1 Earthjustice • Environmental La w and Policy Center • Sierra Club

June 20, 2014

VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

Dean Studer, Hearing Officer

Illinois EPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Dean.Studer@Illinois.gov

Re: Proposed Revision of the Illinois Stat e Implementation Plan for Regional Haze

Dear Mr. Studer,

Please accept these comments submitted by Earthjustice, the Environmental Law and Policy Center (“ELPC”), and the Sierra Club on the proposal to revi se the Illinois State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) for regional haze to incorporate a variance granted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“PCB”) to Illinois Po wer Holdings, LLC (“IPH”) and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC (“Medina Valley”).

As explained below, the Illinois Environmen tal Protection Agency (“IEPA”) should not finalize the proposed SIP revision and should not submit it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) because it does not meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). First, the proposed SI P revision, like the original SIP, does not contain the five-factor, unit-specific best available re trofit technology (“BART”) determ inations required by the CAA.

Second, even if it were permissible in theory to substitute an alternative program such as the Multi-Pollutant Standard (“MPS”) for unit-specific BART limits, IEPA has not met its burden to show that the MPS is approvable as a BART alternative because the agency has not performed the required modeling of the visibility im pacts from the MPS compared to BART.

Third, the Illinois Pollution Control Boar d granted variances to Ameren Energy Resources, and later to IPH and Medina Valley, fr om the Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standard, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 225.233, from 2015 through the year 2019, that significantly weaken the MPS’ requirements of reductions in haze-forming su lfur dioxide (“SO2”) relied upon by EPA in approving the Illinois regional ha ze SIP. The MPS sets out annual fleet-wide sulfur dioxide limits applicable to the fleet of 7 coal-fired power plants that, at the time of the MPS’ adoption, were operated by Ameren Corporation and its subs idiaries (“Ameren”). The 5 Ameren plants still in operation—Coffeen, Duck Creek, E.D. Edwards, Joppa, and Newton—are now owned and operated by IPH; the 2 former Ameren pl ants that retired in 2011—Hutsonville and Meredosia—are owned by Medina Valley. The variances make the MPS’ fleet-wide SO2 limits significantly less stringent than those EPA approved in its fi nal rule. This development completely undermines the rationale for findi ng, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)(i), that Illinois’ implementation of the MPS to reduce SO 2 emissions from the former Ameren fleet’s2 Illinois coal-fired power plants will “achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operati on of” BART at the fleet’s BART-subject plants. Rather, because of the variances, the MPS will no longe r require SO2 reductions from the former Ameren coal fleet during the period of th e first long-term strategy for regional haze ( i.e. , before 2018, see 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(f)) that are greater than the reductions that would result from requiring IPH to install and operate BART on its BART-subject plants.

As a result of these three legal deficien cies, EPA cannot approve the proposed SIP revision. Instead of finalizing a plan that EPA cannot lawfully approve, IEPA should conduct source-specific BART determinations fo r the IPH units subject to BART.

I. BACKGROUND

Recognizing that manmade haze diminishes vi sibility and degrades th e integrity of many of the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas, Congress in 1977 amended the Clean Air Act, “declar[ing] as a national goal the preven tion of any future, a nd the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1); see also 40 C.F.R. pt. 81, subpt. D (listing the 156 protected Class I areas, including certa in national parks, wilderness areas, and national memorial parks, as well as certain in ternational parks). Am ong other things, Congress mandated that EPA adopt regulations that woul d require states to de velop SIPs containing measures necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of improving visibility,

One of the cornerstones of the haze SIPs is th e installation and operati on of BART at BARTeligible sources 1 that could be reasonably anticipate d to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area (referred to as s ources “subject to BART”). 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(4), (b)(2)(A).

In 1999 – after many years of deferred act ion on widespread, regionally homogenous haze – EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule. Regional Haze Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 35,714 (July 1, 1999). Under that Rule, states are directed to submit SIPs containing emissions limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance for each source subject to BART.

