20190328ICL Comments.pdf

v[t)
Matthew A. Nykiel (lSB No. 10270)
P.O. Box 2308
Sandpoint, ID 83864
Ph: (208) 26s-9s65
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
I
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE TDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMTSSION
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA'S PETITION
FOR AN EXTENSION TO FILE ITS 2019
ELECTRIC INTEGRATED RESOURCE
PLAN
CASE NO. AVU-E-I9-01
COMMENTS OF
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
IN SUPPORT OF AVISTA'S REQUEST
TO EXTEND THE IRP FILING
DEADLINE
The Idaho Conservation League C'ICL") submits the following comments in support of Avista
Corporation's ("Avista") request for a six-month extension of its August 31,2019 Integrated Resource Plan ("IRP")
filing deadline.
2OI9 EXPIRATION OF COLSTRIP'S SOLE COAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT AND IMPENDING COAL
ASH REMEDIATION OBLIGATIONS WARRANT IRP EXTENSION
In addition to state legislative proposals that may affect the regional electric market, uncertainty
surrounding Avista's 4th largest company-owned electric generation facility, Colstrip Units 3 and 4 ("Colstrip"),
warrants the additional time Avista needs to update its IRP models to reflect potential changes to customer costs and
liabilities associated with generating electricity from Colstrip. As the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("PUC')
recently stated "the actual useful life of those units is uncertain." Order No. 34276.
BACKGROUND
As a l5 percent owner of Colstrip Units 3 and 4, Avista is party to a coal supply agreement ("Amended and
Restated Coal Supply Agreement dated, August 24, 1998, hereafter referred to as the "CSA") between the Colstrip
owners and Westmoreland Coal Company ("Westmoreland"), the corporation that owns the Rosebud Mine and is
the sole supplier of coal to Colstrip. However, with over $ 1 .4 billion in debt, Westmorland filed for Chapter I I
bankruptcy in United States Bankruptcy Court on October 9, 2018. See Attachment I . In March 20 I 9, the
bankruptcy court approved the dissolution of Westmoreland and the sale of most of its assets to a new entity,
Westmoreland Mining LLC ("Westmoreland Mining"), which was created and is controlled by Westmoreland's
former creditors. See Attachment 2. As such, Westmoreland Mining is now party to the CSA along with the Colstrip
owners.
The CSA provides 100 percent of the coal requirements for Colstrip Units 3 and 4, but during
Westmoreland's bankruptcy proceedings this past January, the creditors that now run Westmoreland Mining
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
informed the Colstrip owners of their intention to reject the CSA, in advance of the CSA's expiration on December
31,2019. The Colstrip owners, including Avista, filed statements in the bankruptcy proceedings to flag the serious
risks to customers if the CSA was not maintained, stating: "Without the Coal Supply Agreement, the Public Utilities
will not be able to operate the Colstrip Plants, which generate power that each of the Public Utilities then uses to
provide electricity to their respective customers in Oregon and Washington." See Attachment 3. The operator of the
Colstrip Plant, Talen Montana, LLC ("Talen"), elaborated on the situation, stating:
". .. it appears that the WLB Debtors are threatening rejection and the withholding of vital coal to
these captive Buyers to extract what in Talen's view are extremely unreasonable terms from them
in the context of ongoing commercial negotiations focused on extending the U34 Coal Supply
Agreement beyond its December 31,2019 expiration date. The Terms reached under these
coercive circumstances would be binding on the parties for many years, but at the very least would
reduce actual operational time of the Colstrip Plant by a significant amount by virtue of inflated
costs. Critically for the Buyers, the Colstrip Plant currently has one source of coal-WECO's
Rosebud Mine-and the Rosebud Mine has only one logical buyer of coal-the Colstrip Plant.
This monopolistic situation, involving an important product affecting the public interest-coal for
power for electricity for, among other things, warmth in the winter-creates an ability for WECO
to squeeze the Buyers for greater and greater profits, potentially leaving the Buyers with no choice
but to agree to pay exorbitant ransom prices for many years for this vital, single-source
commodity. Such situation could lead to a drastic curtailment of operations at the Colstrip Plant or
potentially accelerate a permanent shutdown."
See Attachment 4
During the course of bankruptcy proceedings, Westmoreland Mining changed course and agreed to abide
the CSA until the end of 201 9, at which time the CSA will expire and Colstrip will eventually run out of coal fuel,
unless the CSA is renewed. Importantly, no altemative coal sources exist because the Colstrip owners have only
been permitted by the State of Montana to burn coal specifically from the Rosebud Mine. See Attachment 5. As of
the date of ICL's comments, the stafus of Avista's and the other Colstrip owners' negotiations to renew the CSA is
unknown. This means that in approximately nine months Idaho ratepayers are at risk of their 4th largest energy-
generating unit running out of fuel or at risk of potential changes to the cost of coal, given the "monopolistic
situation," if the CSA is renewed.
Along with risks to the coal supply, Colstrip has had major problems meeting air quality requirements.
During the summer of 2018, Talen was forced to shut down units 3 and 4 because the pollution controls for mercury
and air toxics did not work as expected.l See Attachments 6 and 7. Despite this unexpected shutdown during the
I See also Billings Gazette "Colstrip operating fully after unit shutdowns due to air pollution problems," September 22,2018
available a/ billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana"/colstrip-operating-fully-after-unit-shutdowns-due-to-air-
pollution/article_d83 34 I dd-6873 -5cc3 -a8fd-caf6 I f9ac0ce.html.
2ICL's COMMENTS RE AVISTA REQUEST TO EXTEND IRP DEADLINE
summer months, there were no reported impacts to electric service or reliability. This shows that Colstrip, while a
large resource in terms of costs to customers, is not an important resource for reliability. A delay in the resource
planning process will allow Avista to more fully consider alternative energy and capacity resources that do not have
the same risk to fuel supply and the ability to operate within current clean air legal requirements.
Meanwhile, on January 23,2019, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality ("Montana DEQ')
issued a memorandum to the Montana State Legislature, finding that the cost to remediate leaking coal ash ponds at
Colstrip is estimated to cost as much as $400 to $700 million. See Attachment 8. The Montana DEQ explains that
the Colstrip owners, including Avista, are obligated to pay these costs under the operating agreement with Talen,
potentially as soon as the end of 2019. It should be noted that the initial costs of cleaning up toxic wastes at sites
such as Colstrip are typically underestimated, often by orders of magnitude. Not to mention the fact that every
additional day Avista generates electricity from Colstrip, Avista produces more coal ash and more remediation
liabilities that Idaho ratepayers will eventually see in electric bills.
Uncertainty surrounding the costs to Avista's Idaho electric customers from Avista's continued ownership
in Colstrip Units 3 and 4 warrants the additional time necessary for Avista to develop an IRP that will ensure its
Idaho customers continue to receive reliable electricity atjust, fair, and reasonable rates. Potentially significant
changes to the CSA, that if effective after December 3 I , 20 1 9, would have a significant impact on Avista's electric
rates both in Idaho and the region. Similarly, potentially significant determinations by Montana DEQ by the end of
2019 may also significantly impact Avista's obligations, and, derivatively, its Idaho electric customers, to pay for
the remediation of the Colstrip coal ash ponds.
Despite the seriousness ofthese potential impacts, low cost alternatives exist and are available, so long as
Avista is evaluating and planning for them in its IRP process. Just this week, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho
Power") signed a 2\-year power purchase agreement with an Idaho-based company to purchase power from a solar
array in Twin Falls, Idaho. This local solarproject is expected to generate 120 megawatts and Idaho Powerwill
initially pay less than2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, among the cheapest in the country. And, public utilities nearer to
Avista's service territory than Idaho Power are also identifying and pursuing alternative generation facilities to
offset pending coal plant closures. This year Portland General Electric disclosed its plans to invest in the Wheatridge
Renewable Energy Facility, which is anticipated to combine 300 megawatts of wind energy with 50 megawatts of
solar power and 30 megawatts of storage.2 Puget Sound Energy, this year too, publicized its plan to invest in the
Lund Hill Solar Project in central Washington, which will generate 150 megawatts.3 And just last week, Avista itself
selected to purchase wind power from the Rattlesnake Flat Wind project in Adams County, Washington.a
Extending the IRP deadline will provide Avista and the public necessary time and data to evaluate
alternatives like the ones mentioned above, which will help mitigate the risk and potential impacts from utility and
2 The Oregonian "PGE will spend $160 million on massive renewable energy project in eastem Oregon," February 13,2}lg
available 4, www.oregonlive.com/business/20l9l02lpge-will-spend- 160-million-to-help-develop-massive-renewable-energy-
proj ect-in-eastern-oregon.html.3 Portland Business Joumal "Porttand's Avangrid Renewables in giant solar deal with Washington utility," March 14, 2019
available a/ www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2019 /03ll4lportlands-avangrid-renewables-in-giant-solar-deal.html.
o Avista Corporation "Avista Selects Clearway Energy Group's Rattlesnake Flat Wind Project for Power Purchase Agreement,"
March I 9, 2019 available al investor.avistacorp.com/news-releases/news-release-details/avista-selects-clearway-energy-groups-
rattlesnake-fl at-wind.
JICL,s COMMENTS RE AVISTA REQUEST TO EXTEND IRP DEADLINE
state govemment decisions associated with the fuel costs and remediation at Colstrip. In particular, Avista should
use this delay to request indicative pricing for new resources to replace Colstrip.
AVISTA SHOULD USE IRP EXTENSTION TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND
DISCUSS COST MITIGATION STRATEGIES
It is critical Avista's Idaho electric customers and the IPUC have the information necessary to provide
informed comments on Avista's IRP regarding the future of Colstrip. For example, as far back as2012, Security
Exchange Commission filings indicated that the sole coal supplier to Colstrip, Westmoreland, was experiencing
losses that could impact the future price of coal and, accordingly, the price of electricity from Colstrip - in 23
quarters starting in2012, Westmoreland reported only three quarters with profits. See Attachment 9. Yet, not one of
Avista's IRPs submitted between 2012 and 2017 provides more than a paragraph of discussion to plan for the risk of
increasing coals costs and how these potential costs may impact future resource decisions. Avista's decision-making
process must provide the analysis and detail necessary to empower the public and the IPUC to ensure that Idaho
ratepayers are not financing long-term investments in electric generating facilities, such as Colstrip, that may be
unable to compete and operate given the trends in the regional electric market. Avista's prior IRPs have not provided
the public nor the IPUC this benefit.
Indeed, the IPUC Staff expressed concems related to Colstrip in its comments on Avista's 20l7IRP,
recommending Avista model the price risk for coal associated with Colstrip in the 2019 IRP, as well as "continue
analyzing altematives and cost mitigation strategies for the plant." See Order. No. 33971 . One such cost mitigation
strategy could involve using the $ 103 million breakup fee Avista collected after the disintegration of its merger with
Hydro One.s Using a portion of this breakup fee to address the growing liabilities of Colstrip would help Idaho
ratepayers that depend on steady, predictable electric prices, and it would help limit the risk of an unfair and unjust
situation, where Colstrip has shutdown but future Idaho ratepayers are obligated to help pay off the long-term costs
of Colstrip, even though they may not have benefited from the power Colstrip produced. We recommend that during
the six-month extension to the IRP deadline, Avista explicitly evaluate the use of the $103 million breakup fee and
other cost mitigation strategies in the context of its 2019 IRP.
5 ,See Avista's statement regarding Hydro One and the $103 million breakup fee available a/ www.myavista.com/about-us/hydro-
one-to-acquire-avista.
4ICL,s COMMENTS RE AVISTA REQUEST TO EXTEND IRP DEADLINE
In light of the economic uncertainties surrounding the operation and price of electricity from Colstrip and
Avista's undetermined obligations for the remediation of Colstrip's coal ash ponds, we respectfully request the
IPUC extend Avista's IRP deadline by six months to ensure Avista's IRP models reflect potential changes to
customer costs and liabilities associated with generating electricity from Colstrip.
DATED this 28'h day of March 2019
A.
Idaho Conservation League
5ICL,s COMMENTS RE AVISTA REQUEST TO EXTEND IRP DEADLINE
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment l: Westmoreland Coal Company Bankruptcy Petition, October 9, 2018
Attachment 2: Notice of (I) Entry of Order Confirming the Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Westmoreland Coal
Company and Certain of its Debtor Affiliates and (II) Occurrence of the Plan Effective Date, March
15,2019
Attachment 3: Objection by Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Portland General Electric Company, PacifiCorp, and Avista
Corporation to Joint Chapter I I Plan of Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of its Debtor
Affiliates, January 25, 2019
Attachment 4: Limited Objection of Talen Montana, LLC to Confirmation of Joint Chapter I I Plan of
Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of its Debtor Affiliates, January 25,2019
Attachment 5: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Operating Permit OP0513-14 Issued to
Talen Montana,LLC
Attachment 6: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Letter to Talen Montana,LLC regarding Request for
information related to compliance with Mercury & Air Toxics Standard, August 31, 2018
Attachment 7: Talen Montana, LLC Response to Montana DEQ August 31,2018 Letter, September 17,2018
Attachment 8: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum regarding Colstrip Steam Electric
Station Administrative Order on Consent Report, January 23,2019
Attachment 9: Institute for Energy Economic and Financial Analysis Research Brief, "Westmoreland Coal Is in
Trouble," February 2018
6ICL,s COMMENTS RE AVISTA REQUEST TO EXTEND IRP DEADLINE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 28th day of March ,2}lg,I delivered true and correct copies of the foregoing
COMMENTS OF IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF AVISTA'S REQUEST TO EXTEND
THE IRP FILING DEADLINE to the following person via the method of service noted:
Electronic Mail:
Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
427 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702-5983
diane.holt@puc. idaho. gov
David J. Meyer
Avista Corporation
P.O. Box 3727
l4l I East Mission Avenue
Spokane, WA99220-3727
david.meyer@avistacorp. com
Linda Gervais
Avista Corporation
P.O.Box3727
141I East Mission Avenue
Spokane, W A 99220-3727
lin da. gervais @avistacorp. com
A.
'7ICL,s COMMENTS RE AVISTA REQUEST TO EXTEND IRP DEADLINE
Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 1
Fill in this information to identify the case:
United States Bankruptcy Court for the:
Southern District of Texas
(State) ☐Check if this is an
amended filing Case number (if known): Chapter 11
Official Form 201
Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for
Bankruptcy 04/16
If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet to this form. On the top of any additional pages, write the debtor’s name and the
case number (if known). For more information, a separate document, Instructions for Bankruptcy Forms for Non-Individuals, is
available.
1.Debtor’s Name Westmoreland Coal Company
2.All other names debtor used
in the last 8 years
N/A
Include any assumed names,
trade names, and doing
business as names
3.Debtor’s federal Employer
Identification Number (EIN)23-1128670
4.Debtor’s address Principal place of business
9540 South Maroon Circle
Mailing address, if different from principal place
of business
Number Street
Suite 300
Number Street
Englewood, Colorado 80112
P.O. Box
City State Zip Code
Douglas County
City State Zip Code
Location of principal assets, if different from
principal place of business
County Number Street
City State Zip Code
5.Debtor’s website (URL)www.westmoreland.com
6.Type of debtor ☒Corporation (including Limited Liability Company (LLC) and Limited Liability Partnership (LLP))
☐Partnership (excluding LLP)
☐Other. Specify:
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 1 of 24
Debtor Westmoreland Coal Company Case number (if known)
Name
Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 2
7.Describe debtor’s business A.Check One:
☐Health Care Business (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(27A))
☐Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51B))
☐Railroad (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(44))
☐Stockbroker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(53A))
☐Commodity Broker (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(6))
☐Clearing Bank (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 781(3))
☒None of the above
B.Check all that apply:
☐Tax-exempt entity (as described in 26 U.S.C. § 501)
☐Investment company, including hedge fund or pooled investment vehicle (as defined in 15 U.S.C.
§ 80a-3)
☐Investment advisor (as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11))
C. NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) 4-digit code that best describes debtor. See
http://www.uscourts.gov/four-digit-national-association-naics-codes .
2121 (Coal Mining)
8.Under which chapter of the
Bankruptcy Code is the
debtor filing?
Check One:
☐Chapter 7
☐Chapter 9
☒Chapter 11. Check all that apply:
☐Debtor’s aggregate noncontingent liquidated debts (excluding debts owed to
insiders or affiliates) are less than $2,566,050 (amount subject to adjustment on
4/01/19 and every 3 years after that).
☐The debtor is a small business debtor as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D). If the
debtor is a small business debtor, attach the most recent balance sheet, statement
of operations, cash-flow statement, and federal income tax return, or if all of these
documents do not exist, follow the procedure in 11 U.S.C. § 1116(1)(B).
☐A plan is being filed with this petition.
☐Acceptances of the plan were solicited prepetition from one or more classes of
creditors, in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1126(b).
☒The debtor is required to file periodic reports (for example, 10K and 10Q) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission according to § 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. File the Attachment to Voluntary Petition for Non-IndividualsFiling for Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 (Official Form 201A) with this form.
☐The debtor is a shell company as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule
12b-2.
☐Chapter 12
9.Were prior bankruptcy cases
filed by or against the debtor
within the last 8 years?
If more than 2 cases, attach a
separate list.
☒No
☐Yes. District When Case number
MM/DD/YYYY
District When Case number
MM/DD/YYYY
10.Are any bankruptcy cases
pending or being filed by a
business partner or an
affiliate of the debtor?
List all cases. If more than 1,
attach a separate list.
☐No
☒Yes. Debtor See Rider 1 Relationship Affiliate
District Southern District of Texas
When 10/09/2018
Case number, if known _______________________ MM / DD / YYYY
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 2 of 24
Debtor Westmoreland Coal Company Case number (if known)
Name
Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 3
11.Why is the case filed in this
district?
Check all that apply:
☐Debtor has had its domicile, principal place of business, or principal assets in this district for 180 days
immediately preceding the date of this petition or for a longer part of such 180 days than in any other
district.
☒A bankruptcy case concerning debtor's affiliate, general partner, or partnership is pending in this district.
12.Does the debtor own or have
possession of any real
property or personal property
that needs immediate
attention?
☒No
☐Yes. Answer below for each property that needs immediate attention. Attach additional sheets if needed.
Why does the property need immediate attention? (Check all that apply.)
☐It poses or is alleged to pose a threat of imminent and identifiable hazard to public health or
safety.
What is the hazard?
☐It needs to be physically secured or protected from the weather.
☐It includes perishable goods or assets that could quickly deteriorate or lose value without
attention (for example, livestock, seasonal goods, meat, dairy, produce, or securities-relatedassets or other options).
☐Other
Where is the property?
Number Street
City State Zip Code
Is the property insured?
☐No
☐Yes. Insurance agency
Contact name
Phone
Statistical and administrative information
13.Debtor's estimation of
available funds
Check one:
☒Funds will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors.
☐After any administrative expenses are paid, no funds will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors.
14.Estimated number of
creditors ☐1-49 ☐1,000-5,000 ☐25,001-50,000
☐50-99 ☐5,001-10,000 ☐50,001-100,000
☐100-199 ☒10,001-25,000 ☐More than 100,000
☐200-999
15.Estimated assets1 ☐$0-$50,000 ☐$1,000,001-$10 million ☒$500,000,001-$1 billion
☐$50,001-$100,000 ☐$10,000,001-$50 million ☐$1,000,000,001-$10 billion
☐$100,001-$500,000 ☐$50,000,001-$100 million ☐$10,000,000,001-$50 billion
☐$500,001-$1 million ☐$100,000,001-$500 million ☐More than $50 billion
1 The Debtors’ estimated assets, liabilities, and number of creditors noted here are provided on a consolidated basis.
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 3 of 24
Debtor Westmoreland Coal Company Case number (if known)
Name
Official Form 201 Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy page 4
16.Estimated liabilities ☐$0-$50,000 ☐$1,000,001-$10 million ☐$500,000,001-$1 billion
☐$50,001-$100,000 ☐$10,000,001-$50 million ☒$1,000,000,001-$10 billion
☐$100,001-$500,000 ☐$50,000,001-$100 million ☐$10,000,000,001-$50 billion
☐$500,001-$1 million ☐$100,000,001-$500 million ☐More than $50 billion
Request for Relief, Declaration, and Signatures
WARNING -- Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime. Making a false statement in connection with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to
$500,000 or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.
17. Declaration and signature of
authorized representative ofdebtor
The debtor requests relief in accordance with the chapter of title 11, United States Code, specified in this
petition.
I have been authorized to file this petition on behalf of the debtor.
I have examined the information in this petition and have a reasonable belief that the information is true and
correct.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 10/09/2018
MM/ DD / YYYY
/s/ Michael G. Hutchinson Michael G. Hutchinson
Signature of authorized representative of debtor Printed name
Title Chief Executive Officer
18. Signature of attorney /s/ Patricia B. Tomasco Date 10/09/2018
Signature of attorney for debtor MM/DD/YYYY
Patricia B. Tomasco
Printed name
Jackson Walker L.L.P.
Firm name
1401 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
Number Street
Houston Texas 77010
City
[phone]
State ZIP Code
[e-mail]
Contact phone
01797600 Texas
Email address
Bar number State
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 4 of 24
Official Form 201A (12/15)
Official Form 201A Attachment to Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy under Chapter 11
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
)
In re: ) Chapter 11
)
WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, ) Case No. 18-___________(___)
)
Debtor. )
)
Attachment to Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy under Chapter 11

1. If any of the debtor’s securities are registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC file
number is 001-11155

2. The following financial data is the latest available information and refers to the debtor’s condition on
August 31, 2018

(a) Total assets $ 770,455,520
(b) Total debts (including debts listed in 2.c., below) $ 1,431,617,093
(c) Debt securities held by more than 500 holders
Approximate
number of
holders:
secured ☐ unsecured ☐ subordinated ☐ $
secured ☐ unsecured ☐ subordinated ☐ $
secured ☐ unsecured ☐ subordinated ☐ $
secured ☐ unsecured ☐ subordinated ☐ $
secured ☐ unsecured ☐ subordinated ☐ $

(d) Number of shares of preferred stock 0
(e) Number of shares of common stock 18,788,5322

Comments, if any:

3. Brief description of debtor’s business:

We produce and sell thermal coal primarily to investment grade utility customers under long-term, cost-protected
contracts. Our focus is primarily on mine locations which allow us to employ dragline surface mining methods and take
advantage of close customer proximity through mine-mouth power plants and strategically located rail transportation.

