA 63 1.30 81.37 13.32 1.40 0.86 0.81 2.24 100 MABE 20 0.78 28.96 63.27 2.15 1.32 0.80 3.49 100 MEVE 184 4.09 34.40 60.73 1.18 0.72 1.11 1.87 100 PECO 62 1.33 53.02 40.33 1.81 1.11 0.89 2.85 100 PEFO 16 0.79 90.95 1.94 1.81 1.11 1.31 2.89 100 SAPE 125 2.37 71.74 23.38 1.23 0.75 0.94 1.96 100 WEEL 43 1.15 35.15 60.78 1.03 0.63 0.76 1.65 100 WEMI 117 1.85 57.89 29.83 2.89 1.77 3.13 4.49 100 WHPE 40 0.95 55.69 38.20 1.67 1.02 0.74 2.67 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 32 1.65 49.70 47.38 1.28 0.33 0.30 1.01 100 BAND 61 1.56 37.39 59.91 1.19 0.30 0.27 0.93 100 BLCA 30 1.15 31.11 65.99 1.28 0.33 0.28 1.02 100 CANY 57 1.73 52.51 43.96 1.55 0.40 0.35 1.23 100 CARE 18 0.82 91.30 1.66 3.11 0.79 0.69 2.46 100 GRCA 10 0.76 44.30 54.26 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.52 100 GRSA 17 0.71 28.48 69.87 0.74 0.19 0.13 0.60 100 LAGA 40 0.94 26.32 71.29 1.07 0.27 0.22 0.84 100 MABE 11 0.56 84.39 12.71 1.31 0.33 0.23 1.03 100 MEVE 162 3.53 85.08 5.44 4.14 1.06 1.04 3.24 100 PECO 41 1.09 41.87 56.64 0.66 0.17 0.13 0.53 100 PEFO 9 0.60 28.65 69.64 0.76 0.19 0.13 0.62 100 SAPE 109 2.01 46.15 47.36 2.82 0.72 0.76 2.19 100 WEEL 24 0.91 30.66 67.44 0.86 0.22 0.14 0.68 100 WEMI 83 1.48 57.20 35.77 3.02 0.77 0.91 2.32 100 WHPE 20 0.86 47.51 47.27 2.35 0.60 0.43 1.84 100

SCR (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 37 1.41 86.10 10.46 1.51 0.39 0.36 1.20 100 BAND 58 1.30 81.38 16.06 1.14 0.29 0.23 0.90 100 BLCA 26 0.83 76.99 18.90 1.81 0.46 0.39 1.44 100 CANY 59 1.73 91.73 1.93 2.72 0.69 0.83 2.09 100 CARE 13 0.76 95.94 0.19 1.73 0.44 0.35 1.36 100 GRCA 11 0.60 80.95 16.20 1.26 0.32 0.24 1.03 100 GRSA 9 0.55 71.96 25.33 1.21 0.31 0.22 0.97 100 LAGA 24 0.70 94.09 2.99 1.32 0.34 0.23 1.04 100 MABE 4 0.42 81.39 13.63 2.25 0.57 0.39 1.77 100 MEVE 187 5.32 92.89 0.87 2.67 0.68 0.83 2.06 100 PECO 33 0.99 85.79 9.66 2.10 0.54 0.29 1.63 100 PEFO 8 0.53 96.11 0.51 1.51 0.39 0.27 1.21 100 SAPE 102 2.05 85.01 8.65 2.76 0.70 0.74 2.14 100 WEEL 18 0.66 75.86 18.85 2.30 0.59 0.63 1.77 100 WEMI 77 1.61 85.59 11.64 1.23 0.31 0.25 0.98 100 WHPE 15 0.65 93.52 2.29 1.87 0.48 0.37 1.47 100

Hybrid (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 37 1.59 68.58 27.60 1.67 0.43 0.41 1.31 100 BAND 65 1.52 65.99 30.36 1.61 0.41 0.36 1.27 100 BLCA 32 1.03 56.84 39.89 1.44 0.37 0.31 1.15 100 CANY 58 1.72 77.17 19.27 1.57 0.40 0.35 1.24 100 CARE 16 0.74 95.41 0.62 1.77 0.45 0.35 1.39 100 GRCA 11 0.71 62.84 34.03 1.37 0.35 0.35 1.06 100 GRSA 13 0.72 92.69 4.29 1.37 0.35 0.22 1.08 100 LAGA 34 0.85 53.84 44.21 0.87 0.22 0.18 0.69 100 MABE 9 0.55 90.36 6.66 1.32 0.34 0.30 1.03 100 MEVE 188 5.07 90.60 2.77 2.84 0.72 0.88 2.19 100 PECO 43 1.01 90.35 4.34 2.43 0.62 0.37 1.90 100 PEFO 10 0.56 51.18 46.06 1.23 0.31 0.20 1.01 100 SAPE 111 2.14 75.45 21.93 1.16 0.30 0.25 0.92 100 WEEL 27 0.80 51.82 44.69 1.52 0.39 0.41 1.18 100 WEMI 89 1.72 61.84 35.59 1.14 0.29 0.24 0.91 100 WHPE 19 0.77 75.30 20.88 1.75 0.45 0.23 1.39 100BART Refinements 110507b.doc 13 of 13 PNM SJGS BART Modeling New NH3 Background and Nitrate Repartitioning 2003