See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e). States must determ ine BART for each source based on a case-bycase analysis, id. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii), and must require “each source subject to BART . . . to install and operate BART as expeditious ly as practicable, but in no ev ent later than 5 years after approval” by EPA of the state’s Regional Haze SIP, id. § 51.308(e)(1)(iv).

On June 24, 2011, Illinois submitted a propos ed Regional Haze SIP to EPA. 77 Fed. Reg. 3966, 3970 (Jan. 26, 2012). In its proposed SI P, Illinois stated that, based on modeling completed by the Midwest Regional Planning Or ganization (“MRPO”), it determined that

emissions sources in the state cause or contribute to visibility degradati on in 19 national parks and wilderness areas (defined in the CAA as “Class I areas”). 2 To comply with the BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule, Illinois ev aluated which BART-eligible emissions sources

1 A source is BART-eligible if it is a stationary source w ithin one of 26 enumerated categories, was not in operation before August 7, 1962 but was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(7).

2 Illinois SIP Submittal, Attachment 1 to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598-0002.3 within the state cause or contribut e to visibility impairment in those Class I areas and are thus subject to BART. Illinois identified 11 such sources, including 9 coal-fired power plants. 3

Instead of evaluating and determining BART fo r all 9 coal-fired power plants subject to BART, Illinois proposed for 7 of the 9 plants that two state emissions trading rules implemented in tandem – the MPS, 35 Ill. Adm. 225.233, and th e Combined Pollutant Standard (“CPS”), 35

Ill. Adm. Code 225.291-299 – be relied on as an “alternative” to BART. 4 These 7 plants included 3 plants from the original Ameren fleet: Coffeen, Duck Creek, and E.D. Edwards. 5
Each of these 3 plants is currently regulated by the MPS, as are the 4 additional plants in the original Ameren fleet. 6 The MPS requires that this fleet’s emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) be reduced to meet certain fl eet-wide average emission rates each year. 7 The MPS’ fleet-wide average emission rates “are intended to a llow the companies the flexibility to meet the

fleet-wide emission limits in the most cost -effective manner” by reducing SO2 and NOx emissions more at some plants than at other plants. 8 The SO2 limits for the Ameren fleet vary by year; the fleet’s average SO2 emissions cannot exceed 0.25 lb/MMBtu between 2015-2016 and

cannot exceed 0.23 lb/MMBtu from 2017 onwards.

At the same time, because the MPS requires re ductions at all 7 of the original Ameren plants instead of just the 3 pl ants with units subject to BART , Illinois proposed that EPA find that its “approach will yield much larger reduc tions of NOx and SO2 than will implementation of BART controls on just subject to BART emission units.” 9 Thus, according to Illinois, the greater

fleet-wide reductions that the MPS requires of the original Ameren fleet (together with similar reductions that the MPS and CPS require of tw o other fleets, owned by Midwest Generation and Dynegy at the time the MPS and CPS were adopted) constitute “greater r easonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and op eration of BART” at the BART-subject units in

those fleets. 10

After EPA proposed to approve the Illinois Regional Haze SIP, ELPC, Sierra Club and other organizations filed comments opposing EPA’s approval. 11 The commenters first argued that under the plain language of Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7491, BART is a mandatory measure that must be implemen ted to achieve reasonable progress toward restoration of natural visibility conditions. 12 Second, the commenters no ted several reasons why Illinois’ implementation of the MPS/CPS will not achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART and thus could not constitute a la wful BART alternative

3 Technical Support Document, Attachment 2 to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598-0002, at 12-22.

4 Illinois SIP Submittal at 19-20. For the remaining two BART-subject plants, Illinois proposed BART determinations. Technical Support Document at 31-38.

5 Illinois SIP Submittal at 20; Technical Support Document at 22, 28.

6 Technical Support Document at 28-30.

7 Id. at 24-25.

8 Id. at 25.

9 Id.

10 Responsiveness Summary, Attachment 9 to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598-0002, at 5 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)).