4. List the names of any person who directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds, with power to vote, 5% or more of the
voting securities of debtor: None

2 As of September 6, 2018.
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 5 of 24

Fill in this information to identify the case:
United States Bankruptcy Court for the: ,
,Southern District of Texas
(State) ☐ Check if this is an
amended filing Case number (if known): Chapter 11

Rider 1
Pending Bankruptcy Cases Filed by the Debtor and Affiliates of the Debtor
On the date hereof, each of the entities listed below (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed a petition in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States
Code. The Debtors have moved for joint administration of these cases under the case number assigned to the
chapter 11 case of Westmoreland Coal Company.
• Westmoreland Coal Company
• Absaloka Coal, LLC
• Basin Resources, Inc.
• Buckingham Coal Company, LLC
• Dakota Westmoreland Corporation
• Daron Coal Company, LLC
• Harrison Resources, LLC
• Haystack Coal Company
• Oxford Conesville, LLC
• Oxford Mining Company - Kentucky, LLC
• Oxford Mining Company, LLC
• San Juan Coal Company
• San Juan Transportation Company
• Texas Westmoreland Coal Company
• WCC Land Holding Company, Inc.
• WEI-Roanoke Valley, Inc.
• Western Energy Company
• Westmoreland Coal Company Asset Corp.
• Westmoreland Coal Sales Company, Inc.
• Westmoreland Energy Services New York, Inc.
• Westmoreland Energy Services, Inc.
• Westmoreland Energy, LLC
• Westmoreland Kemmerer Fee Coal Holdings, LLC
• Westmoreland Kemmerer, LLC
• Westmoreland Mining LLC
• Westmoreland North Carolina Power LLC
• Westmoreland Partners
• Westmoreland Power, Inc.
• Westmoreland Resource Partners, LP
• Westmoreland Resources GP, LLC
• Westmoreland Resources Inc.
• Westmoreland San Juan Holdings, Inc.
• Westmoreland San Juan, LLC
• Westmoreland Savage Corporation
• Westmoreland Texas Jewett Coal Company
• Westmoreland-Roanoke Valley, LP
• WRI Partners, Inc.

Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 6 of 24
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
)
In re: ) Chapter 11
)
WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, ) Case No. 18-___________(___)
)
Debtor. )
)
LIST OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS3
Debtor Equity Holders Address of Equity Holder Percentage of
Equity Held
Westmoreland Coal
Company
Cede & Co 55 Water Street
New York, NY 10041 98.51%
3 This list serves as the disclosure required to be made by the debtor pursuant to rule 1007 of the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. All equity positions listed indicate the record holder of such equity as
of the date of commencement of the chapter 11 case.
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 7 of 24
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
)
In re: ) Chapter 11
)
WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, ) Case No. 18-___________(___)
)
Debtor. )
)
CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT
Pursuant to rules 1007(a)(1) and 7007.1 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the
following are corporations, other than a government unit, that directly or indirectly own 10% or more of any
class of the debtor’s equity interest:
Shareholder Approximate Percentage of Shares Held
Cede & Co 98.51%
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 8 of 24
Fill in this information to identify the case and this filing:
Debtor Name Westmoreland Coal Company
United States Bankruptcy Court for the: Southern District of Texas
(State)
Case number (If known):
Official Form 202
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury for Non-Individual Debtors 12/15
An individual who is authorized to act on behalf of a non-individual debtor, such as a corporation or partnership, must sign and
submit this form for the schedules of assets and liabilities, any other document that requires a declaration that is not included in
the document, and any amendments of those documents. This form must state the individual’s position or relationship to the
debtor, the identity of the document, and the date. Bankruptcy Rules 1008 and 9011.
WARNING -- Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime. Making a false statement, concealing property, or obtaining money or property
by fraud in connection with a bankruptcy case can result in fines up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both. 18
U.S.C. §§ 152, 1341, 1519, and 3571.
Declaration and signature
I am the president, another officer, or an authorized agent of the corporation; a member or an authorized agent of the
partnership; or another individual serving as a representative of the debtor in this case.
I have examined the information in the documents checked below and I have a reasonable belief that the information is true
and correct:
☐Schedule A/B: Assets-Real and Personal Property (Official Form 206A/B)
☐Schedule D: Creditors Who Have Claims Secured by Property (Official Form 206D)
☐Schedule E/F: Creditors Who Have Unsecured Claims (Official Form 206E/F)
☐Schedule G: Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases (Official Form 206G)
☐Schedule H: Codebtors (Official Form 206H)
☐Summary of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Individuals (Official Form 206Sum)
☐Amended Schedule
☒Chapter 11 or Chapter 9 Cases: List of Creditors Who Have the 50 Largest Unsecured Claims and Are Not Insiders
(Official Form 204)
☒Other document that requires a declaration List of Equity Security Holders and Corporate Ownership
Statement
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on
10/09/2018 /s/ Michael G. Hutchinson
MM/ DD/YYYY Signature of individual signing on behalf of debtor
Michael G. Hutchinson
Printed name
Chief Executive Officer
Position or relationship to debtor
Official Form 202 Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury for Non-Individual Debtors
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 9 of 24
Fill in this information to identify the case:
Debtor name Westmoreland Coal Company, et al.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the: Southern District of Texas Check if this is an
Case number (If known): (State) amended filing
Official Form 204
Chapter 11 or Chapter 9 Cases: List of Creditors Who Have the 50 Largest
Unsecured Claims and Are Not Insiders 12/15
A list of creditors holding the 50 largest unsecured claims must be filed in a Chapter 11 or Chapter 9 case. Include claims which the debtor
disputes. Do not include claims by any person or entity who is an insider, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(31). Also, do not include claims by
secured creditors, unless the unsecured claim resulting from inadequate collateral value places the creditor among the holders of the 50
largest unsecured claims.
Name of creditor and complete mailing
address, including zip code
Name, telephone number and
email address of creditor contact
Nature of
claim
(for example,
trade debts,
bank loans,
professional
services, and
government
contracts)
Indicate if
claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
or disputed
Amount of claim
If the claim is fully unsecured, fill in only
unsecured claim amount. If claim is partially
secured, fill in total claim amount and
deduction for value of collateral or setoff to
calculate unsecured claim.
Total
claim, if
partially
secured
1Deduction
for value of
collateral
or setoff
[1]
Unsecured Claim
1
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W., MS-4606-MIB
Washington, DC 20240
Name: Hankie P. Ortiz, Deputy
Bureau Director
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Royalties Unliquidated $1,800,000
2
Ohio Cat
3993 E. Royalton Rd.
Broadview Heights, OH 44147
Name: Ken Taylor, President
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $1,476,431
3
Paprzycki, Kevin A.
Address On File
Name: Paprzycki, Kevin A.
Phone: Redacted
Email: Redacted
Severance
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
$1,156,800
4
Minerals Management Service
1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 5134
Washington, DC 20240
Name: Timothy Calahan
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Royalties Unliquidated $1,100,000
5
Nelson Brothers Mining Service
820 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 2000
Birmingham, AL 35209
Name: Tim Zeli, Director -
Direct Operations
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $992,331
6
Tractor & Equipment Co.
17035 W. Valley Hwy
Tukwila, WA 98188
Name: Tim May, Vice President
& CFO
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $399,477
7
Caterpillar Financial Services Corp
2120 West End Ave.
Nashville, TN 37203-0001
Name: David Thomas Walton,
VP
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $374,626
1 The Debtors reserve the right to assert setoff and other rights with respect to any of the claims listed herein.
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 10 of 24

Name of creditor and complete mailing
address, including zip code
Name, telephone number and
email address of creditor contact
Nature of
claim

(for example,
trade debts,
bank loans,
professional
services, and
government
contracts)
Indicate if
claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
or disputed
Amount of claim

If the claim is fully unsecured, fill in only
unsecured claim amount. If claim is partially
secured, fill in total claim amount and
deduction for value of collateral or setoff to
calculate unsecured claim.
Total
claim, if
partially
secured
1Deduction
for value of
collateral
or setoff
[1]
Unsecured Claim
8
Wampum Hardware Company
636 Paden Road
New Galilee, PA 16141
Name: Jerry Davis
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
m
Trade Debt $362,269
9
Consol Mining Company, LLC
CNX Center
1000 Consol Energy Drive, Suite 100
Canonsburg, PA 15317-6506
Name: Mitesh Thakkar, Director
Phone: [phone]
Email:
Miteshthakkar@Consolenergy.c
om
Royalties Unliquidated $350,000
10
Land Services USA, Inc.
1835 Market Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Name: M. Gordon Daniels,
Esq., Principal and Chief
Executive Officer
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $318,654
11
M and C Transportation LLC
39830 Barnesville Bethesda Rd.,
Bethesda, OH 43719
Name: Jeffrey W Crum,
President
Phone: [phone]
Trade Debt $286,629
12
Conveyors & Equipment, Inc.
3580 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84115
Name: John Morrison, Owner
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $184,008
13
GCR Tires & Service
535 Marriott Drive
Nashville, TN 37214
Name: John Vasuta, President,
GCR
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $174,742
14
Cravat Coal Co.
40580 Cadiz Piedmont Rd.
Cadiz, OH 43907
Name: James Carnes,
President
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Royalties Unliquidated $150,000
15
Wheeler Machinery Co.
4901 W 2100 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84120-1227
Name: Bryan Campbell,
President
Phone: [phone]
Trade Debt $145,937
16
Silver Spur Conveyor
578 Raven Road
Raven, VA 24639
Name: Greg Smith, President
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $144,140
17
Komatsu Financial
Komatsu America Corp.
1701 Golf Road, Suite 1-100
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Name: Rod Schrader,
Chairman And CEO
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $110,769
18
Columbus Equipment Co.
2329 Performance Way
Columbus, OH 43207
Name: Zach O'Connor,
Regional Manager
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
m
Trade Debt $108,341
19
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
400 North Fourth Street
Bismarck, ND 58501
Name: Ms. Nicole A. Kivisto,
CEO
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $90,544
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 11 of 24
Name of creditor and complete mailing
address, including zip code
Name, telephone number and
email address of creditor contact
Nature of
claim
(for example,
trade debts,
bank loans,
professional
services, and
government
contracts)
Indicate if
claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
or disputed
Amount of claim
If the claim is fully unsecured, fill in only
unsecured claim amount. If claim is partially
secured, fill in total claim amount and
deduction for value of collateral or setoff to
calculate unsecured claim.
Total
claim, if
partially
secured
1Deduction
for value of
collateral
or setoff
[1]
Unsecured Claim
20
Rocky Mountain Power
Po Box 26000
1033 Ne 6th Ave.
Portland, OR 97256-0001
Name: Cindy Crane, CEO
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $80,985
21
Holland & Hart LLP
2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Name: Matt Micheli, Partner
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $79,831
22
Bowles Rice LLP
600 Quarrier St.
Charleston, WY 25301
Name: Paul E. Frampton,
Partner
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $76,812
23
Honstein Oil And Distributing LLC
96 Road 4980
Bloomfield, NM 87413
Name: Jason Allee, VP of
Operations
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $73,724
24
Cincinnati Mine Machinery Co.
2950 Jonrose Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 42539
Name: Ron Paolello, General
Manager
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $71,956
25
Monsanto Company
800 N Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63167
Name: Hugh Grant, CEO
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $68,712
26
Minova USA Inc.
150 Summer Court
Georgetown, KY 40324
Name: Bill Hutchinson, CEO
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $66,227
27
Davis Graham & Stubbs
1550 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Name: Debbie Schoonover,
Executive Director
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
Debbie.Schoonover@Dgslaw.c
om
Trade Debt $63,751
28
Cardwell Distributing, Inc.
8137 State Street
Midvale, UT 84047
Name: Bill Rawson, CEO And
President
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $60,867
29
Rhino Energy LLC
Rhino Resource Partners LP
424 Lewis Hargett Circle, Suite 250
Lexington, KY 40503
Name: Richard A. Boone, CEO
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] Trade Debt $54,601
30
Lykins Energy Solutions
5163 Wolfpen Pleasent Hill Rd.
Milford, OH 45150
Name: D. Jeff Lykins,
President/CEO
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $54,374
31
Mesa Ready Mix Inc.
6895 Drinen Lane
Farmington, NM 87402
Name: Mike Shavers, Director
Phone: [phone] Trade Debt $52,098
32
Chromate Industrial 4060 East Plano Parkway
Plano, TX 75074
Name: Debbie Bynum, CEO/President
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $52,000
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 12 of 24
Name of creditor and complete mailing
address, including zip code
Name, telephone number and
email address of creditor contact
Nature of
claim
(for example,
trade debts,
bank loans,
professional
services, and
government
contracts)
Indicate if
claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
or disputed
Amount of claim
If the claim is fully unsecured, fill in only
unsecured claim amount. If claim is partially
secured, fill in total claim amount and
deduction for value of collateral or setoff to
calculate unsecured claim.
Total
claim, if
partially
secured
1Deduction
for value of
collateral
or setoff
[1]
Unsecured Claim
33
Jennmar Corporation
258 Kappa Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Name: Karl Anthony Calandra,
EVP
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Trade Debt $51,667
34
Holmes Limestone, Inc.
4255 State Route 39
Berlin, OH 44610
Name: Merle Mullet, President
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Royalties Unliquidated $50,000
35
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forestry
2045 Morse Rd., Building H
Columbus, OH 43229
Name: James Zehringer,
Director
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Royalties $50,000
36
Mineral Trucking, Inc.
6848 County Road 201
Millersburg, OH 44654
Name: Jeff Zimmerly, Owner
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $48,184
37
Komatsu Southwest
6101 Pan American W Freeway NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Name: Grant Adams, President
Phone: [phone] Trade Debt $46,126
38
Wirerope Works, Inc.
100 Maynard Street
Williamsport, PA 17701
Name: Mr. Virgil R. Probasco,
EVP
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Trade Debt $43,376
39
Mine Site Technologies USA Inc.
13301 West 43rd Drive Golden
Denver, CO 80403
Name: Lloyd Zenari, CEO
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $42,855
40
William Albert, Inc.
1300 Cassingham Hollow Drive
Coshocton, OH 43812
Name: William Albert, President
Phone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
m
Trade Debt $41,817
41
Clearfork Trucking
45640 Old Hopedale Rd
Cadiz, OH 43907
Name: Bradford Davis, Sr.,
President
Phone: [phone]
Trade Debt $41,329
42
J & L Professional Sales Inc.
260 Meteor Circle
Freedom, PA 15042
Name: Paul Wischmann,
Principal
Phone: [phone]
Trade Debt $38,809
43
Acme Soil Remediation, Inc.
108 N. Behrend Ave., Suite A
Farmington, NM 87401
Name: Theresa Simpson,
Principal
Phone: [phone]
Trade Debt $38,646
44
EKS&H LLP
1445 Market Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Name: Joe Adams, Lead
Partner
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $38,513
45
Halifax County Public Utilities
26 N King Street
Halifax, NC 27839
Name: Greg Griffin, Public
Utilities Director
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $38,073
46
Imaginit (Rand Worldwide)
11201 Dolfield Blvd., Suite 112
Owings Mills, MD 21117
Name: Larry Rychlak –
President And Chief Executive
Officer
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $37,645
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 13 of 24
Name of creditor and complete mailing
address, including zip code
Name, telephone number and
email address of creditor contact
Nature of
claim
(for example,
trade debts,
bank loans,
professional
services, and
government
contracts)
Indicate if
claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
or disputed
Amount of claim
If the claim is fully unsecured, fill in only
unsecured claim amount. If claim is partially
secured, fill in total claim amount and
deduction for value of collateral or setoff to
calculate unsecured claim.
Total
claim, if
partially
secured
1Deduction
for value of
collateral
or setoff
[1]
Unsecured Claim
47
Adobe Systems Inc.
345 Park Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110-2704
Name: Mark Garret
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Trade Debt $37,518
48
Michael Ramsey, Deceased, By and
Through His Personal Representative,
Donna Ramsey, on Behalf of the Estate
and Heirs of Michael Ramsey
c/o Edwards, Frickle, & Culver
1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
Billings, MT 59102
Name: A. Clifford Edwards
Phone: [phone]
Litigation
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
Undetermined
49
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
30 E. Broad Street, 25th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Name: Craig W. Butler, Director
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Litigation
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
Undetermined
50
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
1200 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Name: W. Thomas Reeder,
Director
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Pension
Liability Unliquidated Undetermined
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 14 of 24
WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY
OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE
October 9th, 2018
The undersigned, solely in his capacity as an officer of Westmoreland Coal Company, a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and not in his individual or any other capacity, and
without personal liability, hereby certifies in the name and on behalf of the Company that attached
hereto as Annex A is a true, correct and complete copy of the resolutions adopted by the board of
directors of the Company, authorizing the Company to file voluntary petitions for relief
commencing cases under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, sections 101, et seq.
[Signature Page Follows]
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 15 of 24
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 16 of 24