Pre-Consent Decree (4) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 39 1.82 38.16 50.64 2.67 1.63 2.75 4.15 100 BAND 77 1.51 40.84 49.83 2.33 1.43 1.94 3.63 100 BLCA 30 1.40 29.26 67.79 0.76 0.46 0.52 1.21 100 CANY 57 2.00 64.92 31.30 0.94 0.58 0.72 1.53 100 CARE 25 1.34 43.68 49.81 1.57 0.96 1.51 2.47 100 GRCA 11 0.81 91.83 0.94 1.83 1.12 1.34 2.94 100 GRSA 26 0.82 50.03 45.62 1.12 0.68 0.79 1.76 100 LAGA 40 1.14 25.27 67.60 2.02 1.24 0.66 3.22 100 MABE 15 0.63 36.60 57.88 1.53 0.94 0.65 2.41 100 MEVE 174 4.85 69.32 17.06 3.27 2.00 3.22 5.14 100 PECO 63 1.26 49.00 43.40 1.87 1.15 1.66 2.93 100 PEFO 17 0.74 88.02 6.36 1.46 0.90 0.89 2.36 100 SAPE 127 1.96 80.84 9.41 2.36 1.45 2.22 3.73 100 WEEL 31 0.94 25.57 71.56 0.70 0.43 0.61 1.12 100 WEMI 87 1.69 40.63 54.52 1.17 0.72 1.13 1.84 100 WHPE 48 1.05 48.42 48.68 0.78 0.48 0.39 1.25 100

Consent Decree (3) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 27 1.49 30.95 67.01 0.89 0.23 0.21 0.71 100 BAND 57 1.20 77.97 17.21 2.11 0.54 0.52 1.65 100 BLCA 21 1.07 27.98 70.17 0.82 0.21 0.17 0.65 100 CANY 48 1.68 70.45 24.81 2.07 0.53 0.49 1.65 100 CARE 23 1.05 52.60 45.24 0.94 0.24 0.20 0.77 100 GRCA 9 0.57 93.89 1.17 2.19 0.56 0.46 1.74 100 GRSA 15 0.64 27.42 70.94 0.76 0.19 0.09 0.60 100 LAGA 28 0.90 23.76 71.98 1.99 0.51 0.18 1.58 100 MABE 8 0.51 27.63 69.59 1.22 0.31 0.28 0.97 100 MEVE 159 3.80 41.19 53.18 2.41 0.62 0.72 1.88 100 PECO 50 1.00 51.25 46.75 0.89 0.23 0.18 0.70 100 PEFO 9 0.53 32.43 65.01 1.15 0.29 0.18 0.93 100 SAPE 97 1.56 37.04 56.49 2.78 0.71 0.83 2.15 100 WEEL 22 0.83 28.10 67.91 1.74 0.44 0.44 1.36 100 WEMI 63 1.34 36.23 61.45 1.00 0.26 0.29 0.77 100 WHPE 27 0.89 91.09 5.38 1.60 0.41 0.26 1.25 100

SCR (2) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 33 1.48 82.68 10.62 2.89 0.74 0.84 2.23 100 BAND 54 1.23 90.04 4.35 2.54 0.65 0.43 1.98 100 BLCA 16 0.92 86.11 9.21 2.04 0.52 0.53 1.60 100 CANY 51 1.92 93.39 1.65 2.13 0.54 0.65 1.64 100 CARE 22 0.98 81.69 13.72 1.99 0.51 0.54 1.54 100 GRCA 9 0.56 93.81 1.80 1.93 0.49 0.43 1.54 100 GRSA 6 0.47 86.63 9.72 1.63 0.42 0.34 1.27 100 LAGA 17 0.67 73.76 20.28 2.75 0.70 0.25 2.25 100 MABE 3 0.34 79.31 17.67 1.32 0.34 0.32 1.04 100 MEVE 169 6.00 88.68 0.13 4.74 1.21 1.60 3.64 100 PECO 43 0.92 94.42 2.24 1.47 0.38 0.34 1.15 100 PEFO 11 0.55 92.48 3.80 1.66 0.42 0.29 1.34 100 SAPE 102 1.83 94.34 1.46 1.85 0.47 0.44 1.44 100 WEEL 11 0.62 77.34 17.32 2.34 0.60 0.59 1.82 100 WEMI 64 1.45 89.59 2.31 3.46 0.88 1.09 2.66 100 WHPE 18 0.66 83.73 13.71 1.16 0.30 0.18 0.92 100

Hybrid (1) Class I Area No. of Days > 0.5 d v 98th Percentile %_SO4 %_NO3 %_OC %_EC %_PMC %_PMF %_Total

ARCH 33 1.61 90.58 4.37 2.23 0.57 0.44 1.81 100 BAND 61 1.27 81.94 12.64 2.46 0.63 0.42 1.91 100 BLCA 18 1.06 85.53 9.51 2.15 0.55 0.59 1.68 100 CANY 54 1.89 90.28 4.66 2.17 0.55 0.66 1.67 100 CARE 22 1.13 66.11 29.95 1.71 0.44 0.47 1.33 100 GRCA 9 0.64 72.51 24.95 1.12 0.29 0.23 0.90 100 GRSA 12 0.58 56.57 40.05 1.52 0.39 0.10 1.37 100 LAGA 23 0.82 70.71 26.11 1.40 0.36 0.32 1.09 100 MABE 6 0.45 56.85 40.90 0.99 0.25 0.24 0.77 100 MEVE 172 5.55 87.05 0.55 5.25 1.34 1.77 4.04 100 PECO 48 1.00 76.28 20.18 1.61 0.41 0.25 1.27 100 PEFO 10 0.58 85.18 11.26 1.59 0.41 0.28 1.28 100 SAPE 103 1.81 91.07 4.68 1.87 0.48 0.45 1.45 100 WEEL 18 0.74 62.54 33.72 1.63 0.42 0.40 1.29 100 WEMI 69 1.34 80.10 10.76 3.91 1.00 1.14 3.10 100 WHPE 25 0.84 78.02 17.94 1.85 0.47 0.25 1.46 100