11 Comments of ELPC, et al. , Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598-0004.

12 See id. at 6-7.4 under the Regional Haze Rule. 13 Among other reasons, ELPC and Sierra Club pointed out that Illinois compared the MPS/CPS to “presumptive BA RT” limits for BART-subject units that were “at least 2 to 3 times higher than recent BART requirements” imposed after source-specific BART determinations, and that Illinois had fa iled to make similar source-specific BART determinations for any of the BART-subject plants regulated by the MPS or the CPS. 14 ELPC

and Sierra Club’s comments thus argued that, “if Illinois had conducted proper BART analyses, it is virtually certain that it would have determin ed that the MPS/CPS is not ‘better’ than BART for subject sources.” 15

On July 6, 2012, EPA issued the final rule approving and promulgating the Illinois Regional Haze SIP. 77 Fed. Reg. 39,943, 39,943-48. In response to ELPC and Sierra Club’s comments, EPA stated that it “continues to be lieve that Illinois’ pl an limits power plant emissions as well as would be achieved by direct ly requiring [BART]” and thus that the Illinois SIP “satisfactorily addresses Cl ean Air Act section 169A and Regi onal Haze Rule requirements.”

Id. at 39,943. Although EPA acknowledged that th e MPS/CPS allows BART-subject units to meet less stringent SO2 and NOx emission limits than a BART requirement, EPA stated that “Illinois is requiring control acro ss a universe of sources that in cludes many sources that are not subject to BART, thereby providing reductions th at under EPA’s rules and BART guidelines on alternative measures can compensate for a ny shortfall in contro l at BART units.” Id. at 39,945.

In addition, to address ELPC and Sierra Club’s comment that the “presumptive BART” limits analyzed by Illinois were 2 to 3 times hi gher than actual, source -specific BART limits would be, EPA prepared a “further analysis” us ing lower emission limits “of whether Illinois’ requirements, addressing a substantial number of sources, can be expected to provide greater reasonable progress toward visibi lity protection than applicati on of BART to the more limited number of units subject to a requirement for BART.” Id. at 39,945. This analysis was summarized in a memorandum dated May 29, 2012, by John Summerhays, EPA Region 5 Attainment and Maintenance Section, entitled “Comparison of Illinois Power Plant Emission Reductions to Reductions from Source-Specif ic Best Available Retrofit Technology” (hereinafter the “Summerhays Memo”), Docket ID No. EP A-R05-OAR-2011-0598-0007. 16

For its further analysis in the Summerha ys Memo, EPA assumed a SO2 emissions limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, which it defined as an averag e of recent Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) limits for SO2 from EPA’s nati onal RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse database. 17

This limit is 2.5 times lower than the 0.15 lb/M MBtu “presumptive BART” limit that Illinois took from EPA’s 2005 BART Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. pt. 51, App. Y. 18 Using the same methodology, EPA developed a set of simila rly lower NOx emissions limits as well. 19 Although its analysis did not yield source- specific BART determinations, EPA asserted that assuming an

13 See id. at 7-14.

14 Id. at 7-12.

15 Id. at 10.

16 EPA placed the Summerhays Memo in the rulemaking docket at the time that it finalized the rule approving and promulgating the Illinois Regional Haze SIP. The analysis in the Summerhays Memo was not made available to the public during the public comment period on EPA’s pr oposed approval of the Illinois Regional Haze SIP.

17 Summerhays Memo at 1.

18 Technical Support Document at 23-24.

19 See Summerhays Memo at 1.5 average BACT limit as equivalent to BART wo uld create a “conservative estimate of the emissions of BART on a source-specific basis, ” because “the emission limits representing BART, which by definition apply to relatively old existing units, are unlikely to be lower than the limits that would apply to new units a nd would in many cases be significantly higher.” 20

For all three fleets regulated by the MPS/CPS – Ameren, Dynegy, and Midwest

Generation – EPA found that th e fleet-wide SO2 and NOx reductions under full implementation of those rules in the year 2017 would exceed the SO2 and NOx reductions that would be

achieved if those fleets’ BART-s ubject units would be required to install and operate BART, even using EPA’s “conservative estimate” of lower BART limits than Illinois presumed. 21 With respect to SO2 emissions from the Ameren fleet, EPA’s analysis showed that full implementation of the MPS would compel SO2 emission reductions of 111,997 tons, as compared to emission reductions totaling 74,348 tons of SO2 if BART were required. 22