Annex A

Resolutions

[Attached]

Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 17 of 24
1
Omnibus Resolutions of the Boards of Directors, Boards of Managers,
Sole Managers, Members, Sole Member and Managers,
Shareholders, Limited Partners, and General Partners
Dated as of October 9th, 2018
A meeting of the members of the board of directors (the “Board”) of Westmoreland Coal
Company (the “Company”) was held on October 9th, 2018, via telephone conference, at
which the following resolutions were adopted pursuant to the bylaws (as amended or
amended and restated to date) of the Company and the laws of the state of Delaware:
Chapter 11 Filing
WHEREAS, the Board has considered presentations by the Company’s management and the
financial and legal advisors of the Company regarding the liabilities and liquidity situation of the
Company, the strategic alternatives available to it, and the effect of the foregoing on the
Company’s business; and
WHEREAS, the Board has had the opportunity to consult with the management and the financial
and legal advisors of the Company and fully consider each of the strategic alternatives available
to the Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT,
RESOLVED, that in the judgment of the Board, it is desirable and in the best interests of the
Company (including a consideration of its creditors and other parties in interest) that the
Company shall be, and hereby is, authorized to file, or cause to be filed, voluntary petitions for
relief (the “Chapter 11 Cases”) under the provisions of chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States
Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in a court of proper jurisdiction (the “Bankruptcy Court”) and
any other petition for relief or recognition or other order that may be desirable under applicable
law in the United States; and
RESOLVED, that the Chief Executive Officer, the President, the General Counsel, the Chief
Operating Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Restructuring Officer, any Senior Vice
President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, and any other duly appointed officer
of the Company (each, an “Authorized Signatory” and collectively, the “Authorized
Signatories”), acting alone or with one or more other Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby
are, authorized, empowered, and directed to execute and file on behalf of the Company all
petitions, schedules, lists and other motions, papers, or documents, and to take any and all action
that they deem necessary or proper to obtain such relief, including, without limitation, any action
necessary to maintain the ordinary course operation of the Company’s business.
Restructuring Support Agreement
WHEREAS, in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company has engaged in good-faith
negotiations with holders of (a) approximately 76.1% of the Term Loan (as defined herein),
“
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 18 of 24
Group”), regarding the terms of a comprehensive restructuring as set forth in that certain
Restructuring Support Agreement by and among the Company and the Ad Hoc Group, dated as
of October 9th, 2018 (as may be amended in accordance with its terms, the “Restructuring
Support Agreement”).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT,
RESOLVED, that the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized to take all
actions (including, without limitation, to negotiate and execute any agreements, documents, or
certificates) necessary to enter into the Restructuring Support Agreement and to consummate the
transactions contemplated thereby in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases and that the
Company’s performance of its obligations under the Restructuring Support Agreement hereby is,
in all respects, authorized and approved.
Retention of Professionals
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to employ the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
(together, “Kirkland”) as general bankruptcy counsel to represent and assist the Company in
carrying out its duties under the Bankruptcy Code, and to take any and all actions to advance the
Company’s rights and obligations, including filing any motions, objections, replies, applications,
or pleadings; and in connection therewith, each of the Authorized Signatories, with power of
delegation, is hereby authorized and directed to execute appropriate retention agreements, pay
appropriate retainers, and to cause to be filed an appropriate application for authority to retain the
services of Kirkland.
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to employ the firm Centerview Partners LLC (“Centerview”) as financial advisor to,
among other things, assist the Company in evaluating its business and prospects, developing a
long-term business plan, developing financial data for evaluation by the Board, creditors, or
other third parties, as requested by the Company, evaluating the Company’s capital structures,
responding to issues related to the Company’s financial liquidity, and in any sale, reorganization,
business combination, or similar disposition of the Company’s assets; and in connection
therewith, each of the Authorized Signatories, with power of delegation, is hereby authorized and
directed to execute appropriate retention agreements, pay appropriate retainers, and cause to be
filed an appropriate application for authority to retain the services of Centerview.
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to employ the firm Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC (“A&M”), as restructuring
advisor to the Company to represent and assist the Company in carrying out its duties under the
Bankruptcy Code, and to take any and all actions to advance the Company’s rights and
obligations; and in connection therewith, each of the Authorized Signatories, with power of
delegation, is hereby authorized and directed to execute appropriate retention agreements, pay
appropriate retainers, and cause to be filed an appropriate application for authority to employ or
retain the services of A&M.
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 19 of 24
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to employ the firm of Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc. (“DRC”), as notice and claims
agent to represent and assist the Company in carrying out its duties under the Bankruptcy Code,
and to take any and all actions to advance the Company’ rights and obligations; and in
connection therewith, each of the Authorized Signatories, with power of delegation, is hereby
authorized and directed to execute appropriate retention agreements, pay appropriate retainers,
and cause to be filed appropriate applications for authority to retain the services of DRC.
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized and
directed to employ any other professionals to assist the Company in carrying out its duties under
the Bankruptcy Code; and in connection therewith, each of the Authorized Signatories, with
power of delegation, is hereby authorized and directed to execute appropriate retention
agreements, pay appropriate retainers and fees, and cause to be filed an appropriate application
for authority to retain the services of any other professionals as necessary.
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, with power of
delegation, authorized, empowered and directed to execute and file all petitions, schedules,
motions, lists, applications, pleadings, and other papers and, in connection therewith, to employ
and retain all assistance by legal counsel, accountants, financial advisors, and other professionals
and to take and perform any and all further acts and deeds that each of the Authorized
Signatories deem necessary, proper, or desirable in connection with the Company’s Chapter 11
Cases, with a view to the successful prosecution of the cases.
Cash Collateral & Debtor-in-Possession Financing
WHEREAS, the Company will obtain benefits from the Company’s use of collateral, including
cash collateral, as that term is defined in section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Cash
Collateral”), which is security for certain prepetition secured creditors (collectively,
the “Secured Creditors”) party to:
(a) that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2014, as
amended, amended and restated, supplemented, or otherwise modified,
refinanced, or replaced from time to time, among the Company, as
borrower, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as the administrative
agent, the lenders from time to time party thereto, and the guarantor
parties thereto, as amended (the “Term Loan”);
(b) that certain indenture, dated as of December 16, 2014, as amended,
amended and restated, supplemented, or otherwise modified, refinanced,
or replaced from time to time, among the Company, as issuer, and U.S.
Bank National Association, as trustee and collateral agent, the lenders
from time to time party thereto, and the guarantor parties thereto
(the “Senior Secured Notes”); and
(c) that certain Fourth Amendment to the Credit Agreement dated as of
May 21, 2018, by and among the Company, certain lenders party thereto
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 20 of 24
and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB as administrative agent
(the “Bridge Loan”).
WHEREAS, reference is made to that certain Debtor-In-Possession Credit Agreement (together
with all exhibits, schedules, and annexes thereto, the “DIP Credit Agreement”) dated as of, or
about, the date hereof, by and among Westmoreland Coal Company and Westmoreland San Juan
Holdings, LLC, as the “Debtor Borrowers” and each a debtor and debtor in possession under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Prairie Mines & Royalty ULC, as the “Non-Debtor
Borrower” and, together with the Debtor Borrowers, the “Borrowers”, each of the Company
parties thereto (together with the Debtor Borrowers, the “Debtors”), Westmoreland Canadian
Investment, LP, and Westmoreland Canada Holdings, Inc., as guarantors, the lenders party
thereto from time to time (collectively, the “DIP Lenders”), and Wilmington Savings Fund
Society, FSB, as Administrative Agent (the “DIP Agent”);
WHEREAS, the Borrowers have requested that the DIP Lenders provide a senior secured
debtor-in-possession $110,000,000 term loan facility to the Debtors (the “DIP Facility”); and
WHEREAS, the obligation of the DIP Lenders to make the extensions of credit to the Borrowers
is subject to, among other things, the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower entering into the
DIP Credit Agreement and satisfying certain conditions in the DIP Credit Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower will obtain benefits from the DIP
Credit Agreement and it is advisable and in the best interest of the Company and the Non-Debtor
Borrower to enter into the DIP Credit Agreement and each other DIP Loan Document
(as defined in the DIP Credit Agreement) and to perform its obligations thereunder, including
granting security interests in all or substantially all of its assets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the form, terms, and provisions of the DIP
Credit Agreement, and the transactions contemplated by the DIP Credit Agreement (including,
without limitation, the borrowings thereunder), the transactions contemplated therein, and the
guaranties, liabilities, obligations, security interests granted, and notes issued, if any, in
connection therewith, be and hereby are authorized, adopted, and approved; and
RESOLVED, that the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower will obtain benefits from the DIP
Credit Agreement and it is advisable and in the best interest of the Company and the Non-Debtor
Borrower to enter into the DIP Credit Agreement and each other DIP Loan Document and to
perform its obligations thereunder, including granting security interests in all or substantially all
of its assets; and
RESOLVED, that the Company’s and the Non-Debtor Borrower’s execution and delivery of, and
its performance of its obligations (including guarantees) in connection with the DIP Credit
Agreement, are hereby, in all respects, authorized and approved; and further resolved, that each
of the Authorized Signatories, acting alone or with one or more Authorized Signatories, is hereby
authorized, empowered, and directed to negotiate the terms of and to execute, deliver, and
perform under the DIP Credit Agreement and any and all other documents, certificates,
instruments, agreements, intercreditor agreements, any amendment, or any other modification
required to consummate the transactions contemplated by the DIP Credit Agreement in the name
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 21 of 24
and on behalf of the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower, in the form approved, with such
changes therein and modifications and amendments thereto as any of the Authorized Signatories
may in his or her sole discretion approve, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by his
or her execution thereof. Such execution by any of the Authorized Signatories is hereby
authorized to be by facsimile, engraved or printed as deemed necessary and preferable; and
RESOLVED, that the each of the Authorized Signatories, acting alone or with one or more
Authorized Signatories, be, and hereby are, authorized, empowered, and directed in the name of,
and on behalf of, the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower to seek authorization to enter into
the DIP Credit Agreement and to seek approval of the use of cash collateral pursuant to a
postpetition financing order in interim and final form, and any Authorized Signatory be, and
hereby is, authorized, empowered, and directed to negotiate, execute, and deliver any and all
agreements, instruments, or documents, by or on behalf of the Company and the Non-Debtor
Borrower, necessary to implement the postpetition financing, including providing for adequate
protection to the Secured Creditors in accordance with section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, as
well as any additional or further agreements for entry into the DIP Credit Agreement and the use
of cash collateral in connection with the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases, which agreements may
require the Company to grant adequate protection and liens to the Company’s Secured Creditors
and each other agreement, instrument, or document to be executed and delivered in connection
therewith, by or on behalf of the Company pursuant thereto or in connection therewith, all with
such changes therein and additions thereto as any Authorized Signatory approves, such approval
to be conclusively evidenced by the taking of such action or by the execution and delivery
thereof.
RESOLVED, that (i) the form, terms, and provisions of the DIP Credit Agreement and all other
DIP Loan Documents to which the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower is a party,
(ii) the grant of security interests in, pledges of, and liens on all or substantially all of the assets
now or hereafter owned by the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower as collateral (including
pledges of equity and personal property as collateral) under the DIP Loan Documents,
(iii) the guaranty of obligations by the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower under the DIP
Loan Documents, from which the Company and the Non-Debtor Borrower will derive value, be
and hereby are, authorized, adopted, and approved, and (iv) any Authorized Signatory or other
officer of the Company is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed, in the name of and on
behalf of the Company, to take such actions and negotiate or cause to be prepared and negotiated
and to execute, deliver, perform, and cause the performance of, each of the transactions
contemplated by the DIP Credit Agreement, substantially in the form provided to the Board, the
DIP Loan Documents and such other agreements, certificates, instruments, receipts, petitions,
motions, or other papers or documents to which the Company is or will be a party or any order
entered into in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases (collectively with the DIP Credit
Agreement, the “Financing Documents”), incur and pay or cause to be paid all related fees and
expenses, with such changes, additions, and modifications thereto as an Authorized Signatory
executing the same shall approve;
RESOLVED, that the Company, as debtor and debtor-in-possession under the Bankruptcy Code
be, and hereby is, authorized, empowered, and directed to incur any and all obligations and to
undertake any and all related transactions on substantially the same terms as contemplated under
the Financing Documents (collectively, the “Financing Transactions”), including granting liens
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 22 of 24
on its assets to secure such obligations and the refinancing of the obligations outstanding
pursuant to the Bridge Loan; and
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized,
empowered, and directed in the name of, and on behalf of, the Company, as debtor and debtor in
possession, to take such actions as in its discretion is determined to be necessary, desirable, or
appropriate to execute, deliver, and file: (i) the Financing Documents and such agreements,
certificates, instruments, guaranties, notices, and any and all other documents, including, without
limitation, any amendments, supplements, modifications, renewals, replacements, consolidations,
substitutions, and extensions of any Financing Documents, necessary, desirable, or appropriate to
facilitate the Financing Transactions; (ii) all petitions, schedules, lists, and other motions, papers,
or documents, which shall in its sole judgment be necessary, proper, or advisable, which
determination shall be conclusively evidenced by his/her or their execution thereof; (iii) such
other instruments, certificates, notices, assignments, and documents as may be reasonably
requested by the DIP Agent and other parties in interest; and (iv) such forms of deposit account
control agreements, officer’s certificates, and compliance certificates as may be required by the
Financing Documents; and
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized,
empowered, and directed in the name of, and on behalf of, the Company to file or to authorize
the DIP Agent to file any Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) financing statements, any other
equivalent filings, any intellectual property or real estate filings and recordings, and any
necessary assignments for security or other documents in the name of the Company that the DIP
Agent deems necessary or convenient to perfect any lien or security interest granted under the
Financing Documents, including any such UCC financing statement containing a generic
description of collateral, such as “all assets,” “all property now or hereafter acquired,” and other
similar descriptions of like import, and to execute and deliver, and to record or authorize the
recording of, such mortgages and deeds of trust in respect of real property of the Company and
such other filings in respect of intellectual and other property of the Company, in each case as
the DIP Agent may reasonably request to perfect the security interests of the DIP Agent under
the Financing Documents; and
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and they hereby are, authorized,
empowered, and directed in the name of, and on behalf of, the Company to take all such further
actions, including, without limitation, to pay or approve the payment of all fees and expenses
payable in connection with the Financing Transactions and all fees and expenses incurred by or
on behalf of the Company in connection with the foregoing resolutions, in accordance with the
terms of the Financing Documents, which shall in their reasonable business judgment be
necessary, proper, or advisable to perform the Company’s obligations under or in connection
with the Financing Documents or any of the Financing Transactions and to fully carry out the
intent of the foregoing resolutions; and
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories be, and hereby is, authorized, empowered,
and directed in the name of, and on behalf of, the Company, to execute and deliver any
amendments, supplements, modifications, renewals, replacements, consolidations, substitutions,
and extensions of the postpetition financing or any of the Financing Documents or to do such
other things which shall in their sole judgment be necessary, desirable, proper, or advisable to
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 23 of 24
give effect to the foregoing resolutions, which determination shall be conclusively evidenced by
his/her or their execution thereof.
General
RESOLVED, that in addition to the specific authorizations heretofore conferred upon the
Authorized Signatories, each of the Authorized Signatories (and their designees and delegates)
be, and they hereby are, authorized and empowered, in the name of and on behalf of the
Company, to take or cause to be taken any and all such other and further action, and to execute,
acknowledge, deliver, and file any and all such agreements, certificates, instruments, and other
documents and to pay all expenses, including but not limited to filing fees, in each case as in
such director’s judgment, shall be necessary, advisable or desirable in order to fully carry out the
intent and accomplish the purposes of the resolutions adopted herein.
RESOLVED, that the Board has received sufficient notice of the actions and transactions relating
to the matters contemplated by the foregoing resolutions, as may be required by the
organizational documents of the Company, or hereby waive any right to have received such
notice.
RESOLVED, that all acts, actions, and transactions relating to the matters contemplated by the
foregoing resolutions done in the name of and on behalf of the Company, which acts would have
been approved by the foregoing resolutions except that such acts were taken before the adoption
of these resolutions, are hereby, in all respects, approved and ratified as the true acts and deeds of
the Company with the same force and effect as if each such act, transaction, agreement, or
certificate has been specifically authorized in advance by resolution of the Board.
RESOLVED, that each of the Authorized Signatories (and their designees and delegates) be, and
hereby is, authorized and empowered to take all actions or to not take any action in the name of
the Company with respect to the transactions contemplated by these resolutions hereunder, as
such Authorized Signatory shall deem necessary or desirable in such Authorized Signatory’s
reasonable business judgment to effectuate the purposes of the transactions contemplated herein.
* * * * *
Case 18-35672 Document 1 Filed in TXSB on 10/09/18 Page 24 of 24

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
)
In re: ) Chapter 11 ) WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, et al.,1 ) Case No. 18-35672 (DRJ) )
Debtors. ) (Jointly Administered)
) )
NOTICE OF (I) ENTRY OF ORDER
CONFIRMING THE AMENDED JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY AND CERTAIN OF ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES AND (II) OCCURRENCE OF THE PLAN EFFECTIVE DATE
TO ALL CREDITORS, INTEREST HOLDERS, AND OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 2, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”), entered an order [Docket No. 1561]
(the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Westmoreland Coal
Company and Certain of Its Debtor Affiliates (with all supplements and exhibits thereto, the “Plan”), which was attached to the Confirmation Order as Exhibit A.2
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Plan Effective Date occurred on March 15, 2019.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Article V.B of the Plan, any Proof of Claim with respect to Claims arising from the rejection of WLB Debtors’ Executory Contracts or Unexpired Leases, if any, must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court and served on the Plan Administrator, no later than thirty (30) days after the effective date of the rejection of such Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease; provided that the WMLP Debtors shall not be required
to file any such Proofs of Claim relating to the rejection of Executory Contracts or Unexpired Leases. Any Holders of Claims arising from the rejection of an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease for which Proofs of Claim were required to be but were not timely Filed

1 Due to the large number of debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a
complete list of the debtors and the last four digits of their tax identification, registration, or like numbers is not provided herein. A complete list of such information may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’ claims and
noticing agent in these chapter 11 cases at www.donlinrecano.com/westmoreland. Westmoreland Coal Company’s service address for the purposes of these chapter 11 cases is 9540 South Maroon Circle, Suite 300,
Englewood, Colorado 80112.
2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan and the Confirmation Order, as applicable.
Case 18-35672 Document 1608 Filed in TXSB on 03/15/19 Page 1 of 5

