Proposed Revision of the Texas Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan and
Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of Provisions Governing Alternative to
Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations

FACT SHEET

What is EPA proposing here?

On April 20, 2023, EPA proposed a rule to address Clean Air Act requirements to protect
visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, such as Big Bend National Park in Texas and
Caney Creek Wilderness Area in Arkansas. This action proposes emission limits for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) at twelve electric generating units (EGUs) located at
six power plants in in Texas. EPA projects that these limits would reduce SO2 emissions in Texas
by more than 80,000 tons per year. These sources are already meeting the proposed PM limits
with existing PM control equipment. The proposed SO2emission limits are based on
conventional, proven, at-the-source pollution control technology that is in place across a vast
portion of the existing EGU fleet in the United States.

EPA is also proposing to affirm the current Regional Haze Rule provision allowing states whose
EGUs participate in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant to continue to rely on CSAPR
participation as a BART alternative for its BART-eligible EGUs for that pollutant. In this action,
EPA is also denying a petition for partial reconsideration submitted by environmental groups
objecting to an earlier decision that CSAPR continues to satisfy requirements as a BART
alternative. This will provide certainty to the 19 states that currently rely on CSAPR
participation as a BART alternative for their BART-eligible EGUs by making it clear that they can
continue to rely on CSAPR as a BART alternative. This includes Texas, which relies on
participation in CSAPR for ozone season NOx to address NOx BART requirements for its BART-
eligible EGUs

To learn more about this proposed action, visit https://www.epa.gov/tx/texas-regional-haze-
best-available-retrofit-technology-federal-implementation-plan-and-cross.

What is Regional Haze?

Visibility-impairing "regional haze" is caused when sunlight encounters tiny particles of
pollution (both naturally occurring and human-made) in the air. While the particles
absorb some of the light, other light is scattered before it becomes visible. The greater
the number of pollutant particles, the more light is absorbed and scattered. The haze
reduces clarity and color of what we can see, in this instance, above the nation's Class I
areas. EPA has typically focused on nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter as key, man-made visibility-impairing pollutants.


-------
What is the Regional Haze Rule and best available retrofit technology (BART)?

As part of an overall strategy to achieve natural visibility conditions in protected
national parks and wilderness areas, the Regional Haze Rule requires states to
determine emission controls known as best available retrofit technology or BART for
specific categories of stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977. The rule also
includes provisions that allow states to adopt alternative measures to BART so long as
the "BART alternative" will achieve greater overall visibility improvement. Many states
rely on Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) participation as a BART alternative for
their BART-eligible power plants.

States are required to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) to show how they will
address BART requirements and reach visibility goals. EPA must review and either
approve SIPs or implement a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) when a SIP is
determined to be deficient.

What is the background for this proposal?

2017 Texas BART FIP

On October 17, 2017, EPA promulgated a FIP for Texas to address certain deficiencies in
the 2009 Texas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission. The FIP
addressed the SO2 BART requirements for Texas sources through a BART alternative that
consists of an intrastate emissions trading program (Texas SO2 Trading Program) that
applies to certain EGUs in Texas. EPA took final action to affirm and make minor
revisions to the Texas SO2 Trading Program FIP in August 2020. EPA also approved the
portion of the Texas Regional Haze SIP that found no additional controls were necessary
to address emissions of particulate matter (PM) for regional haze. After further
consideration, EPA is now proposing to find that the basis for the Texas SO2 Trading
Program as a BART alternative was in error. EPA is also proposing that our prior approval
of the portion of the Texas Regional Haze SIP that addresses the BART requirement for
EGUs for PM was made in error given that it relies on the Texas SO2 Trading Program.
The Agency is therefore proposing to withdraw the existing Texas Regional Haze FIP and
replace it with a FIP containing source specific emission limits for SO2 and PM.

CSAPR Better-than-BART Affirmation

On November 28, 2017, EPA received a petition for reconsideration of certain aspects of
EPA's September 29, 2017, final rule titled, "Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas." EPA
concluded that the November 2017 petition did not meet the statutory criteria to
warrant reconsideration and therefore denied the petition in 2020 (2020 Denial). On
August 28, 2020, the Sierra Club, NPCA, and Earthjustice submitted a petition for partial


-------
reconsideration (2020 Petition) under Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B) of EPA's 2020
Denial of their November 2017 petition for reconsideration. EPA is proposing to deny
the 2020 Petition because the objections raised to the 2020 Denial are not centrally
relevant under a scenario in which EPA finalizes the proposal to withdraw the present
BART-alternative Texas S02 Trading Program FIP for Texas EGUs and replaces those
requirements with source-specific S02 BART requirements. As part of EPA's proposal to
deny the 2020 Petition, the EPA is affirming the current Regional Haze Rule provision
allowing states whose EGUs continue to participate in a CSAPR trading program for a
given pollutant to continue to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for its
BART-eligible EGUs for that pollutant.

What is the impact of this action?

This proposed rule (if finalized) would impose SO2 and PM emission limits on 12 EGUs
located at six power plants in Texas. Affected sources have flexibility to decide what
control technology and/or operational changes to implement to meet these emission
limits. The proposed SO2 emission limits are expected to reduce SO2 emissions in Texas
by over 80,000 tons per year. The existing PM controls at the affected sources are
sufficient to meet the PM emission limits proposed in this action.

What sources will be impacted by the proposed promulgation of source-specific BART, and
where are these sources located?

All six affected power plants are located in Texas. The attached map depicts the location
of the affected sources (orange circles) and monitoring stations at the surrounding
protected national parks and wilderness areas (blue circles).

•	W.A. Parish Station is in Fort Bend County (approximately 25 miles southwest of
Houston, TX).

•	Fayette Power Project is in Fayette County (approximately halfway between Austin
and Houston, TX).

•	Coleto Creek Plant is in Goliad County (approximately 140 miles southwest of
Houston, TX).

•	Martin Lake Electrical Station is in Rusk County (in East Texas, approximately 140
miles east of Dallas, TX).

•	Welsh Power Plant is in Titus County (in East Texas, approximately 130 miles east of
Dallas, TX).

•	Harrington Station is in Potter County (in Amarillo, TX, in the Texas Panhandle).

Why is EPA denying the August 28, 2020 petition for reconsideration related to CSAPR Better-
Than-BART?

EPA is proposing to deny the August 2020 Petition because the objections raised are not
centrally relevant under a scenario in which EPA finalizes the proposal to withdraw the


-------
present BART-alternative Texas S02 Trading Program FIP for Texas EGUs and replaces
those requirements with source-specific S02 BART requirements.

Where can I find information on how to submit comments on EPA's proposal?

EPA will publish a Federal Register notice with instruction on how to submit comments.
See Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611 at https://www.regulations.gov.

Additionally, we will post the information for instructions to submit comments and how
to participate in the virtual public hearing at https://www.epa.gov/tx/texas-regional-
haze-best-available-retrofit-technology-federal-implementation-plan-and-cross.

How many days do I have to comment on EPA's proposal?

This proposed action was signed by the EPA Administrator on April 20, 2023. The public
comment period will last 60 days from the date EPA's notice is published in the Federal
Register.

For further information contact: Michael Feldman, Feldman.Michael@EPA.gov


-------
The map below depicts the location of the affected sources (orange circles) and monitoring stations at the surrounding
protected national parks and wilderness areas (blue circles).


-------