After EPA approved the Illinoi s regional haze SIP, the Illin ois Pollution Control Board issued an opinion and order on September 20, 2012 granting Ameren “a variance requiring compliance with an overall annual SO2 emi ssion rate of 0.35 lb/mmBtu from 2013 through 2019” on average at each of its power plants. 23 Under the terms of the variance, Ameren would not be required to meet the MPS 2015 fleet-wid e average emission rate of 0.25 lbs./mmBtu until January 1, 2020, and it would not be required to meet the MPS 2017 fleet-wide average emission rate of 0.23 lbs./mmBtu until January 15, 2020. 24

Subsequent to the September 2012 Order, Ameren entered into a tentative deal to transfer ownership of two EGUs to Medina Valley, a subs idiary of Ameren, and five EGUs to Illinois Power Holdings, LLC, which is owned by a subsidiary of Dynegy. Ameren and IPH petitioned the PCB to grant to the new owners substantially the same variance from the SO2 limits that had been granted in the September 2012 Order to the prior owners. 25 Over the objection of public interest groups, the PCB granted a variance to IPH and Medina Valley. 26 IEPA now proposes to revise the regional haze SIP to include this vari ance for the former Ameren fleet.

II. ARGUMENT

The proposed SIP revision suffers from three separate legal flaws, each of which would prevent EPA from approving the revision. First, th e revised SIP continues to ignore the statutory mandate to include source-specific BART determin ations for all units su bject to BART. Second, even if BART could be satisfied by alternat ive programs such as the MPS, a state must demonstrate that the alternative program will make greater reasonable progress than would BART; under these facts, the only permissible wa y to make this showing is through visibility

20 Id.

21 Id. at 1-6.

22 Id. at 4.

23 Opinion and Order, Case No. PCB 12-126, at 1-2 (Ill. Pollution Control Bd. Sept. 20, 2012).

24 Id. at 1-2. The Board further found (based on Ameren’s ow n variance petition) that of the 7 Ameren power plants that are regulated by the MPS, only 5 remain in operatio n, as Ameren retired its Meredosia and Hutsonville power plants at the end of 2011. Id.

25 Opinion and Order, Case No. PCB 14-10, at 1 (Ill. Pollution Control Bd. Nov. 21, 2013).

26 Id. at 102-046 modeling, which IEPA failed to do. Third, as a re sult of the variances, th e emissions reductions from the MPS will be lower than the reductions that would be achieved by BART at Ameren’s fleet, demonstrating that the M PS will not make greater reason able progress than would BART.

A. The Proposed SIP Revision Unlawf ully Substitutes Fleet-wide Emission Limits for the Unit-Specific, Five-F actor BART Analysis Required by the

CAA.

The proposed SIP revision continues to violat e the CAA mandate that each SIP contain emission measures including BART. Inst ead of conducting the unit-specific BART determinations according to the five factors specified by the CAA, IEPA used the MPS to purportedly satisfy the BART requirements for th e Ameren units subject to BART. The MPS requires reductions of SO2 and NOx across the form er Ameren fleet of 7 coal-fired power plants to meet certain fleet-wide average emission rates each year. 27 The MPS’ fleet-wide average emission rates “are intended to allow the compan ies the flexibility to meet the fleet-wide

emission limits in the most cost-effective manne r” by reducing SO2 and NOx emissions more at some plants than at other plants. 28

The Clean Air Act does not permit a state to exempt units from BART without going through the exemption process outl ined in the statute. The CAA requires that each haze SIP “contain such emission limits, schedules of comp liance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal [of attaining natural visibility conditions] . . . including” BART. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A). The plain language of the statute provides that EPA's regulations “s hall require” each SIP to cont ain various elements, and those elements must include BART as a minimum requi rement of every haze SIP. Put simply, BART is a mandatory floor for each BART-subject unit, not an optional requirement.