2

shall not (1) be treated as a creditor with respect to such Claim, (2) be permitted to vote to accept or reject the Plan on account of any Claim arising from such rejection, or
(3) participate in any distribution in the Chapter 11 Cases on account of such Claim. Claims arising from the rejection of an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease not Filed with the Bankruptcy Court within such time will be automatically disallowed, forever barred from assertion, and shall not be enforceable against the WLB Debtors, the WLB Debtors’ Estates, or the property for any of the foregoing without the need for any objection by the WLB
Debtors or further notice to, or action, order, or approval of the Bankruptcy Court or any other Entity, and any Claim arising out of the rejection of the Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease shall be deemed fully compromised, settled, and released, notwithstanding anything in the Schedules or a Proof of Claim to the contrary. In addition, any objection to
the rejection of an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease must be Filed with the Bankruptcy
Court and served and actually received no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the WLB Debtors’ proposed rejection of such Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease by the Bankruptcy Court and the the following parties (the “Notice Parties”): (a) counsel for the WLB Debtors, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois 60654, Attn.: Gregory F.
Pesce and Timothy R. Bow; (b) counsel to the ad hoc group of lenders under the WLB Debtors’
prepetition term loan due 2020 and the WLB Debtors’ 8.75% senior secured notes due 2022, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, Attn.: Thomas Moers Mayer and Stephen D. Zide; (c) counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019,
Attn: Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., Todd M. Goren, Esq., and Jennifer L. Marines, Esq.; and
(d) Office of the United States Trustee for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk Street, Suite 3516, Houston, Texas 77002, Attn.: Stephen Statham.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, except with respect to Administrative Claims that are Professional Fee Claims or DIP Facility Claims, and except as otherwise provided
in Article II.A of the Plan, requests for payment of an Allowed Administrative Claim that arises
after January 4, 2019, other than requests for payment of Administrative Claims arising in the ordinary course of business, must be Filed with the Bankruptcy Court and served on the WLB Debtors by the date that is thirty (30) days after the Plan Effective Date (the “Supplemental Administrative Claims Bar Date”).3 For the avoidance of doubt, solely to the extent Cure Costs
are not paid on the Plan Effective Date, the counterparty to such Executory Contract and Unexpired
Lease must file its Administrative Claim on or prior to the Supplemental Administrative Claims Bar Date, and such Administrative Claim shall be asserted only with respect to and in the amount of such unpaid Cure Costs. HOLDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO, BUT DO NOT, FILE AND SERVE A REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE
CLAIMS BAR DATE SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED, ESTOPPED, AND ENJOINED FROM ASSERTING SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS AGAINST THE WLB DEBTORS, THEIR ESTATES, THE PURCHASER, OR THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR,

3 Except with respect to Administrative Claims that are Professional Fee Claims or DIP Facility Claims, and except as otherwise provided in Article II.A of the Plan, the deadline for all requests for payment of Administrative Claims that arose on or prior to January 4, 2019, other than requests for payment of Administrative Claims arising in the ordinary course of business, was January 25, 2019.
Case 18-35672 Document 1608 Filed in TXSB on 03/15/19 Page 2 of 5

3

AND SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS SHALL BE DEEMED COMPROMISED, SETTLED, AND RELEASED AS OF THE PLAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, unless otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court, all final requests for payment of Professional Fee Claims must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court no later than thirty (30) days after the Plan Effective Date.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the terms of the Plan, the Plan Supplement,
and the Confirmation Order are immediately effective and enforceable and deemed binding upon
the WLB Debtors, and any and all Holders of Claims or Interests (regardless of whether such Claims or Interests are deemed to have accepted or rejected the Plan), all Entities that are parties to or are subject to the settlements, compromises, releases, and injunctions described in the Plan, each Entity acquiring property under the Plan, the Confirmation Order and any and all non-WLB
Debtor parties to Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases with the WLB Debtors.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Plan, the Plan Supplement, the Confirmation Order, and copies of all documents filed in these chapter 11 cases are available free of charge by visiting www.donlinrecano.com/westmoreland or by calling the Debtors’ restructuring hotline at [phone]. You may also obtain copies of any pleadings filed in these
chapter 11 cases for a fee via PACER at: http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Case 18-35672 Document 1608 Filed in TXSB on 03/15/19 Page 3 of 5

Houston, Texas
s Matthew D. Cavenaugh
JACKSON WALKER LLP
pro hac vice
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS INTERNATIONAL LLP

Conflicts Counsel to the WLB Debtors and Local
Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in
Possession
-and-

pro hac vice
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS INTERNATIONAL LLP

-and-
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS INTERNATIONAL LLP

Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, PLEASE CONTACT DONLIN, RECANO & COMPANY, INC. BY CALLING [phone].

Case 18-35672 Document 1608 Filed in TXSB on 03/15/19 Page 4 of 5

5

Certificate of Service
I certify that on March 15, 2019, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served
by the Electronic Case Filing System for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
s Matthew D. Cavenaugh

Case 18-35672 Document 1608 Filed in TXSB on 03/15/19 Page 5 of 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

1
Debtors.

Chapter 11
Case No. 18-35672 (DRJ)
Jointly Administered
OBJECTION BY PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, PACIFICORP, AND AVISTA CORPORATION TO JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY AND CERTAIN OF ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES
Puget Sound Energy, Inc., a Washington corporation (“PSE”), Portland General
Electric Company, an Oregon corporation (“PGE”), PacifiCorp, an Oregon corporation
(“PacifiCorp”), and Avista Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Avista”) (collectively, the
“Northwest Colstrip Owners,” or “Public Utilities”) object to confirmation of the Joint Chapter
11 Plan of Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of its Debtor Affiliates (“Plan”) [Docket
No. 788, Exhibit A]. As set forth in greater detail herein, the Public Utilities submit that the Plan
fails to satisfy section 1129(a)(1) of title 11 of the United States Code (“Bankruptcy Code”)
because the Plan grants the WLB Debtors2 and the stalking horse bidder (“Purchaser”) the post-
confirmation right to delay final decision on which contracts shall be assumed and assigned to
the Purchaser and which contracts the WLB Debtors will reject, notwithstanding the fact that
section 365(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code limits the time period within which the WLB Debtors
1 Due to the large number of debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been requested, a
complete list of the debtors and the last four digits of their tax identification, registration, or like numbers is not provided herein. A complete list of such information may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’ proposed claims and noticing agent in these chapter 11 cases at www.donlinrecano.com/westmoreland. Westmoreland Coal Company’s service address for the purposes of these chapter 11 cases is 9540 South Maroon Circle, Suite 300, Englewood, Colorado 80112.
2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this paragraph shall have the meaning ascribed to them below or in the
WLB Debtors’ Plan.
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 1 of 13
-2-
may make their decision to assume or reject an executory contract to a date prior to confirmation.
The Plan also fails to satisfy section 1129(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code because it was not
proposed in good faith. Indicia of lack of good faith include: (i) depriving the Public Utilities of
sufficient notice of the WLB Debtors’ final decision to assume or reject the Coal Supply
Agreement insofar as (a) the WLB Debtors filed a notice on January 19, 2019 in which they
disclosed their decision (subject to further revision) to reject the Coal Supply Agreement
notwithstanding explicit statements in the Plan that all coal supply contracts relating to “Core
Assets” would be assumed, and (b) the Plan authorizes the WLB Debtors and the Purchaser to
move contracts from assignment to rejection schedules within days of the sale closing after the
Plan has already been confirmed; (ii) failing to disclose the identity of the Purchaser and the
Purchaser’s connections with the lending group; and (iii) failing to articulate any valid business
justification for rejecting a profitable contract.
BACKGROUND
1. Westmoreland Coal Company (“WCC”) and certain of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries (collectively with WCC, the “Debtors”), including Western Energy Company
(“WECO”), filed voluntary petitions for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief on October 9, 2018 and
have continued to operate their businesses and affairs as debtors and debtors in possession.
2. On December 14, 2018, WCC and certain of the Debtors including WECO
(“WLB Debtors”) filed the Notice of Filing of Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Westmoreland Coal
Company and Certain of its Debtor Affiliates, and attached thereto as Exhibit A the Plan (the
“Plan”). Dkt. No. 788. The hearing on confirmation of the Plan is scheduled for February 13,
2019 (“Confirmation Hearing Date”).
A. The Coal Supply Agreement Between the Co-Owners and WECO Is a Critical Contract to the Ongoing Operations of the Rosebud Mine
3. Collectively, the Public Utilities hold a 70% ownership interest in two coal-fired
steam-electric generating plants near Colstrip, Montana commonly referred to as Unit 3 and Unit
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 2 of 13
-3-
4 (the “Colstrip Plants”). The remaining 30% ownership interest is held by North Western
Corporation (“North Western”) and Talen Montana, LLC (“Talen,” and together with the Public
Utilities and North Western, the “Co-Owners”).
4. The Co-Owners source all of their supply of coal for the Colstrip Plants from
WECO, which owns the Rosebud mine (“Rosebud Mine”), pursuant to the Amended and
Restated Coal Supply Agreement (“ARCSA”) and Amendment No. 2 to the Coal Transportation
Agreement (“CTA”). The Co-Owners and WECO are collectively referred to herein as the
“Parties.” But for the ARCSA, the Parties would have no need for the CTA. The ARCSA
contained provisions to resolve and release all claims for final reclamation costs associated with
the Rosebud Mine. Together, the ARCSA and CTA, along with any amendments thereto and
stipulations and settlements relating thereto are referred to herein as the “Coal Supply
Agreement.”3
5. The history of the Parties’ commercial relationship extends over 38 years, back to
when the Co-Owners and their predecessors constructed the Colstrip Plants, and importantly,
continued into the Debtors’ post-petition period. Throughout this history, the Co-Owners (and
their predecessors) have been WECO’s only significant customer, a fact that remains true today.
But for the Co-Owners’ purchase of coal from WECO, the Rosebud Mine would have no buyer
for most of its coal reserves. Likewise, if the Co-Owners shut down the Colstrip Plants, the
Rosebud Mine, which is located in a remote area of Montana without adequate railroad coal
loading and offloading facilities, would have a very difficult task of selling coal at competitive
prices to new customers. In this way, WECO is a captive seller. Moreover, the Co-Owners
currently have a permit that prevents them from burning coal from a mine other than the
Rosebud Mine at the Colstrip Plant.4 Therefore, even if the Co-Owners could buy coal from
3 Due to confidentiality concerns, the ARCSA and CTA are being filed under seal contemporaneously with this
objection. 4 The permit is found at http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Air/AirQuality/Documents/ARMpermits/OP0513-14.pdf

Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 3 of 13
-4-
another source, they could not process it at the Colstrip Plants under their current permit.
6. As of the time of this filing, there is approximately 11 months remaining on the
Coal Supply Agreement. In an effort to extend the Coal Supply Contract into 2020 and beyond,
the Co-Owners have been engaged in ongoing negotiations with WECO to extend its term or
otherwise enter into a new coal supply agreement with WECO’s successor. The Parties’ failure
to reach agreement on terms to extend the Coal Supply Agreement, as of the date of this filing,
does not otherwise affect the validity and enforceability of the Coal Supply Agreement. Nor
does it affect the Coal Supply Agreement’s profitability to WECO and its estate, which is
ensured by the Coal Supply Agreement’s existing “cost-plus” pricing structure. Id.
B. The WLB Debtors’ Plan Seeks Authorization for WECO to Delay Final Decision on Rejection or Assumption and Assignment of the Coal Supply Agreement to the Purchaser Until After Confirmation
7. From early on in the case, the Rosebud Mine was identified by the WLB Debtors
as one of the “Core Assets.” See Dkt. No. 54 (Declaration of Jeffrey S. Stein, Ex. A); Dkt. No.
208 (Bidding Procedures Motion). Likewise, the Public Utilities expressed concern over their
ability to generate electricity from the Colstrip Plants if the Rosebud Mine shut down, informing
the Court that “contingency planning needs to begin immediately, or otherwise NWCO [Public
Utilities] could be faced with insufficient runway to respond to a material breach by WECO.”
Limited Objections by Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Portland General Electric Company,
PacifiCorp, and Avista Corporation to Certain “First Day” Motions, Dkt. 255, ¶ 7.
8. Not only does the WLB Debtors’ Plan identify the Rosebud Mine as one of the
“Core Assets,” but the Plan also provides that the WLB Debtors will assume and assign all coal
supply agreements to the Stalking Horse Bidder or Successful Bidder. Thus, the Public Utilities
had every good-faith reason to believe that the WLB Debtors would assume and assign the Coal
Supply Agreement to the Purchaser so as to ensure that the Parties, and ultimately the Purchaser,
had sufficient runway to negotiate a new supply contract effective as of January 1, 2020.

Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 4 of 13
-5-
9. Meanwhile, the Public Utilities have continued to perform under the Coal Supply
Agreement, including engaging in good faith negotiations with WECO over the terms of a new
coal supply agreement for 2020 and beyond, even though the Public Utilities realize that WECO
will likely not be the owner of, nor will be operating, the Rosebud Mine by 2020.
10. These negotiations for a new agreement or extension of the Coal Supply
Agreement continued until the Public Utilities learned—merely a week ago—that WECO had
made a decision—albeit with a caveat that is not countenanced by the Bankruptcy Code—to
reject the Coal Supply Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the ongoing negotiations have
absolutely nothing to do with the Coal Supply Agreement, but rather involve negotiating an
extension or new agreement after the existing Coal Supply Agreement expires at the end of 2019.
See Dkt. Nos. 1102 (Plan Supplement), 1104 (Notice Regarding Executory Contracts and
Unexpired Leases To Be Rejected Pursuant to the Plan (“Rejection Notice”)).
11. The Rejection Notice provides in part that:
• all Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases that are not being assumed in connection with the Sale Transaction are automatically rejected as of the Plan Effective Date;
• the WLB Debtors’ decision to assume or reject Executory Contracts is subject to
revision;
• the WLB Debtors are proposing to reject Executory Contracts that are not listed on the Assigned Contracts Schedule, which was attached to and filed with the Rejection Notice as Exhibit A;
• if the Successful Bidder identifies executory contracts that it decides to assume in
connection with the Sale Transaction, the WLB Debtors may supplement the Assumed Contracts and Leases List at any time before the closing of the Sale; and
• the WLB Debtors reserve the right to reject executory contracts up until the Plan Effective Date.
12. Pursuant to the Rejection Notice, the WLB Debtors have provided the Co-Owners
with notice that they have decided to reject the Coal Supply Agreement. However, their decision
to reject is materially caveated in that it remains subject to revision, as the WLB Debtors are
seeking this Court’s approval of the Plan that allows them to add and remove contracts prior to
and up until the sale closing and Plan Effective Date.
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 5 of 13
-6-
13. On January 21, 2019, the WLB Debtors filed a Notice of Cancellation of Auction
and Designation of Successful Bidder, which identified the Stalking Horse Bidder as the
Purchaser. Dkt. No. 1112. However, nowhere in the public record have the WLB Debtors
disclosed the identity of the Purchaser, nor disclosed which lenders among the lending group
have participated in the Purchaser’s “credit bid.”
14. In fact, under the Plan and Sale Transaction Documents, the Purchaser has the
right to add and remove prepetition executory agreements between counterparties and the WLB
Debtors up until the closing of the sale transaction. The Coal Supply Agreement between the
Parties is not listed on the Rejection Notice as one of the contracts that will be assumed and
assigned to the Purchaser, and thus it will be automatically rejected as of the Plan Effective Date,
unless the WLB Debtors decide to assume the contract during the post-confirmation, pre-Plan
Effective Date period.
OBJECTION
I. The Plan Does Not Comply with Section 1129(a)(1)
15. Section 365(d)(2) entitles a debtor to reject or assume an executory contract prior
to confirmation of a plan. This entitlement is not unfettered. It is limited by two considerations.
First, the decision on assumption and rejection must be made prior to confirmation so that
creditors understand how their prepetition contractual rights with the debtor will be affected by
the Plan. See Fla. Dep’t of Rev. v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33, 46 (2008) (“[T]he
decision whether to reject a contract or lease must be made before confirmation.” (second
emphasis added)); In re Tex. Health Enters. Inc., 72 F. App’x 122, 128 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Further,
an executory contract must be assumed prior to confirmation of the debtor’s plan of
reorganization.” (citing 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(2)).5 Second, the debtor’s decision is subject to the
5 While bankruptcy courts have confirmed plans that permit post-confirmation assumption or rejection, generally speaking either: (i) the plans in those cases did not drawn an objection on this issue (see, e.g., In re Sherwin Alumina Co., No. 16-20012 (DRJ), Dkt. No. 1178 (Debtors’ Modified Joint Chapter 11 Plan) at Art. V.A, Dkt No. 1181 (Debtors’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Confirmation) at ¶ 94, and Dkt. No. 1194 (Order Confirming Plan) (Bankr. S.D. Texas 2017)), or (ii) the cases were decided prior to Piccadilly (e.g., In re Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 327 B.R. 26, 33-35 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2005) (allowing for post-confirmation rejection of an assumed contract if
terms could not be reached); In re Gunter Hotel Assocs., 96 B.R. 696, 700-01 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1988) (allowing a
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 6 of 13
-7-
review of the Bankruptcy Court in the event objections are raised to the debtor’s decision.
16. Moreover, section 1123(b)(2), which authorizes a debtor to address executory
contract treatment in the plan itself, is subject to section 365, and thus must be interpreted in
concert with the requirements of section 365(d)(2). 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(2). Read together,
sections 365(d)(2) and 1123(b)(2) require a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to assume or reject
an executory contract before or at the time of the confirmation of a plan. In other words, this
Court has no authority to confirm a chapter 11 plan that does not, fully and finally, resolve the
debtor’s treatment of executory contracts at the time of the confirmation hearing.6 In re
O’Connor, 258 F.3d 392, 400 (5th Cir. 2001) (“In a Chapter 11 case, the trustee may assume or
reject an executory contract at any time before plan-confirmation, 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(2), or,
subject to § 365, the plan may provide for the assumption or rejection of any executory contract
not previously rejected. 11 U.S.C. § 1123(b)(2). The requisite bankruptcy court approval for
assumption or rejection must appear either in an order or as part of the plan-confirmation. 11
U.S.C. § 365(a).”).7 The WLB Debtors’ Plan fails to comply with sections 365 and 1123 of the

licensing agreement to be rejected after confirmation)). In one case that was decided only months after Piccadilly, the court failed to consider Piccadilly’s interpretation of section 365(d)(2). DJS Props., L.P. v. Simplot, 397 B.R. 493, 499-501 (D. Idaho 2008) (allowing a partnership agreement to be assumed or rejected after confirmation). To the extent there are chapter 11 cases in which Bankruptcy Courts have confirmed plans over creditors’ objections to
authorizing the debtor to reject or assume post-confirmation, the Public Utilities respectfully submit that those cases should not have been confirmed because they do not comply with section 1129(a)(1).
6 Requiring debtors to assume or reject at or prior to confirmation is consistent with the U.S. Senate’s stated goals upon enactment of section 365 in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. See S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 59 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5845 (“Subsection (d) places time limits on assumption and rejection. In a
liquidation case, the trustee must assume within 60 days (or within an additional 60 days, if the court, for cause, extends the time). If not assumed, the contract or lease is deemed rejected. In a rehabilitation case, the time limit is
not fixed in the bill. However, if the other party to the contract or lease requests the court to fix a time, the court may specify a time within which the trustee must act. This provision will prevent parties in contractual or lease
relationships with the debtor from being left in doubt concerning their status vis-a-vis the estate.” (emphasis added)). 7 Nor should this Court entertain any argument by the WLB Debtors that their Plan complies with section 365(d)(2)
because it requests that this Court establish the Plan’s Effective Date or the closing of the sale transaction as the outside date for the WLB Debtors to render a determination on assumption or rejection of certain executory contracts. Such an expansive reading of this Court’s power ignores the phrase “before the confirmation of a plan.” Interpreting section 365(d)(2) to authorize the Court to establish a period of time for rejection or assumption that includes the post-confirmation period effectively rewrites the Bankruptcy Code section to read as follows: “the trustee may assume or reject an executory contract at any time but the court, on the request of any party to such
contract or lease, may order the trustee to determine without a specified period of time whether to assume or reject
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 7 of 13
-8-
Bankruptcy Code because it authorizes post-confirmation rejection, assumption, or assumption
and assignment of executory contracts, notwithstanding the Public Utilities’ objection.
II. The Plan Does Not Comply with Section 1129(a)(3) Because It Has Not Been Proposed in Good Faith
A. The Plan Imposes Significant Risks and Costs on Counterparties to Executory
Contracts with No Notice and No Meaningful Remedy
17. The WLB Debtors’ Plan, filed on December 14, 2018, expressly provided that
coal supply contracts relating to mines included in the Core Assets purchased by the Purchaser
are automatically “deemed assumed and assigned to the Purchaser on the Plan Effective Date.”
Plan, Art. V.A. Yet, merely one week before the deadline to object to confirmation, and in the
middle of protracted negotiations with WECO over an extension of the Coal Supply Agreement,8
the WLB Debtors filed the Rejection Notice, which disclosed WECO’s decision to reject the
Coal Supply Agreement, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that the Rosebud Mine sells all or
substantially all of its coal to the Co-Owners under a “cost-plus” contract. This is the opposite of
good faith. For this reason alone, the Plan cannot be confirmed.
18. Moreover, the Public Utilities constructed the Colstrip Plants approximately 38
years ago for the very purpose of buying coal from the Rosebud Mine. It is undisputed that the
Co-Owners’ ability to run the Colstrip Plants depends upon a steady supply of coal from the
Rosebud Mine. Likewise it is undisputed that the Co-Owners have been the WLB Debtors’ only
significant customer for its coal over the past 38 years. Accordingly, the WLB Debtors’
insistence that they can, with no notice, move the Coal Supply Agreement from one schedule to
another after confirmation, and in doing so, cut off a critical supply of coal to the Co-Owners is
an unreasonable position that should not be sanctioned. In addition, providing a contract

. . . .” This is not what section 365(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code says, and therefore this cannot be what it means. 8 The substance of the commercial negotiations is confidential. As a result, the Public Utilities are unable to provide the Court at this time with details of the negotiations that they believe would further bolster the facts and arguments set forth herein. The Public Utilities are willing to waive the confidentiality requirement for the limited purpose of the WLB Debtors and the Public Utilities providing the Court, under seal, with information about the commercial negotiations for purposes of determining the merits of the relief the WLB Debtors are seeking and considering the Public Utilities’ objections. The Public Utilities believe that the consent of the WLB Debtors and the other Co-
Owners are needed for such waiver.
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 8 of 13
-9-
counterparty who learns that the WLB Debtors have decided, after the Plan has already been
confirmed, to reject its contract with the right to object to the decision is hardly a meaningful
remedy to the injustice levied on the contract counterparty, especially if the sale closes and the
Plan goes effective during that 14-day window.
19. Furthermore, the WLB Debtors’ Plan seeks nunc pro tunc relief for post-
confirmation decisions to reject or assume executory contracts. The Plan provides:
Each pre- or post-Confirmation rejection, assumption, or assumption and
assignment of an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease pursuant to Article V of the Plan will be legal, valid and binding upon the applicable WLB Debtor and all other parties to such Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease, as applicable, all to the same extent as if such rejection, assumption, or assumption and assignment
had been effectuated pursuant to an appropriate order of the Court entered
before the Confirmation Date under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.”
Plan, Art. X.I(1)(i) (emphasis added). That the WLB Debtors are proposing no notice to critical
counterparties like the Co-Owners of their decisions to move contracts from a rejection to an
assumption schedule or vice versa, and yet want their decisions to be retroactive so as to comply
with the plain letter of the Bankruptcy Code further evidences the absence of good faith.
B. WECO’s Decision to Reject the Coal Supply Agreement Should Be Reviewed
Under a Heightened Standard
20. Without the Coal Supply Agreement, the Public Utilities will not be able to
operate the Colstrip Plants, which generate power that each of the Public Utilities then uses to
provide electricity to their respective customers in Oregon and Washington. Because the WLB
Debtors’ rejection of this contract will affect the Public Utilities, each of which is governed by
the Oregon or Washington Public Utility Commission, this Court should hold the WLB Debtors’
decision to a heightened standard, and not to the business judgment test. Mirant Corp. v.
Potomac Elec. Power Co. (In re Mirant Corp.), 378 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2004).
21. In Mirant, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals established a more stringent
standard for the rejection of an executory contract involving the wholesale purchase of
electricity, holding that the Bankruptcy Court must consider a higher standard than business
judgment before authorizing the rejection of an electricity purchase contract, reasoning that “use
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 9 of 13
-10-
of the business judgment standard would be inappropriate in this case because it would not
account for the public interest inherent in the transmission and sale of electricity.” Id. at 525.
22. In its instructions upon remand, the Fifth Circuit described the higher “public
interest” standard under which a court “would authorize rejection of an executory power contract
only if the debtor can show that it ‘burdens the estate, [ ] that, after careful scrutiny, the equities
balance in favor of rejecting’ that power contract, and that rejection of the contract would further
the Chapter 11 goal of permitting the successful rehabilitation of debtors.” Mirant, 378 F.3d at
525 (brackets in original) (quoting NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 526-27 (1984)).
“[C]ourts should carefully scrutinize the impact of rejection upon the public interest and should,
inter alia, ensure that rejection does not cause any disruption in the supply of electricity to
other public utilities or to consumers.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Bildisco, 465 U.S. at 527).
Because the WLB Debtors’ decision to reject the Coal Supply Agreement has a direct impact on
the Public Utilities, which are responsible for providing electricity to customers in Oregon and
Washington, the public interest standard should be applied to attempts by the WLB Debtors to
reject it.
C. Even Under the Business Judgment Test, Rejection Should Be Denied
23. The Public Utilities submit that the WLB Debtors cannot establish (1) that there
has been a good business reason for the “bait and switch” deployed on the Co-Owners of the
Colstrip Plants merely weeks before the Confirmation Hearing Date by deciding to reject the
Coal Supply Agreement and disclosing that it would be assumed and assigned to the Purchaser,
and (2) how the rejection damage claims that the Co-Owners ultimately file in this case may
dilute the recoveries anticipated by the unsecured creditors. For these reasons, the WLB
Debtors’ decision does not pass the business judgment test.
24. In this case, a decision to reject the Coal Supply Agreement is not rational given
that the Rosebud Mine is a significant asset of the WLB Debtors that is essential to
consummation of the Plan, and the Coal Supply Agreement is critical to the mine’s operation.
Similarly, there is no rational business justification for risking the loss of the Co-Owners as
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 10 of 13
-11-
customers. As described by the Disclosure Statement, the Rosebud Mine’s proven and probable
coal reserves represent more than three-quarters of the total proven and probable coal reserves at
all of WLB Debtors’ mines,9 making the Rosebud Mine by far the most valuable WLB Debtor
asset. Additionally, because the Colstrip Plants are sited adjacent to the Rosebud Mine, which
cuts down transportation costs significantly compared to other potential buyers, and furthermore,
because the Co-Owners purchase nearly all of the coal sold at the Rosebud Mine, the Co-Owners
are critical, irreplaceable customers.
25. In short, the Rejection Notice’s failure to include the Coal Supply Agreement as
a contract that will be assigned to the Purchaser is not credible because there is no justification
for rejecting it, and strikes the Public Utilities as nothing more than a litigation tactic to drive the
Public Utilities to accept unreasonable commercial terms on the new contract that is supposed to
take effect in 2020.10 This is especially true given the Coal Supply Agreement is a “cost-plus”
agreement, and is per se profitable for WECO. Because of the contract’s pricing structure, it is
implausible for the WLB Debtors to argue that the agreement is a burden on WECO’s
bankruptcy estate. Thus, even under the business justification test, this Court cannot approve the
WLB Debtors’ rejection of the Coal Supply Agreement.
26. On the other hand, rejection of the Coal Supply Agreement will cause significant
hardship on the Public Utilities. Because their permit only authorizes them to burn coal from the
Rosebud Mine, without Rosebud coal the Public Utilities will be unable to generate power from
the Colstrip Plants. Ultimately, the extent of the Public Utilities’ rejection damage claims will be
driven in part by how long it may take the Public Utilities to obtain a new permit, as well as
9 See Disclosure Statement, Art. III.A(2) (The Rosebud Mine’s disclosed 241 million tons of provable and probable coal reserves comprise 75.9% of the provable and probable coal reserves disclosed at all of WLB Debtors’ mines.). 10 The Public Utilities reserve the right to seek documents and information from the WLB Debtors that address the following questions, all of which are relevant to WECO’s business judgment: (i) What factors did the WLB Debtors consider or not consider when they proposed the Plan that included a provision stating that all coal supply agreements would be assumed? (ii) What factors did the WLB Debtors consider or not consider when they decided to reject the Coal Supply Agreement, and when was this decision made and in consultation with whom? and (iii) Did the WLB Debtors consider the effects on the WLB Debtors’ estates that rejection would have on general unsecured
creditors’ recoveries when they made their decision?
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 11 of 13
-12-
whether the Co-Owners can procure coal from other sources to the extent they obtain a new
permit.
III. The Public Utilities Reserve the Right to Assert Other Objections at Confirmation Relating to the Coal Supply Agreement
27. To the extent the Public Utilities identify other objections to the Plan in advance
of the Confirmation Hearing Date, they reserve their rights to supplement this objection.
Without any limitation on the foregoing, the Public Utilities reserve all rights to incorporate any
of the Co-Owners’ objections to confirmation as their own, and further reserve all rights to
contest any attempt by the WLB Debtors to treat as severable any agreements that were intended
to be treated as integrated.
CONTESTED MATTER
28. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014, confirmation of the Plan is a contested matter
and the Public Utilities reserve all rights to seek discovery and present evidence at the
confirmation hearing.

///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 12 of 13
-13-
CONCLUSION
29. WHEREFORE, the Public Utilities respectfully request that the Court deny
confirmation of the Plan and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

DATED: January 25, 2019 Portland, Oregon Respectfully submitted,
STOEL RIVES LLP
/s/ Oren Buchanan Haker
Oren Buchanan Haker, OR Bar No. 130162
Stoel Rives LLP
760 SW Ninth, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Mark E. Hindley, UT Bar No. 07222
Stoel Rives LLP 201 Main St #1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Case 18-35672 Document 1157 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 13 of 13

WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

In re:

WESTMORELAND COAL
COMPANY, et al.1

Debtors.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Chapter 11

Case No. 18-35672 (DRJ)

(Jointly Administered)

LIMITED OBJECTION OF TALEN MONTANA, LLC
TO CONFIRMATION OF JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF
WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY AND CERTAIN OF ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES
Talen Montana, LLC (“Talen”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
submits this objection (the “Objection”) to confirmation of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of Its Debtor Affiliates [Docket No. 788] (the
“Plan”), filed by the WLB Debtors (as such term is used in the Plan). In support of the
Objection, Talen respectfully states as follows:
Preliminary Statement
1. Talen operates a coal-fired power plant located east of Billings, Montana
(the “Colstrip Plant”), which it co-owns with Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Portland General
Electric Company, Avista Corporation, PacifiCorp, and NorthWestern Corporation (collectively,
the “Co-Owners” and together with Talen, the “Buyers”). Talen is the sole operator of the
Colstrip Plant, and employs over 300 employees, many of whom reside in Colstrip, Montana—a
town with a population of less than 2,500 people.

1 Due to the large number of debtors in these chapter 11 cases, for which joint administration has been granted, a
complete list of the debtors and the last four digits of their tax identification, registration, or like numbers is not
provided herein (collectively herein “Debtors”). A complete list of such information may be obtained on the
website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent in these chapter 11 cases at
www.donlinrecano.com/westmoreland. Westmoreland Coal Company’s service address for the purposes of
these chapter 11 cases is 9540 South Maroon Circle, Suite 300, Englewood, Colorado 80112.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 1 of 35

2
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
2. Talen and the Co-Owners are effectively the exclusive purchasers of coal
that Western Energy Company (“WECO”), a WLB Debtor, mines and sells from its coal mine in
Rosebud County, Montana (the “Rosebud Mine”), adjacent to the Colstrip Plant. WECO is the
Buyers’ sole supplier of coal for operations of the Colstrip Plant, and has been since the 1970s.
3. WECO and the Buyers purchase and deliver coal pursuant to three
long-term agreements for the sale and transportation of coal: (a) that certain Coal Purchase and
Sale Agreement, dated as of March 21, 2007 (the “U12 Coal Supply Agreement”), (b) that
certain Amended and Restated Coal Supply Agreement, dated as of August 24, 1998 (the “U34
Coal Supply Agreement”), and (c) that certain Coal Transportation Agreement, dated as of July
10, 1981, (together with the U12 Coal Supply Agreement and U34 Coal Supply Agreement, each
as amended, supplemented, or modified, the “Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements”).2
Notwithstanding the WLB Debtors’ numerous comments about the importance of their coal
supply agreements and an explicit provision in the Plan that was served on stakeholders for
solicitation providing for the assumption and assignment of the coal supply agreements to the
WLB Debtors’ purchasers, the WLB Debtors have recently indicated that they now intend to
reject the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements. Yet, the WLB Debtors have not met their burden
for rejecting these agreements, as they have failed to articulate any legitimate business
justification for doing so.
4. Nor can they. This is not a situation where a debtor has made a difficult,
but reasonable business decision with which a counterparty simply disagrees. Rather, here, there
is simply no possible legitimate business reason for the WLB Debtors to rid themselves of the
Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, as was clearly reflected in the Plan circulated for vote. The

2 This Objection focuses on the U34 Coal Supply Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, given the context of
the commercial negotiations surrounding that contract. The general mechanics of the U12 Coal Supply
Agreement are materially similar to those described herein with respect to the U34 Coal Supply Agreement.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 2 of 35

3
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
WLB Debtors are not seeking to reject unprofitable contracts that burden their estates. To the
contrary, the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements are profitable contracts that guarantee WECO’s
profitability, as they are “cost-plus” agreements under which the Buyers pay WECO’s annual
costs of mining operations, a return on WECO’s capital investment, and per-ton profit fees.
5. Instead, it appears that the WLB Debtors are threatening rejection and the
withholding of vital coal to these captive Buyers to extract what in Talen’s view are extremely
unreasonable terms from them in the context of ongoing commercial negotiations focused on
extending the U34 Coal Supply Agreement beyond its December 31, 2019 expiration date.3 The
terms reached under these coercive circumstances would be binding on the parties for many
years, but at the very least would reduce actual operational time of the Colstrip Plant by a
significant amount by virtue of inflated costs. Critically for the Buyers, the Colstrip Plant
currently has one source of coal—WECO’s Rosebud Mine—and the Rosebud mine has only one
logical buyer of coal—the Colstrip Plant. This monopolistic situation, involving an important
product affecting the public interest—coal for power for electricity for, among other things,
warmth in the winter—creates an ability for WECO to squeeze the Buyers for greater and greater
profits, potentially leaving the Buyers with no choice but to agree to pay exorbitant ransom
prices for many years for this vital, single-source commodity. Such a situation could lead to a
drastic curtailment of operations at the Colstrip Plant or potentially accelerate a permanent
shutdown.
6. With the commercial negotiations over the extension being stuck, it is no
coincidence that WECO has now threatened to reject these profitable agreements. The evidence

3 The substance of the commercial negotiations is confidential. As a result, Talen is unable to provide the Court
at this time with details of the negotiations that it believes would further bolster the facts and arguments set
forth herein. Talen is willing to waive the confidentiality requirement for the limited purpose of the WLB
Debtors, Talen, and the Co-Owners providing the Court, under seal, with information about the commercial
negotiations for purposes of determining the merits of the relief the WLB Debtors are seeking.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 3 of 35

4
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
will make plain that, rather than using rejection for a legitimate business purpose, the WLB
Debtors are simply seeking to exert economic leverage on Talen and the Co-Owners and further
increase their profits on already profitable contracts. It is a strategy that has threatened the
continuing short-term and long-term operation of the Colstrip Plant, and has also put hundreds of
employees (both at the Colstrip Plant and the Rosebud Mine) and the town of Colstrip at risk.
By comparison, the as-of-yet-unidentified returns to WECO or its successor do not begin to
justify such a strategy.
7. Indeed, the WLB Debtors’ strategy also exposes WECO or its successor to
significant risk of being unable to sell coal and satisfy its obligations. The parties depend on one
another for coal supply and purchase. Their interdependence is not only contractual—
—but is also
an economic and practical reality: the Rosebud Mine is adjacent to the Colstrip Plant, and both
facilities were designed exclusively for one another. In fact, the Rosebud Mine was owned by
one of the original owners of the Colstrip Plant. As described below in more detail, the Rosebud
Mine (and thus any purchaser of the Rosebud Mine) lacks the ability to sell significant quantities
of coal to third parties (i.e., parties other than Talen and the Co-Owners) except at great cost, if at
all possible.
8. In any event, WECO has not demonstrated any potential benefit from
rejecting the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements – by selling to third parties or otherwise, let alone
benefits that would justify putting at risk the significant profits the WLB Debtors currently
receive under the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements. These are not the quintessential
burdensome contracts a debtor typically seeks to shed in bankruptcy; quite the opposite.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 4 of 35

5
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
Therefore, the WLB Debtors have not, and cannot, demonstrate that rejecting the Colstrip Coal
Supply Agreements is a valid exercise of business judgment.
9. Further, even if the WLB Debtors were justified in rejecting the Colstrip
Coal Supply Agreements on business or policy grounds, due to their convoluted Plan documents
and mixed messages, they have failed to provide Talen (and the Co-Owners), or other creditors
that would get diluted by new large, material rejection damage claims, the requisite notice for
such rejection. As a matter of due process, the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules
require that (a) the WLB Debtors provide contract counterparties with sufficient notice as to
whether the WLB Debtors will assume or reject their executory contracts and (b) the Plan that is
sent to all creditors for solicitation, along with the disclosure statement, provides accurate
information on key elements affecting creditors. The Plan clearly and explicitly states that the
Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements will be assumed and assigned pursuant to the Plan. (Plan Art.
V. Sec. A.) This is consistent with the WLB Debtors’ representations throughout these cases that
these agreements “are the lifeblood of [the WLB Debtors’] business.” Oct. 9, 2018 Hr’g Tr. at
58:9–10 [Docket No. 134]. Yet, despite that Plan language, the WLB Debtors have now omitted
the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements from the lists of assumed contracts and leases filed in these
cases (collectively, the “Assumed Contracts and Leases Lists”).4
10. When pressed recently about the discrepancy between the Plan and the
Assumed Contracts and Leases Lists, counsel to the WLB Debtors provided mixed messages on
whether the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements will or will not be assumed and assigned pursuant

4 See Notice to Contract Counterparties to Potentially Assumed Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases,
Ex. A (the “Initial Assumed List”) [Docket No. 874]; Plan Supplement for the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of Its Debtor Affiliates (the “Plan Supplement”), Ex. A [Docket
No. 1102]; Supplemental Notice of (A) Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases to Be Assumed or Assumed
and Assigned by Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of Its Debtor Affiliates Pursuant to the Plan,
(B) Cure Costs, If Any, and (C) Related Procedures in Connection Therewith, Ex. A (the “Supplemental
Assumed List”) [Docket No. 1103].
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 5 of 35