The statute then specifies the only circumstances in which a source may be exempted from BART, none of which apply here. Id. § 7491(c). The CAA provision that allows some limited exemptions from BART makes plain that any such exemption must be assessed and determined on a source-specific, not a state-wide, basis. Id. § 7491(c)(1). Furthermore, EPA may exempt a unit from the source-specific BART requirements of the CAA only where the Federal Land Managers concur w ith the EPA determination of an exemption. We are not aware of any statement from Federal Land Managers agreeing with the substitution of MPS limits for source-specific BART limits in Illinois.

IEPA’s interpretation of the statute, in wh ich a State may substitute an alternative for

BART on a state-wide or fleet-wide basis canno t be reconciled with Congress specifying very narrow standards for exempting a source from BART. 29 As a result, IEPA’s continued failure to

27 Id. at 24-25.

28 Id. at 25.

29 If EPA relies on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decisi ons upholding its interpretation of the statute, that application is incorrect as those cases (or at least that interpretation of those cases) fail to conform to the plain language of the CAA. To the extent those cases can or must be read to allow EPA to substitute CSAPR for BART in the manner proposed here, the cases are incorrect in that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has rewritten the statute by failing to give effect to the plain language requiring each SIP to include BART and by disregarding the very specific parameters in the st atute for exemptions from BART. See Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA , 3987 conduct unit-specific BART analyses violates the CAA. To remedy this legal deficiency, IEPA should conduct five-factor BART analyses for eac h unit in the former Ameren fleet subject to BART and not finalize or submit to EPA its current proposal.

B. IEPA Cannot Meet its Burden to Prove that the MPS Makes Greater Reasonable Progress than BART with out Conducting Visibility Modeling.

IEPA has not conducted any modeling compari ng the visibility impact from the former

Ameren fleet under the MPS and BART limits. IEPA cannot meet its legal burden under EPA’s regulations until it performs visibility modeli ng showing that granting variances to IPH and Medina Valley will result in no degradation at an y Class I area and, averaged across all affected Class I areas, the MPS will cause more visi bility improvement than BART would.

EPA’s regulations purport to allow a state to rely on an alternative program in lieu of imposing source-specific BART limits if the state demonstrates that the alternative will make “greater reasonable progress” th an would BART. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2), (e)(3). There are two ways to make the showing that an altern ative program will achieve greater reasonable progress. “If the distribution of emissions is not s ubstantially different than under BART,” the alternative is deemed to make greater reasonable progress if “the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions.” Id. § 51.308(e)(3). However, “if the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct di spersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days.” Id. In order to demonstrate “g reater reasonable progress,” the visibility modeling must show that the alternative program does not cause vi sibility to decline in any Class I area and averaged across all affected Class I areas, the alternative program improves visibility relative to BART. Id. § 51.308(e)(3)(i), (ii).

EPA conceded that the “Part 225 rules reflec t substantial averaging across units and across facilities.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 3971. EPA’ s statement reflects the fact that the MPS is designed to allow Ameren the “flexibility” to ma ke emissions reductions at some facilities but not others, or to spread the reductions across a ll facilities, so long as the fleet-wide average

emission limit is met. The variances do not alte r this basic element of the MPS; instead, the variance simply increases the overall emissions rate that the former Ameren fleet must meet by specific dates. By contrast, BART determin ations must be made for each unit, and the corresponding emissions limits are pa rticular to that unit and cannot be traded or averaged with

limits at other units.

By design, the MPS allows the flexibility to implement emissions re ductions other than by imposing uniform reductions at specific units subject to BART. IEPA therefore has no basis for claiming that the “distribution of emissions [under the MPS] is not substantially different than under BART . . . ” 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(3). Instead, IPH, the owner of the units in the former Ameren fleet still in operation, is author ized to meet the MPS limits in such a way that

“the distribution of emissions is significantly different,” id. , than it would be if its subject-to-

F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA , 471 F.3d 1333, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, these decisions are not binding precedent in the 7th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over EPA's approval of the Illinois regional haze SIP.8 BART units had to meet unit-specific BART li mits. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different under an alternative program compared to BART, a state must conduct visibility modeling in order to meet its burden of securing approval for the alternative program.