6
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
to the Plan as written, alluding to assumption of the agreements being subject to the ongoing
commercial negotiation between WECO and the Buyers relating to the extension of those
agreements. Counsel to the WLB Debtors this week confirmed that the current intent is to reject
the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements notwithstanding the Plan language to the contrary. This
ambiguity has left Talen with no choice but to object to the WLB Debtors’ purported decision to
reject the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements.
11. As set out herein, there are multiple reasons not to authorize rejection of
the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements.
12. First, the Plan states that the WLB Debtors will assume and assign the
Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, consistent with representations the WLB Debtors have made
to the Court, the creditors, and the public since they filed for chapter 11, including in their first
day Coal Contract Performance Motion (as defined below). The WLB Debtors should not be
permitted to manufacture uncertainty at this late juncture as to the otherwise clear and explicit
language in the Plan in an attempt to exert leverage over Talen and the Co-Owners. Nor should
the WLB Debtors be permitted to make any changes to the Plan at this eleventh hour after
solicitation is complete and the objection deadline has passed. Enforcing the Plan’s plain
language is particularly important here given the WLB Debtors’ recent settlement with the
Creditors’ Committee (defined below), whose “meaningful distribution” negotiated on behalf of
unsecured creditors would be significantly diluted by a rejection of the Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreements.
13. Second, the WLB Debtors cannot meet their burden of proof to justify
rejection of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements. Put simply, rejection would not benefit the
estate. There is no sound business justification for rejection, which could lead to significant
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 6 of 35

7
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
rejection damage claims diluting the recovery to general unsecured creditors, and the balance-of-
equities test that applies in this situation pursuant to binding precedent from the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals weighs against rejection. See Mirant Corp. v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (In
re Mirant Corp.), 378 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2004). The profitable nature of the Colstrip Coal
Supply Agreements, the somewhat unusual monopolistic relationship between buyer and seller,
the lack of any evidence of benefit to the estate from rejection, and the clear inference (which
Talen believes the evidence will support) that the WLB Debtors are using the power of rejection
to extract ransom pricing – not just for the remaining term of the agreement but on an extension
that would last for many years – demonstrate that this is the rare case where rejection is not
supported by a debtor’s business judgment. The fact that what is at stake here – coal for
electricity – is a vital public good and that rejection would put the operations of the Colstrip
Plant and its hundreds of employees at risk (let alone the employees of the Rosebud Mine, which
might no longer have a customer for its coal) should make the Court all the more reluctant to
approve this risky tactic, especially when applying the Mirant balance-of-equities test.
14. Third, a rejection of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements would render
the WLB Debtors unable to meet the feasibility standard for confirmation of the plan as to
WECO given the uncertainty that WECO or its successor will be able to sell any coal and pay its
costs and expenses absent assumption of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements.
15. Accordingly, Talen respectfully requests that the Court require that any
order confirming the Plan (a “Confirmation Order”) be conditioned upon inclusion of language
in such order providing that the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements are assumed and assigned
pursuant to the Plan, consistent with the Plan that has been on file for months.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 7 of 35

8
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
16. In the alternative, if the Court allows the WLB Debtors to reject the
Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, Talen respectfully requests that the Court condition such
rejection upon the WLB Debtors’ agreement to allow for an adequate transition period to wind
down the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements in light of the equities of the situation, including the
inability of Talen to buy coal from an alternate source in the near-term.
Background
A. Prepetition Relationship between WECO, Talen, and the Co-Owners
17. Talen’s primary asset is the Colstrip Plant, which sits immediately next to
the WLB Debtors’ Rosebud Mine. The Colstrip Plant consists of four separate electric
generating units and related equipment.
18. WECO has been and continues to be the exclusive coal supplier for the
Colstrip Plant, which was built on the premise of a symbiotic relationship between WECO and
the Buyers—the Colstrip Plant would run on coal from the Rosebud Mine and the Rosebud Mine
would be dedicated to supplying coal to the Colstrip Plant. Indeed, when the Colstrip Plant first
began operations, the original operator of the plant—Montana Power Company—also owned the
Rosebud Mine. To that end, the Colstrip Plant was designed specifically to burn coal from the
Rosebud Mine and certain environmental permits of the Colstrip Plant mandate the use of coal
from the Rosebud Mine.
19. The Buyers (and their predecessors) have purchased coal from WECO
under some form of the Coal Supply Agreements since the 1970s. This relationship is mutually
beneficial to both sides;

Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 8 of 35

9
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
20. As the WLB Debtors explained in the Declaration of Jeffrey S. Stein,
Chief Restructuring Officer of Westmoreland Coal Company, in Support of Chapter 11 Petitions
and First Day Pleadings [Docket No. 54] (the “First Day Declaration”), their business model is
to operate mines in niche coal markets, such as Colstrip, Montana, where they are able to enter
into long-term, protected coal supply contracts that “take advantage of customer proximity and
strategically located rail transportation.” (First Day Declaration at ¶ 11.)
21. The WLB Debtors gain their “competitive advantage” because many of
their buyers’ power plants—including the Colstrip Plant—are specifically designed to use their
coal. (First Day Declaration at ¶¶ 11, 14.) Further, the WLB Debtors’ proximity to those plants
reduces their transportation costs compared to other potential suppliers that would otherwise
have to ship in coal via truck or train from longer distances. (Id.) Accordingly, in the context of
the Rosebud Mine, it is not currently legally permissible for the Colstrip Plant to burn coal from
another source under its environmental permits or operationally possible for the Colstrip Plant to
receive coal deliveries via train. In turn, the Buyers designed and built their delivery
infrastructure to receive coal only from WECO, rather than from other sources at longer
distances by rail or truck. Likewise, the Rosebud Mine was designed to deliver coal only to the
Buyers (at the Colstrip Plant), with whom WECO has entered into long-term, exclusive coal
supply agreements. This symbiotic relationship has worked for over 40 years, and the Buyers
had no reason to believe it would not continue into the future in the form of mutually
advantageous extensions of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements.
B. History of U34 Coal Supply Agreement
22. On July 2, 1980, before “Units 3 & 4” of the Colstrip Plant became
operational, WECO and the Buyers entered into a predecessor Coal Supply Agreement
(the “Original Coal Supply Agreement”). (See U34 Coal Supply Agreement, at Recitals ¶ D.)
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 9 of 35

10
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
Relying on the original agreement and “the assurances of a dependable supply of coal from the
Sellers,” the Buyers constructed Units 3 & 4. (Id. at Recitals ¶ A.) Between 1981 and 1987, the
parties amended the Original Coal Supply Agreement three times, and, in 1998, the parties re-
negotiated an amended agreement to “align it better” with the parties’ economic interests. (Id. at
Recitals ¶ E.) The parties eventually executed the U34 Coal Supply Agreement, effective
January 1, 1998 and with a term lasting through December 31, 2019. (Id. § 3.1.)
23. The U34 Coal Supply Agreement is a manifestation of the parties’
interdependence, described above.

24. As a result of this mutual interdependence, the Colstrip Plant does not
have the physical infrastructure or legal authority to obtain coal from another source without
substantial time, capital expenditures, and environmental permit amendments. WECO currently
delivers coal to the Colstrip Plant either by conveyor belt or by truck. Thus, the Colstrip Plant
has never had a need for facilities capable of unloading coal from rail cars, and no such facilities
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 10 of 35

11
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
exist today. WECO, in turn, does not have a rail loading facility capable of handling the volume
of coal sold to the Colstrip Plant.
25. The Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements are plainly not a burden on WECO.
To the contrary, the pricing structure of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements guarantees
WECO’s profitability, even when its costs increase. The pricing structure is “cost-plus,”

In short, the Buyers pay for virtually everything under the Coal Supply Agreements and
then pay WECO an additional profit.

C. Negotiations over Extension to U34 Coal Supply Agreement
26. The term of current U34 Coal Supply Agreement is scheduled to expire at
the end of 2019. In light of that, the parties have engaged in periodic, on-and-off, and sometimes
contentious negotiations since 2012 regarding an extension to the contract term. The parties
were engaged in such negotiations prior to the WLB Debtors’ bankruptcy filing, and while those
discussions resumed postpetition in November 2018, the parties have not yet been able to reach
an agreement, in large part because WECO’s negotiation position changed dramatically
postpetition. Notwithstanding the highly profitable nature of the U34 Coal Supply Agreement to
WECO and the fact that the Buyers are the only customers with the practical ability to purchase
the volumes of coal being sold under the U34 Coal Supply Agreement, WECO has insisted on
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 11 of 35

12
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
what in Talen’s view are unreasonable changes in the U34 Coal Supply Agreement beyond a
simple extension of its term, which demands the Buyers have refused.
27. Having been unable to achieve these demands at the bargaining table,
WECO apparently now seeks to use the Bankruptcy Code’s rejection power, and the Buyers’
captive status, not to reject an unprofitable and burdensome contract, but rather as economic
leverage to impose terms on the Buyers that WECO could not obtain outside of bankruptcy.
(All this notwithstanding explicit Plan language providing for assumption of these very
contracts.) The threat is simple: if you do not agree to this exorbitant and uneconomic pricing—
not just for the term of the contract, but for many years beyond that term—we may not ship you
coal and you will not be able to operate your plant. Accordingly, Talen submits this Objection to
confirmation, which it plans to supplement after full discovery—which has been served on the
WLB Debtors simultaneously herewith—has been conducted.
D. WECO’s Chapter 11 Filing and Postpetition Actions
28. On October 9, 2018, the WLB Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief
under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). In connection
with the commencement of these chapter 11 cases, the WLB Debtors filed the First Day
Declaration, with a copy of the Plan Term Sheet annexed thereto as Exhibit B. Among other
things, the Plan Term Sheet contemplates a chapter 11 plan premised on the sale of the WLB
Debtors’ “Core Assets,” with an ad hoc group of the WLB Debtors’ secured creditors (the “Ad
Hoc Group”) serving as the stalking horse purchaser. (Plan Term Sheet at 3–4.) The Plan Term
Sheet expressly defines the term “Core Assets” to include “substantially all of the assets owned
by the Colstrip Seller and used in the Colstrip Business as specifically identified in the Purchase
and Sale Agreement, including the Colstrip Assumed Contracts . . . [which] include[s] all of the
contracts, supply agreements, joint venture agreements, operating and joint operating
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 12 of 35

13
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
agreements, leases, and other written obligations of the Colstrip Seller relating to the Colstrip
Business, as set forth on a schedule to the Purchase and Sale Agreement.” (Plan Term Sheet at
4–5.) In short, the Plan Term Sheet contemplates the assumption and assignment of the Colstrip
Coal Supply Agreements.
29. On the same day, the WLB Debtors filed the Debtors’ Emergency Motion
for Entry of Interim and Final Orders Authorizing the Debtors to Enter into and Perform Under
Coal Sale Contracts in the Ordinary Course Of Business (the “Coal Contract Performance
Motion”) [Docket No. 15]. Pursuant to the Coal Contract Performance Motion, the WLB
Debtors sought emergency relief to continue performing under their existing coal sale contracts,
such as the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, noting that “Performance under the Coal Sale
Contracts represents a core and critical part of the Debtors’ operations because coal sales
generate virtually all of the Debtors’ revenues.” (Coal Contract Performance Motion at ¶ 6.)
30. On October 18, 2018, the WLB Debtors filed the Motion of Westmoreland
Coal Company and Certain of Its Subsidiaries for Entry of an Order (I) Authorizing
Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain Debtor Affiliates to Enter into and Perform under the
Stalking Horse Purchase Agreement, (II) Approving Bidding Procedures with Respect to
Substantially All Assets, (III) Approving Contract Assumption and Assignment Procedures,
(IV) Scheduling Bid Deadlines and an Auction, (V) Scheduling Hearings and Objection
Deadlines with Respect to the Disclosure Statement and Plan Confirmation, and (VI) Approving
the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof [Docket No. 208], seeking approval of certain bidding
and other procedures (collectively, the “Bidding Procedures”) in connection with a sale of the
WLB Debtors’ Core Assets. On November 15, 2018, the Court entered an order approving the
Bidding Procedures (the “Bidding Procedures Order”) [Docket No. 519].
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 13 of 35

14
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
31. On October 25, 2018, the WLB Debtors filed the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of Its Debtor Affiliates [Docket No. 294] and the
Disclosure Statement for Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Westmoreland Coal Company and Certain of
Its Debtor Affiliates (as amended, the “Disclosure Statement”) [Docket Nos. 293, 789].
Relevant to Talen, the Plan expressly provided:
[N]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, to the extent
any . . . contracts for the purchase, sale, transportation or reclamation of
coal . . . relating to the mines included in the Core Assets and Transferred Non-
Core Assets to which any of the WLB Debtors is a party as of the Plan Effective
Date are deemed to be, and treated as though they are, Executory Contracts or
Unexpired Leases, such leases or contracts shall automatically be deemed
assumed and assigned to the Purchaser on the Plan Effective Date. (Plan,
Art. V. Sec. A.) (emphasis added).
32. The Plan also included generic procedures for the assumption, assignment,
and rejection of other contracts and leases, (see generally Plan, Art. V), as did the Bidding
Procedures approved by the Court. (See Bidding Procedures Order at ¶ 9.) None of those
procedures referred to the provision of the Plan deeming the coal sale contracts automatically
assumed and assigned.
33. On December 19, 2018, the WLB Debtors publicly filed financial
projections for coal sales revenues through 2028. See Westmoreland Coal Company, Current
Report (Form 8-K) (Dec. 19, 2018). Within those projections, the WLB Debtors describe, albeit
preliminarily, stable revenues from U.S. coal sales through 2022. See id., Ex. 99.1 at 9. Upon
information and belief, these projections assume continuation of the Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreements at the current contract prices, at least during the term of the Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreements.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 14 of 35

15
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
34. On December 21, 2018, the WLB Debtors filed the Initial Assumed List
on the docket. None of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements were listed on the Initial Assumed
List.
35. On January 18, 2019, the WLB Debtors filed the Plan Supplement and the
Supplemental Assumed List. Again, none of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreement were listed on
the Plan Supplement or the Supplemental Assumed List.
36. Accordingly, in early January 2019, and then again on January 22, 2019,
counsel for Talen contacted counsel to the WLB Debtors for clarity as to whether the Colstrip
Coal Supply Agreements were being assumed and assigned pursuant to the Plan (as the Plan
expressly provides). In response to the January 22 email inquiry, WECO’s counsel stated that
the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements were “intentionally left off the assumed list, as the Debtors
currently intend to reject those agreements as of the Plan Effective Date, subject to the ongoing
business discussions about those agreements.”5 The very next day, WECO advised the Buyers’
counsel that WECO was terminating negotiations and would not entertain any further offers from
the Buyers. As such, months after the Plan was filed providing explicitly and unambiguously
that the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements were being assumed and assigned, the Debtors are
suggesting the existence of wiggle room in that Plan language, forcing Talen to file this
Objection.
37. On January 22, 2019, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
(the “Creditors’ Committee”) filed the Second Stipulation and Agreed Order (A) Extending
Challenge Period Termination Date in Final DIP Order and (B) Resolving Possible
Confirmation Objections Pursuant to Settlement Term Sheet (the “GUC Settlement”) [Docket

5 See January 22, 2019 Email Correspondence (emphasis added), attached to this Objection as Exhibit B.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 15 of 35

16
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
No. 1115]. Pursuant to the GUC Settlement, the Creditors’ Committee, on behalf of the WLB
Debtors’ unsecured creditors, agreed to support the Plan in exchange for, among other things,
$3,250,000 to the class of general unsecured claims. As would be expected to ensure that their
constituents’ recovery from the settlement is not diluted, the GUC Settlement provides for
protections against increasing the number of contracts to be rejected by the WLB Debtors.
Argument
A. WLB Debtors Must Confirm that Plan Will Assume Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreements
1. Plain Language of Plan Confirms that Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements Will
Be Assumed and Assigned
38. Section A of Article V of the Plan provides in no uncertain terms that any
contracts for the purchase or sale of coal relating to mines in the Core Assets shall automatically
be deemed assumed and assigned on the Plan Effective Date “notwithstanding anything in the
Plan to the contrary.” This provision alone provides sufficient clarity as to the treatment of the
Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements. The Court should require the WLB Debtors to uphold the
expectations they set for the Buyers and their other stakeholders.
39. Yet, notwithstanding this plain language, the WLB Debtors have
suggested to Talen’s counsel the possibility that they may treat the Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreements as rejected on a post-confirmation basis by virtue of their non-inclusion on the
Assumed Contracts and Leases Lists. Presumably the WLB Debtors threaten rejection by
relying on the more general language in the Bidding Procedures authorizing the WLB Debtors to
assume or reject certain contracts on a post-confirmation basis. (See Bidding Procedures Order
at ¶ 9.f.) But as a matter of contract interpretation, the WLB Debtors’ position must fail.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 16 of 35

17
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
40. First, under New York contract law6 and case law in this Circuit, where
there is a conflict between two provisions of an agreement, the specific controls over the general.
See Cnty. of Suffolk v. Alcorn, 266 F.3d 131, 139 (2d Cir. 2001) (applying N.Y. law, “[i]t is
axiomatic that courts construing contracts must give specific terms and exact terms . . . greater
weight than general language.”) (internal citations omitted); United States Postal Service v.
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 922 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
906 (1991). Here, Section A of Article V of the Plan very specifically sets forth the treatment of
the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements as a subset of executory contracts: they will be assumed
and assigned notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan. Thus, that provision must
control over the more general provisions of the Bidding Procedures, which are only generally
incorporated into the Plan.
41. Second, contractual provisions should not be read to deprive such
provisions of any meaning. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nomura Asset Capital Corp., 424 F.3d
195, 206 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, that is precisely what the WLB Debtors’ preferred interpretation
would accomplish. If the WLB Debtors were able to rely on the general provisions to change
their mind at any time with respect to the treatment of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, the
entirety of Section A of Article V would have no meaning whatsoever. Accordingly, based on a
textual analysis of the Plan (and ancillary documents), the Court should require the WLB
Debtors to confirm that the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements will be assumed and assigned.
42. To the extent the WLB Debtors attempt to change this key provision of the
Plan at the literal eleventh hour, they should not be permitted to do so. As discussed below,
various stakeholders, including Talen, and potentially the Creditors’ Committee, have relied on

6 The Plan is governed by the laws of the State of New York. (Plan, Art. I Sec. D.)
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 17 of 35

18
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
the Plan provision providing for assumption of the Coal Supply Agreements. Notice must mean
something, and if they change the Plan provision now, notice will be insufficient.
2. WLB Debtors’ Overtones of Possibly Rejecting Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreement Are Inequitable and a Misuse of Assumption/Rejection Process
43. Even if the Court finds ambiguity in the text of the Plan, or that the WLB
Debtors can change a key term of the Plan post-solicitation on a whim, the Court should require
the WLB Debtors to confirm that the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements are being assumed and
assigned pursuant to the Plan based on the equities of the case. “The Bankruptcy Code is
designed to shield debtors from creditor harassment, but it should not be used as sword by
debtors to deprive creditors of that to which they are properly entitled.” In re Choate, 184 B.R.
270, 273 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1995); see also In re CBBT, L.P., No. 11–30036–H3–11, 2011 WL
1770438, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 9, 2011) (finding that using chapter 11 solely to force a
counterparty to accept more favorable contract terms was a misuse of the bankruptcy process).
Given the context of the commercial negotiations on extensions to the Colstrip Coal Supply
Agreement, the profitable nature of those agreements to WECO, and the monopolistic power that
WECO holds within the context of the Rosebud Mine, the WLB Debtors’ attempt to squeeze
Talen and the Co-Owners at the last minute to take advantage of the situation is impermissible.
This behavior would be bad enough if their aims had been apparent from the beginning, but is
worsened by having done so without providing those parties the notice to which they are entitled
regarding the treatment of their executory contracts under the Plan and sending out a plan for
solicitation that specifically said the opposite.
44. Particularly problematic is the fact that Talen is being squeezed not only
for ransom pricing during the term of the contract, but apparently the WLB Debtors are seeking
to extract ransom pricing for an extension of the U34 Coal Supply Agreement for a number of
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 18 of 35

19
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
years beyond its current term. Given the importance of coal to operations of the Colstrip Plant
(the plant literally cannot operate without coal from the Rosebud Mine), the WLB Debtors could
theoretically squeeze Talen by charging multiples of market prices for the coal – two, three, four,
or even ten times WECO’s cost of producing the coal – and lock those prices in for many years.
45. The situation here is different from ordinary contract rejection cases, and
this is not an appropriate use of the Bankruptcy Code by a debtor. The Bankruptcy Code and the
Bankruptcy Rules were designed to ensure that the benefits bestowed upon unfortunate debtors
are balanced with the due process rights of non-debtor stakeholders. See, e.g., Matter of
Cybernetic Servs., Inc., 94 B.R. 951, 953 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1989) (holding that bankruptcy
rules governing contract assumption recognized and protected due process rights of parties in
interest). Bankruptcy courts are courts of equity, and the WLB Debtors should not be permitted
to use the Court and the powers that are granted by the Bankruptcy Code for inequitable, unfair,
and sharp practices. The WLB Debtors’ eleventh hour tactics are antithetical to the principles
underlying the chapter 11 process.
B. To Extent Plan Contemplates Rejection of Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, WLB
Debtors Cannot Meet Standard of Proof to Justify Rejection
46. The WLB Debtors bear the burden of proving that the rejection of an
executory contract is warranted. See In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 403 B.R. 413, 429 (Bankr.
N.D. Tex. 2009). To satisfy that burden of proof, a debtor must at minimum show that rejecting
the executory contract would satisfy the “business judgment test.” In re Pisces Energy, LLC,
Nos. 09–36591–H5–11, 09–36593–H5–11, 2009 WL 7227880, at *6 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 21,
2009) (citing Lubrizol Enters., Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir.
1985)). Where the treatment of an executory contract gives rise to material public policy
implications, however, a debtor must further demonstrate that the contract burdens the debtor’s
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 19 of 35

20
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
estate and the balance of equities weighs in favor of rejection. See NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco,
465 U.S. 513, 526–27 (1984); Mirant, 378 F.3d at 525. The WLB Debtors have not carried their
burden of satisfying either standard.
1. Rejection of Colstrip Coal Supply Agreement Fails Business Judgment Test
47. Ordinarily, to reject an executory contract, a debtor must show that doing
so “will be advantageous to the bankruptcy estate and the decision will be based on sound
business judgment.” In re Idearc Inc., 423 B.R. 138, 162 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009); see also
Pisces, 2009 WL 7227880, at *6. Where a debtor can articulate a legitimate business
justification, its decision to reject an executory contract will not be altered in the absence of a
showing bad faith or an abuse of business discretion. Idearc, 423 B.R. at 162.
48. Nonetheless, under the business judgment test, a debtor is still subject to
limitations on when it may reject an executory contract. Courts are vigilant to ensure that a
debtor is not simply hiding behind the shield of the Bankruptcy Code as a means to engage in
conduct that would be improper in a non-bankruptcy context. Pilgrim’s Pride, 403 B.R. at 426.
Indeed, a debtor is a fiduciary that must administer its case and conduct its business “in a fashion
amenable to scrutiny to be expected from creditor and court oversight.” Id. A debtor should
exercise its powers consistent with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.
49. Courts consider a variety of factors in determining whether rejection of an
executory contract is in the sound business judgment of the debtor. For example, as articulated
in In re G Survivor Corp., 171 B.R. 755, 758 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994), courts may examine
(a) whether the contract burdens the debtor’s estate financially; (b) whether the debtor can show
real economic benefit resulting from the rejection; and (c) whether rejection would result in a
large claim against the estate. Other courts have also focused on whether rejection would benefit
the general unsecured creditors, sometimes noting that the primary beneficiaries of rejection
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 20 of 35

21
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
should be the debtor’s general unsecured creditors. See, e.g., In re Pomona Valley Med. Grp.,
Inc., 476 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2007); In re Stable Mews Assocs., Inc., 41 B.R. 594 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1984).
50. Here, far from being burdensome, the cost-plus, profitable Colstrip Coal
Supply Agreements are valuable to WECO’s estate, its “lifeblood.” Oct. 9, 2018 Hr’g Tr. at
58:9–10 [Docket No. 134]. Indeed, the WLB Debtors have represented that during the fiscal
year of 2017, approximately 36% of their coal sales from U.S. mines were attributable to the
proceeds from sales to the Colstrip Plant. See Westmoreland Coal Company, Annual Report
(Form 10-K) (Apr. 2, 2018) at 12. The WLB Debtors have further represented that the lack of a
contract for the sale of coal would have adverse financial consequences on them; specifically:
Should [the WLB Debtors] be unable to successfully renew any of [their] expiring
contracts [including the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements], the reduction in the
sale of [the WLB Debtors’] coal would adversely affect [their] operating results
and liquidity and could result in significant impairments to the affected mine
should the mine be unable to execute a new long-term coal supply agreement.
Id. at 32. This makes sense and it demonstrates the WLB Debtors’ view that in lieu of a
profitable, guaranteed source of revenue, rejection would leave the Rosebud Mine with no
certainty as to ongoing revenues to pay its workers or satisfy its other obligations.
51. Further, to the extent that WECO argues that its Rosebud Mine operations
have become more costly over time, these costs are passed through to the Buyers. (See U34 Coal
Supply Agreement, § 12.)
As such, there is no
basis to argue that commercial realities have rendered the contract burdensome to the estate.
WECO will continue to profit under the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements while in effect.
52. Nor have the WLB Debtors demonstrated potential economic gain from
rejecting the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, as there is likely no such gain to be had. As
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 21 of 35

22
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
explained above, the Rosebud Mine and the Colstrip Plant were each designed in a manner that
effectively precludes both WECO and the Buyers from operating without one another. Further,
upon information and belief, WECO lacks the necessary shipping infrastructure to sell to third
parties on the open market, at least at the current cost and volume WECO currently sells to the
Talen and the Co-Owners. It would take a significant amount of time and money for WECO to
build the infrastructure needed to ship coal to purchasers other than the Buyers. Similarly, Talen
and the Co-Owners currently have no other practical source of supply for the Colstrip Plant.
Even if another source of coal were available, the various environmental permits currently in
effect prohibit the Colstrip Plant from burning any coal other than coal from the Rosebud Mine.
53. Even if WECO (or the Ad Hoc Group, as the successful bidder for
WECO’s assets) were to spend the time and capital investment to develop the necessary
infrastructure to deliver to third parties, WECO would incur greater shipping costs by virtue of
having to ship to distant plants by train. In addition, WECO’s costs to mine coal are above
market even before considering shipping costs to reach third parties. Under these circumstances,
it is unlikely that another party would be willing pay WECO’s costs, as the Buyers currently do,
or otherwise guarantee the same profit margin that WECO is guaranteed under the Colstrip Coal
Supply Agreements.
54. In light of these capital expenditures, as well as increased costs of
shipping for delivery beyond the Colstrip Plant, it is commercially infeasible for WECO to enter
into a profitable coal supply agreement with another purchaser.

Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 22 of 35

23
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004

55. In any event, the WLB Debtors have not put forth any evidence that
rejection of these contracts would provide a benefit to WECO’s estate. Their statements have
suggested just the opposite – that the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements are necessary and
valuable to their business.
56. In contrast to the lack of economic benefit to the estate, rejection would
lead to many millions of dollars of rejection damages claims, further diluting the recently settled
recovery to general unsecured creditors. As noted above, large potential rejection damage claims
are an important consideration for a court in making the decision to approve a rejection.
Moreover, until just now, the Creditors’ Committee, representing the interests of unsecured
creditors, may not have had prior notice of the fact that the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements
might be rejected, which would result in the substantial dilution to their recoveries—a
particularly concerning issue given its recent GUC Settlement with the WLB Debtors. Instead,
the Creditors’ Committee may have relied on the clear language in the Plan—that those
agreements would be assumed by the purchaser of the Rosebud Mine, resulting in zero dollars of
dilutive rejection damage claims.
2. Rejection of Colstrip Coal Supply Agreement Fails “Balance of Equities”
Test
57. Additionally, where rejection of an executory contract would adversely
affect public interests, courts require the debtor to make a higher showing that the contract
burdens the estate and the balance of equities favors rejection. For instance, in Bildisco, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory collective bargaining agreement should be
permitted only if the debtor could show that the collective bargaining agreement to be rejected
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 23 of 35

24
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
burdened the estate, and that the equities balanced in favor of rejecting the contract. Bildisco,
465 U.S. at 526. There, the Court reasoned that a higher standard for rejection of a collective
bargaining agreement was warranted given the “special nature” of such a contract, while also
acknowledging the federal regulatory regime governing such contracts. Id. at 524.
58. Similarly, in Mirant Corp., the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
addressed the standard by which a court should analyze the rejection of an executory contract for
the purchase of electricity. There, the debtor was a regulated public utility whose electricity
contracts were subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(“FERC”) under the Federal Power Act. Noting that the regulatory framework governing these
contracts indicated a public interest in them, the Court determined that it would be inappropriate
to use the business judgment standard to analyze their rejection because doing so would not
“account for the public interest inherent in the transmission and sale of electricity.” Mirant, 378
F.3d at 525.
59. Here, the WLB Debtors are not regulated public utilities as in Mirant, but
the Co-Owners are. Talen, while not a regulated public utility, is authorized by FERC to engage
in wholesale power transactions at market-based rates. The Co-Owners’ regulation by various
state public utility commissions raises similar concerns.
60. This overlay of federal statutes and regulatory authority, particularly with
respect to interstate sale of electricity, requires that WECO meet a higher standard for rejection
than the usual business judgment test.
61. Even beyond the overlay of federal law and regulation, at least one court
has explained that “it would [not] make sense to limit application of a higher standard for
rejection to just those cases where unfettered rejection is inconsistent with a federal statute or
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 24 of 35

25
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
would encroach on the turf of a federal regulator. The court can easily conceive of a case where
rejection of a contract could have a significant impact upon, say, public health, such that its
rejection should be allowed only after a more critical review by the court than is contemplated
under the ordinary business judgment rule.” Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 403 B.R. at 424.
62. Here, the rejection of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements would have
far-reaching and potentially significant consequences. For context, the Colstrip Plant’s
approximately 2,100 megawatts are sufficient to power approximately 1.6 million homes across
Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. The Colstrip Plant would likely
cease operations on a temporary basis soon after rejection, and could ultimately lead to a
substantial reduction in its operations or accelerate a permanent shutdown. Given the size of the
Colstrip Plant relative to the total available generation in the Northwest, power prices would
likely increase in the region if the Colstrip Plant is not operating for an extended period of time,
as has occurred during past plant outages in periods of significant demand for electricity.
Depending on total electricity demand and available generation, an extended outage of the
Colstrip Plant could significantly impact wholesale and retail customers in Montana, where
generation is at times limited. In addition to providing electricity, the Colstrip Plant also
provides critical ancillary services to maintain stability of the electrical grid in Montana and the
Northwest. Its inability to operate increases the likelihood of grid instability, which could
contribute to blackouts or other reliability problems.
63. The financial impact on the State of Montana, the town of Colstrip, and
the employees and contractors at the Rosebud Mine and Colstrip Plant would be no less severe.
A temporary or permanent shutdown of the plant could result in employees of the Rosebud Mine
and Colstrip Plant being furloughed and/or terminated. In a town of less than 2,500 people, the
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 25 of 35

26
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
Colstrip Plant and Rosebud Mine combined employ over 700 people who live either in Colstrip
or the surrounding area. The State of Montana could be deprived of significant tax revenues,
including the coal severance tax that WECO pays on every ton of coal sold to the Buyers. The
millions of dollars that WECO paid in coal severance taxes in 2017 would vanish if the mine
ceased operation. A study conducted in June 2018 by the University of Montana’s Bureau of
Business and Economic Research attempted to quantify the financial impact a premature
shutdown of Units 3 & 4 would have within Montana. The study concluded, among other things,
that a premature shutdown (defined in the study to mean a shutdown in 2028) would be expected
to result in (i) almost 3,300 fewer jobs compared to a shutdown in 2043; (ii) a loss of income
received by Montana households varying between $250 and $350 million per year (or
$5.2 billion over the period); (iii) a decline in annual gross sales by businesses and other
organizations of between $700 and $800 million; (iv) a decline in population growing to more
than 7,000 people by 2043; and (v) a loss of more than $1.2 billion dollars in Montana tax and
nontax revenues that would not be collected between 2028 and 2043. Rejection of the Colstrip
Coal Supply Agreements would produce a result that is inconsistent with the public interest,
particularly during the winter months and other periods of peak electricity demand.
C. To Extent Plan Contemplates Rejection, Plan Fails Feasibility Confirmation
Requirement
64. Section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth a “feasibility
requirement,” such that a debtor must demonstrate that the confirmation of a plan “is not likely
to be followed by the liquidation, or the need for further financial reorganization, of the debtor or
any successor to the debtor under the plan, unless such liquidation or reorganization is proposed
in the plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11) (emphasis added). In the context of a chapter 11 plan
premised on the sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets, section 1129(a)(11) applies
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 26 of 35

27
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
equally to the purchaser of such assets. See, e.g., In re Temple Zion, 125 B.R. 910, 915–17
(Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1991) (finding debtor’s chapter 11 plan was feasible pursuant to section
1129(a)(11) where proposed purchaser of debtor’s assets had established likely ability to timely
acquire necessary variances needed to develop debtor’s realty following sale); In re Elm Creek
Joint Venture, 93 B.R. 105, 110 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1988) (finding that debtor’s chapter 11 plan
was feasible where there was a reasonable expectation that debtor’s assets would be sold
pursuant to plan and debtor’s claims would be paid through the proceeds from the sale, and that
“[t]here is no requirement that such payments will be guaranteed.”); In re Mount Vernon Plaza
Cmty. Urban Redevelopment Corp. I, 79 B.R. 306, 309 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1987) (finding
debtor’s chapter 11 plan was feasible where court held that proposed purchaser of debtor’s assets
was an “institution . . . of good reputation, other viable parties exist, and the time within which
the transactions are likely to occur is relatively short.”).
65. We anticipate that the WLB Debtors may argue that there is no feasibility
issue here because Talen and other counterparties to the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements all
need coal and will have to buy it from the Rosebud Mine regardless of whether there is an
agreement. But this is speculation at best and in direct contravention to public statements the
WLB Debtors have made. It is simply a reality that parties are frequently unable to come to
agreement even when it would be in their separate interests to do so. A stand-off may be as
likely as a deal. Given such a risk, aside from potential harm to the parties, rejecting the Colstrip
Coal Supply Agreements has the potential to cause damage to the public, including the hundreds
of Montana-based employees of the Rosebud Mine, and potentially also the hundreds of
employees of the Colstrip Plant if it results in a prolonged impasse and a curtailment of
operations or potential accelerated shutdown of the Colstrip Plant.
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 27 of 35

28
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
66. The WLB Debtors have perfectly profitable contracts for the sale of coal
that they could assume and ensure feasibility; instead, they are threatening to reject these
contracts with the apparent hope that they will be able to sell coal at prices above those that are
merely profitable and that their hostage Buyers will pay the ransom prices demanded. But hope
and speculation are insufficient to ensure WECO’s successor will have buyers for coal and
receive revenue without assuming the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements. The WLB Debtors are
therefore unable to meet their burden to satisfy the feasibility standard of section 1129(a)(11) of
the Bankruptcy Code.
D. If Court Authorizes Rejection of Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements, Court Should
Condition such Rejection upon an Adequate Transition Period for Wind-down of
Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements
67. If the Court grants the WLB Debtors’ rejection of the Colstrip Coal
Supply Agreements, it can and should do so only subject to clearly defined terms and conditions
that will minimize harm to Talen, the Co-Owners, and their stakeholders. In particular, the Court
should permit rejection only once Talen and the Co-Owners have entered into a coal supply
agreement with a third party, has acquired the permitting necessary to burn non-WECO coal at
the Colstrip Plant, and has completed construction of the infrastructure needed to receive coal
under a new agreement. Before those conditions are satisfied, WECO should be obligated to
continue performing under the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements. Alternatively, the Court could
set a future deadline at which point rejection would become effective, giving Talen and the
Co-Owners a reasonable time to begin operations under a third-party supply contract.
68. Without these conditions, Talen and the Co-Owners would suffer
irreparable harm from rejection, as they would be incapable of providing electricity to their
customers and would not have an opportunity to prepare operations for a third-party supplier.
Moreover, because WECO would continue to pass its costs through to Talen and the Co-Owners
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 28 of 35

29
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
and would continue to receive per-ton profits under the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements during
this transition period, such a condition would not burden the estate or the purchasers of WECO’s
assets.

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 29 of 35

30
WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should condition confirmation of the Plan
upon assumption of the Colstrip Coal Supply Agreements or, in the alternative, grant relief to the
parties in the manner described above to prevent the WLB Debtors from abusing the chapter 11
process for opportunistic gain and to minimize harm to Talen and other stakeholders.
Dated: January 25, 2019
Houston, Texas

/s/ Christopher M. Lopez
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Christopher M. Lopez (24041356)
Matthew S. Barr (pro hac vice pending)
Peter D. Isakoff (pro hac vice pending)
Ronit J. Berkovich (pro hac vice pending)

700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Talen Montana, LLC
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 30 of 35

WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on January 25, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served by the Electronic Case Filing System for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas, and will be served as set forth in the Affidavit of Service to be filed
by the Debtor’s proposed claims, noticing, and solicitation agent.

/s/ Christopher M. Lopez
Christopher M. Lopez

Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 31 of 35

Exhibit A

U34 Coal Supply Agreement

FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 32 of 35

WEIL:\96892153\1\76916.0004
Exhibit B

January 22, 2019 Email Correspondence
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 33 of 35
From:Koenig, Chris
To:Berkovich, Ronit; [e-mail]; Bow, Timothy Robert
Cc:Barr, Matt; Welch, Alexander; Li, David
Subject:RE: WECO/Talen
Date:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:49:52 AM
SUBJECT TO FRE 408

The below-referenced coal supply agreements were intentionally left off the assumed list, as the
Debtors currently intend to reject those agreements as of the Plan Effective Date, subject to the
ongoing business discussions about those agreements. We will adjust that plan provision
accordingly to be more clear.

Christopher S. Koenig
-----------------------------------------------------
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle, Chicago, IL 60654
T [phone] M [phone]
F [phone]-----------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]

From: Berkovich, Ronit <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:43 AM
To: Pesce, Gregory F. <[e-mail]>; Koenig, Chris <[e-mail]>;
Bow, Timothy Robert <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barr, Matt <[e-mail]>; Welch, Alexander <[e-mail]>; Li, David
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXT] WECO/Talen

K&E Team,

As you recall, we represent Talen Montana in the Westmoreland proceedings. We saw that the
Debtors filed the auction cancellation notice on the docket yesterday, which means that the stalking
horse bidders will be taking the assets. We reviewed the WLB Debtors’ Plan Supplement filed on
Friday and noticed that the assumed contracts schedule doesn’t list the coal supply agreements
between WECO and Talen (and other Colstrip owners). The Plan (Art. V Sec. A) that was negotiated
with the stalking horse bidders and filed on the docket seems to pretty clearly state that coal
purchase/sale contracts relating to Core Assets (which includes the Rosebud mine) will be deemed
assumed and assigned pursuant to the Plan, so perhaps the thought was that you didn’t also need to
include those on the assumption schedule.