To comply with EPA’s governing regulations, IEPA should at a minimum conduct modeling of the visibility impacts from the M PS and BART. However, we urge IEPA to abandon its illegal relian ce on the MPS to satisfy the BART requirements and instead perform source-specific BART determinations for the units in the former Ameren fleet subject to BART.

C. As a Result of the Variance, the MPS Will Lead to Higher Emissions and Less Reasonable Progress than would BART.

The variance from the MPS authorizes the former Ameren fleet to emit greater SO2 emissions than would be emitted under BART, a nd thus IEPA cannot prove that the MPS will lead to greater reasonable progr ess than would BART. EPA’s im plementing regulations permit a state to rely on an alternative program in lieu of imposing source-specifi c BART limits only if

the state demonstrates that the alternative will make “greater reasonable progress” than would BART. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2), (e)(3). “If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART,” the alternative is deemed to make greate r reasonable progress if “the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions.” Id. § 51.308(e)(3). A State must also require that “all necessa ry emissions reductions take plac e during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze,” id. § 51.308(e)(2)(iii) , which the regulations define as ending in 2018, id. § 51.308(f).

The Illinois plan contains sepa rate emissions limits for each fleet. The former Ameren fleet has its own emissions limits specified in the MPS, and the varian ce applies to only the former Ameren facilities. Since the Illinois plan consists of fleet-specific emissions limits, and since the proposed SIP revision applies only to the former Ameren fleet, the BART alternative must be judged on the same fleet-b y-fleet basis. If the Illinois pl an is not better than BART at the former Ameren facilities, it cannot be approved by EPA.

Both IEPA and EPA assumed that the distribution of emi ssions would not be substantially different under the MPS as compar ed to BART, and compared only the emissions

reductions under the MPS and BART at the former Ameren facilities. E.g. , 77 Fed. Reg. at 39946. Even if this assumption were correct , a comparison of the emissions reductions

demonstrates that BART would reduce emissi ons more than the MPS (as amended by the Ameren variance) would at the former Ameren facilities.

The table below recreates the calculation fo r the remaining Ameren fleet’s SO2 emissions for the year 2017 found in Table 1b on page 3 of the Summerhays Memo, but with two updates to reflect the new circumstances. First, th e table substitutes th e 0.35 lb/mmBtu average emissions rate now applicable under th e IPH and Medina Valley variances.9 Second, the table below excludes the purporte d “emissions reductions” at the Meredosia

and Hutsonville units that have now been retir ed for several years due to economic reasons, 30
along with emissions reductions from Edwards Unit 1, which is now being operated only for grid reliability purposes subject to a short-term System Support Resource (“SSR”) agreement with

MISO. 31 These plants have retired or are retiri ng before the MPS limits at issue here are implemented, so the MPS is not driving emissions reductions at those plants. Moreover, the

Meredosia and Hutsonville units were not even purchased from Ameren by IPH and should not be included in any analysis of emissions reductions at the former Ameren fleet.

Table 1. Emissions Reductions from BART vs. Variances from the MPS for Former

Ameren Fleet

Table 1 indicates that BART would reduce SO2 emissions by 74,348 tons. This value is taken, unaltered, from EPA’s calculations. See, e.g. , 77 Fed. Reg. at 39946. Table 1 updates the

reductions achievable under the MPS to reflect that the variance authorizes Ameren to emit SO2 at a higher fleet-wide average rate of 0.35 lb/MMBtu. As a re sult, the MPS would now reduce SO2 emissions by 69,555 tons. Accordingly, BA RT would reduce SO2 emissions from the former Ameren fleet by 4,793 tons more than would the MPS (with the variances).

30 See Opinion and Order, Case No. PCB 14-10, at 7, 10 (I ll. Pollution Control Bd. Nov. 21, 2013) (noting that the September 2012 PCB Order required that Meredosia and Hutsonville remain shut do wn through December 2020);

see also Jeffrey Tomich, Ameren Corp. Prepares to Close Two Old Power Plants in Illinois , S T

. L OUIS P OST

D ISPATCH , Oct. 5, 2011, available at http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ameren-corp-prepares-to-close-twoold-power-plants-in/article_0a82d93f-52c8-5f43-a2d9-303e8ef438dc.html

. 31 FERC Docket No. ER-13-1962-000, Order at 1-2, 6 (Nov. 25, 2013), available at http://www.ferc.gov/Ca lendarFiles/20131125200818-ER13-1962-000.pdf

. BACT (0.06
#/MMBTU)

Plant Unit MMM BTU #/MMBTU Tons Reduction
(tons) #/MMBTU Reduction (tons)

Coffeen 1 18,570 1.54 14,332 13,775 0.35 11,082

Coffeen 2 37,545 1.49 27,999 26,873 0.35 21,429

Duck Creek 1 22,635 0.97 11,026 10,347 0.35 7,065

E D Edwards 2 17,222 1.7 14,666 14,149 0.35 11,652

E D Edwards 3 15,972 1.21 9,683 9,203 0.35 6,888

Joppa 1 13,548 0.51 3,441 0.35 1,070

Joppa 2 16,258 0.51 4,139 0.35 1,294

Joppa 3 15,396 0.51 3,947 0.35 1,253

Joppa 4 13,402 0.52 3,488 0.35 1,143

Joppa 5 15,094 0.52 3,932 0.35 1,291

Joppa 6 16,063 0.52 4,182 0.35 1,371

Newton 1 40,631 0.45 9,046 0.35 1,936

Newton 2 38,533 0.46 8,826 0.35 2,083

Total 74,348 69,555 Updated Summerhays Memo

Calculation for Ameren Base Year Illinois Strategy With Variances SO 210 The new calculation in the table above demons trates that IEPA cannot meet its burden to prove that the Illinois Regional Haze SIP will le ad to greater reasonable progress than BART with respect to the former Ameren fleet’s SO 2 emissions. As noted above, EPA approved the Illinois haze SIP based on a comparison in the Summerhays Memo between MPS fleet-wide average emission rates and what it described as a conservative estimate of source-specific BART limits. Even assuming that the Summerhays Memo lawfully interprets the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule requirements, 32 the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s grant of variances to IPH and Medina Valley will require EPA to reve rse its finding in the Summerhays Memo that Illinois’ implementation of the MPS will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the former Ameren fleet’s BARTsubject plants. 33

IEPA should not finalize and submit to EPA a SIP revision that EPA cannot approve because it violates EPA’s regulations requiring a BART alternative to ma ke greater reasonable progress than BART. Instead, IE PA should conduct five-factor BA RT analyses for the former Ameren units subject to BART and revise the ha ze SIP to include such BART limits.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Earthjustice, ELPC, and Sierra Club respectfully request that IEPA withdraw its proposal and not submit it to EPA for appr oval. In its place, the agency should develop unit-specific BART determinations for the former Ameren units subject to BART and propose a SIP revision that includes such BART limits.

Please do not hesitate to c ontact the undersigned if you ha ve any questions about these comments. Thank you in advance for your c onsideration of these important issues.

Sincerely,

Thomas Cmar Earthjustice 5042 N. Leavitt Street, Suite 1 Chicago, IL 60625 (312) 257-9338 tcmar@earthjustice.org

Matthew Gerhart Earthjustice 705 Second Ave, Suite 203 Seattle, WA 98104

32 As noted above and for the reasons set forth in their co mments on the proposed Illinois Regional Haze SIP, ELPC and Sierra Club believe that, even before the variances we re granted, EPA’s approval of the Illinois Regional Haze

SIP was inconsistent with Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule requirements.

33 See Summerhays Memo at 1 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)).11 (206) 343-7340 ext. 1024 mgerhart@earthjustice.org

Andrew Armstrong Environmental Law and Policy Center 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 795-3738 AArmstrong@elpc.org

Eva Schueller

Sierra Club

85 Second Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5637 eva.schueller@sierraclub.org