In light of the imminent objection deadline, could you please confirm that the Debtors are assuming
and assigning those agreements pursuant to the Plan?

Thanks,
Ronit

Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 34 of 35
Case 18-35672 Document 1161 Filed in TXSB on 01/25/19 Page 35 of 35
Steve Bullock, Governor I Tom Livers, Director I P.O. Box 200901 I Helena, MT 59620-0901 I [phone] I www.deq.mt.gov

July 17, 2018

James M. Parker
Talen Montana, LLC
Colstrip Steam Electric Station
580 Willow Avenue
P.O Box 38
Colstrip, MT 59323

RE: Final Title V Operating Permit #OP0513-14

Dear Mr. Parker:

The Department of Environmental Quality has prepared the enclosed Final Operating Permit
#0513-14, for Talen Montana, LLC – Colstrip Steam Electric Station, located in Section 34,
Township 2 North, Range 41 East, in Rosebud County, Montana. Please review the cover page of
the attached permit for information pertaining to the action taking place on Permit #OP0513-14.

If you have any questions, please contact Ed Warner, the permit writer, at [phone] or by
email at [e-mail].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Merkel Ed Warner
Permitting Services Section Supervisor Lead Engineer – Permitting Services Section
Air Quality Bureau Air Quality Bureau
[phone] [phone]

JM: EW
Enclosure
cc: Robert Duraski, US EPA Region VIII 8P-AR
Robert Gallagher, USA EPA Region 8 – Montana Operations

Air, Energy & Mining Division
OP0513-14 i Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

STATE OF MONTANA
Department of Environmental Quality
Helena, Montana 59620

AIR QUALITY OPERATING PERMIT OP0513-14

Issued to: Talen Montana, LLC
Colstrip Steam Electric Station
580 Willow Avenue
P.O. Box 38
Colstrip, MT 59323

Final Date: July 17, 2018
Expiration Date: July 17, 2023
Renewal Application Due: July 17, 2022

Effective Date: July 17, 2018
Date of Decision: June 15, 2018
End of EPA 45-day Review: June 14, 2018
Proposed Issue Date: April 30, 2018
Draft Issue Date: March 15, 2018

Application Deemed Technically Complete: January 4, 2017
Application Deemed Administratively Complete: January 4, 2017
Renewal Application Received: January 4, 2017
AFS Number: 030-087-0008A

Permit Issuance and Appeal Processes: In accordance with Montana Code Annotated (MCA)
Sections 75-2-217 and 218 and the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), ARM Title 17, Chapter
8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program, this operating permit is hereby issued by the
Department of Environmental Quality (Department) as effective and final on July 17, 2018. This
permit must be kept on-site at the above-named facility.

OP0513-14 ii Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Montana Air Quality Operating Permit
Department of Environmental Quality

SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................... 1
SECTION II. SUMMARY OF EMISSION UNITS ............................................................... 2
SECTION III. PERMIT CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 3
A. FACILITY-WIDE ........................................................................................................................ 3
B. EU001 AND EU002 – TANGENTIAL COAL FIRED UNITS 1 & 2 ........................................ 9
C. EU003 AND EU004 – TANGENTIAL COAL FIRED UNITS 3 & 4 ...................................... 17
D. EU007, EU008, AND EU009– COAL HANDLING SYSTEMS (UNITS 1 & 2 –
ENCLOSED CONVEYORS, DUST SUPPRESSANT, TELESCOPIC CHUTE), COAL
HANDLING SYSTEMS (UNITS 3 & 4 – SILOS, DISTRIBUTION BIN, SURGE PILE
TUNNEL, CRUSHING AND SAMPLING HOUSE, AND VACUUM CLEANING SYSTEM)
AND COAL PILES .................................................................................................................... 30
E. EU010 – EMERGENCY ENGINES ......................................................................................... 32
F. EU012 - LIME HANDLING SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 35
G. EU013 - PLANT ROADS; EU014 – PROCESS PONDS ......................................................... 37
H. EU015 – UNDERGROUND GASOLINE TANK ..................................................................... 39
I. EU017 – TANGENTIAL COAL FIRED UNITS 1-4 MERCURY EMISSIONS ......................... 40
J. EU018 – MERCURY OXIDIZER/SORBENT HANDLING SYSTEMS (UNITS 1-4) .............. 42
SECTION IV. NON-APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 44
A. FACILITY-WIDE ...................................................................................................................... 44
B. EMISSION UNITS ..................................................................................................................... 45
SECTION V. GENERAL PERMIT CONDITIONS ........................................................ 46
A. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. 46
B. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 46
C. PERMIT SHIELD ...................................................................................................................... 47
D. MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ........................... 48
E. PROMPT DEVIATION REPORTING ....................................................................................... 49
F. EMERGENCY PROVISIONS ..................................................................................................... 50
G. INSPECTION AND ENTRY ...................................................................................................... 50
H. FEE PAYMENT ........................................................................................................................ 51
I. MINOR PERMIT MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 51
J. CHANGES NOT REQUIRING PERMIT REVISION ................................................................ 51
K. SIGNIFICANT PERMIT MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................. 54
L. REOPENING FOR CAUSE ....................................................................................................... 54
M. PERMIT EXPIRATION AND RENEWAL ................................................................................. 55
N. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE .......................................................................................................... 55
O. TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP ..................................................................... 55
P. EMISSIONS TRADING, MARKETABLE PERMITS, ECONOMIC INCENTIVES ..................... 56
Q. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS CONVEYED .................................................................................... 56
R. TESTING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................... 56
S. SOURCE TESTING PROTOCOL .............................................................................................. 56
T. MALFUNCTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 56
U. CIRCUMVENTION ................................................................................................................... 56
V. MOTOR VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 56
W. ANNUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY ........................................................................................ 56
X. OPEN BURNING ..................................................................................................................... 57
Y. MONTANA AIR QUALITY PERMITS ...................................................................................... 57
Z. NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARD FOR ASBESTOS ............................................................. 58
OP0513-14 iii Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

AA. ASBESTOS ................................................................................................................................ 58
BB. STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION – SERVICING OF MOTOR VEHICLE AIR
CONDITIONERS ...................................................................................................................... 58
CC. STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION – RECYCLING AND EMISSION
REDUCTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 58
DD. EMERGENCY EPISODE PLAN................................................................................................ 59
EE. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX A INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION UNITS ............................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C NOTIFICATION ADDRESSES ......................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY INSPECTOR INFORMATION ............................................... D-1
APPENDIX E OPACITY CEMS ................................................................................................. E-1
APPENDIX F SO2 CEMS ............................................................................................................. F-1
APPENDIX G NOX CEMS ......................................................................................................... G-1
APPENDIX H ACID RAIN ......................................................................................................... H-1
APPENDIX I COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING PLAN ...................................... I-1
APPENDIX J MERCURY EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM (MEMS) .......................... J-1

OP0513-14 1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Terms not otherwise defined in this permit or in the Definitions and Abbreviations Appendix B of
this permit have the meaning assigned to them in the referenced rules or regulations.

SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The following general information is provided pursuant to ARM 17.8.1210(1).

Company Name: Talen Montana, LLC

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 38

City: Colstrip State: MT Zip: 59323

Plant Name: Colstrip Steam Electric Station

Plant Location: Section 2, Township 2 North, Range 41 East, Rosebud County, Montana
Willow Avenue and Warehouse Road, Colstrip, Montana

Responsible Official: James M. Parker – Manager, ECS
Alternative Responsible Official: Stephen J. Christian – Manager, Environmental Compliance

Facility Contact Person: Neil Dennehy – Plant Manager
Alternative Contact Person: Gordon D. Criswell – Director, Environmental & Engineering
Compliance

Primary SIC Code: 4911, Electric Services (NAICS Code: 221112)

Nature of Business: Coal-fired thermal power generation

Description of Process: Four tangential coal-fired boilers and associated equipment for
generation of electricity.
OP0513-14 2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

SECTION II. SUMMARY OF EMISSION UNITS

The emission units regulated by this permit are the following (ARM 17.8.1211):

Emission
Units ID Description Pollution Control Device/Practice
EU001 Unit #1 – Tangential Coal Fired Boiler
Wet Venturi Scrubber, Low NOx
burner firing system and digital
controls (Alstom LNCFS II ® System)
EU002 Unit #2 – Tangential Coal Fired Boiler
Wet Venturi Scrubber, Low NOx
burner firing system and digital
controls (Alstom LNCFS II ® System)
modified with a Smartburn ® Low
NOx combustion system
EU003 Unit #3 – Tangential Coal Fired Boiler
Wet Venturi Scrubber, advanced low
NOx firing and digital controls for
NOx control (Alstom LNCFS III®
System) modified with a Smartburn ®
Low NOx combustion system
EU004 Unit #4 – Tangential Coal Fired Boiler
Wet Venturi Scrubber, advanced low
NOx firing and digital controls for
NOx control (Alstom LNCFS III®
System) modified with a Smartburn ®
Low NOx combustion system
EU007 Coal Handling System (1 & 2)
Enclosed conveyors
Dust suppressant
Enclosed downspout with elevation
doors
Dustless transfer chutes (certain
locations)
EU008
Coal Handling System – (silos, distribution bin,
surge pile tunnel, crushing and sampling house,
and vacuum cleaning system) (3 & 4)
Enclosed conveyors
Dust suppressant
Enclosed drop chute with elevation
doors
Dustless transfer chutes (certain
locations)
EU009 Coal Piles (Wind Erosion)
Sealant on some storage piles, Dust
suppression system, Enclosures, Wind
fences on three coal piles,
Water/chemical dust suppressant
application through sprays or water
trucks
EU010 Emergency Engines Operation per NSPS and NESHAP
EU012 Lime Handling System Pneumatic Unloading
EU013 Plant Roads Dust suppressant is applied annually
and water is applied as needed
EU014 Process Ponds Material is wet
EU015 Underground Gasoline Tank Permanent submerged fill pipe
EU017 Tangential Coal Fired Units 1-4 Mercury
Emissions Mercury oxidizer/sorbent
EU018 Mercury Oxidizer/Sorbent Handling Systems
(Units 1-4) Bin Vent Filter
OP0513-14 3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

SECTION III. PERMIT CONDITIONS

The following requirements and conditions are applicable to the facility or to specific emission units
located at the facility (ARM 17.8.1211, 1212, and 1213).

A. Facility-Wide

Conditions Rule Citation Rule Description Pollutant/Parameter Limit
A.1 ARM 17.8.105 Testing Requirements Testing Requirements -------
A.2 ARM 17.8.304(1) Visible Air
Contaminants Opacity 40%
A.3 ARM 17.8.304(2) Visible Air
Contaminants Opacity 20%
A.4 ARM 17.8.308(1) Particulate Matter,
Airborne Fugitive Opacity 20%
A.5 ARM 17.8.308(2) Particulate Matter,
Airborne Reasonable Precautions -------
A.6 ARM 17.8.308 Particulate Matter,
Airborne
Reasonable Precaution,
Construction 20%
A.7 ARM 17.8.309
Particulate Matter,
Fuel Burning
Equipment
Particulate Matter
E= 0.882 * H-
0.1664 Or
E= 1.026 * H-0.233
A.8 ARM 17.8.310 Particulate Matter,
Industrial Processes Particulate Matter E= 4.10 * P0.67 or
E= 55 * P0.11- 40
A.9 ARM 17.8.322(4)
Sulfur Oxide
Emissions, Sulfur in
Fuel
Sulfur in Fuel (liquid or
solid fuels)
1 lb/MMBtu
fired
A.10 ARM 17.8.322(5)
Sulfur Oxide
Emissions, Sulfur in
Fuel
Sulfur in Fuel (gaseous) 50 gr/100 CF
A.11 ARM 17.8.324(3)
Hydrocarbon
Emissions, Petroleum
Products
Gasoline Storage Tanks -------
A.12 ARM 17.8.324
Hydrocarbon
Emissions, Petroleum
Products
65,000 Gallon Capacity -------
A.13 ARM 17.8.324
Hydrocarbon
Emissions, Petroleum
Products
Oil-effluent Water
Separator -------
A.14 ARM 17.8.342 NESHAPs General
Provisions SSM Plans Submittal
OP0513-14 4 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Conditions Rule Citation Rule Description Pollutant/Parameter Limit
A.15
Board of Health
and
Environmental
Sciences (BHES)
Findings of Fact
and Conclusions
of Law signed on
November 21,
1975; this
requirement is
“State Only”

Major Facility Siting
Act (MFSA)
Requirements
Coal Utilized within
Units #3 and #4 As specified
A.16 CV-07-40-BLG-
RFC-CSO Consent Decree Various As specified
A.17 Case 1:13-cv-
00032-DLC-JCL Consent Decree Various As specified
A.18
ARM
17.8.1211(1)(c)
and 40 CFR Part
98
Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Reporting -------
A.19 ARM 17.8.1212 Reporting
Requirements
Prompt Deviation
Reporting -------
A.20 ARM 17.8.1212 Reporting
Requirements Compliance Monitoring -------
A.21 ARM 17.8.1207 Reporting
Requirements Annual Certification -------

Conditions

A.1. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.105, any person or persons responsible for the emissions of any air
contaminant into the outdoor atmosphere shall, upon written request of the Department,
provide the facilities and necessary equipment (including instruments and sensing devices)
and shall conduct test, emission or ambient, for such periods of time as may be necessary
using methods approved by the Department.

Compliance demonstration frequencies that list “as required by the Department” refer to
ARM 17.8.105. In addition, for such sources, compliance with limits and conditions listing
“as required by the Department” as the frequency, is verified annually using emission factors
and engineering calculations by the Department’s compliance inspectors during the annual
emission inventory review; in the case of Method 9 tests, compliance is monitored during
the regular inspection by the compliance inspector.

A.2. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.304(1), Talen shall not cause or authorize emissions to be discharged
into the outdoor atmosphere from any source installed on or before November 23, 1968,
that exhibit an opacity of 40% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes, unless
otherwise specified by rule or in this permit.

A.3. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.304(2), Talen shall not cause or authorize emissions to be discharged
into the outdoor atmosphere from any source installed after November 23, 1968, that
OP0513-14 5 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes, unless otherwise
specified by rule or in this permit.

A.4. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.308(1), Talen shall not cause or authorize the production, handling,
transportation, or storage of any material unless reasonable precautions to control emissions
of particulate matter (PM) are taken. Such emissions of airborne particulate matter from any
stationary source shall not exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit.

A.5. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.308(2), Talen shall not cause or authorize the use of any street, road
or parking lot without taking reasonable precautions to control emissions of airborne
particulate matter, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit.

OP0513-14 6 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

A.6. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.308, Talen shall not operate a construction site or demolition project
unless reasonable precautions are taken to control emissions of airborne PM. Such
emissions of airborne PM from any stationary source shall not exhibit an opacity of 20% or
greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this
permit.

A.7. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.309, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit, Talen shall
not cause or authorize PM caused by the combustion of fuel to be discharged from any stack
or chimney into the outdoor atmosphere in excess of the maximum allowable emissions of
PM for existing fuel burning equipment and new fuel burning equipment calculated using
the following equations:

For existing fuel burning equipment (installed before November 23, 1968):
E =0.882 * H-0.1664

For new fuel burning equipment (installed on or after November 23, 1968):
E =1.026 * H-0.233

Where H is the heat input capacity in million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour and E
is the maximum allowable particulate emissions rate in pounds per MMBtu.

A.8. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.310, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit, Talen shall
not cause or authorize PM to be discharged from any operation, process, or activity into the
outdoor atmosphere in excess of the maximum hourly allowable emissions of PM calculated
using the following equations:

For process weight rates up to 30 tons per hour: E = 4.10 * P0.67
For process weight rates in excess of 30 tons per hour: E = 55.0 * P0.11 – 40

Where E = rate of emissions in pounds per hour and p = process weight rate in tons per
hour.

A.9. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.322(4), Talen shall not burn liquid or solid fuels containing sulfur in
excess of 1 pound per MMBtu fired, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit.

A.10. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.322(5), Talen shall not burn any gaseous fuel containing sulfur
compounds in excess of 50 grains per 100 cubic feet of gaseous fuel, calculated as hydrogen
sulfide at standard conditions, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit.

A.11. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.324(3), Talen shall not load or permit the loading of gasoline into any
stationary tank with a capacity of 250 gallons or more from any tank truck or trailer, except
through a permanent submerged fill pipe, unless such tank is equipped with a vapor loss
control device or is a pressure tank as described in ARM 17.8.324(1), unless otherwise
specified by rule or in this permit.

OP0513-14 7 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

A.12. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.324, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit, Talen shall
not place, store or hold in any stationary tank, reservoir or other container of more than
65,000 gallon capacity any crude oil, gasoline or petroleum distillate having a vapor pressure
of 2.5 pounds per square inch absolute or greater under actual storage conditions, unless
such tank, reservoir or other container is a pressure tank maintaining working pressure
sufficient at all times to prevent hydrocarbon vapor or gas loss to the atmosphere, or is
designed and equipped with a vapor loss control device, properly installed, in good working
order and in operation.

A.13. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.324, unless otherwise specified by rule or in this permit, Talen shall
not use any compartment of any single or multiple-compartment oil-effluent water separator,
which compartment receives effluent water containing 200 gallons a day or more of any
petroleum product from any equipment processing, refining, treating, storing or handling
kerosene or other petroleum product of equal or greater volatility than kerosene, unless such
compartment is equipped with a vapor loss control device, constructed so as to prevent
emission of hydrocarbon vapors to the atmosphere, properly installed, in good working
order and in operation.

A.14. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR 63.6, Talen shall submit to the Department a copy
of any startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan required under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)
within 30 days of the effective date of this operating permit (if not previously submitted),
within 30 days of the compliance date of any new National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) or Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standard, and within 30 days of the revision of any such SSM plan, when
applicable. The Department requests submittal of such plans in electronic form, when
possible.

A.15. In accordance with the conditional certification of Colstrip Units #3 and #4 made pursuant
to Section 70-810 (L), Revised Code of Montana (R.C.M) 1947 of the Major Facility Siting
Act (MFSA), Talen shall utilize only coal from the Rosebud seam within Units #3 and #4
(Board of Health and Environmental Sciences (BHES) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law signed on November 21, 1975; this requirement is “State-Only”).

A.16. Talen shall comply with the following applicable terms of US EPA Consent Decree CV-07-
40-BLG-RFC-CSO (entered 5/14/07), and its Amendments, for the life of the Consent
Decree (ARM 17.8.1211):

a. Section IV: Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Emission Reductions and Controls;

b. Section V: Prohibition on Netting Credits or Offsets from Required Controls;

c. Section VI: Relationship to PSD Permit;

d. Section X: Periodic Reporting;

e. Section XII: Force Majeure (excluding the stipulated penalty components);

f. Section XIV: Permits; and

OP0513-14 8 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

g. Section XV: Information Collection and Retention.
A.17. Talen shall comply with the applicable terms of Consent Decree in Case 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-
JCL filed 09/06/16 (ARM 17.8.1211)

A.18. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.1211(1)(c) and 40 CFR Part 98, Talen shall comply with requirements
of 40 CFR Part 98 – Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, as applicable (ARM
17.8.1211(1)(c), NOT an applicable requirement under Title V).

A.19. Talen shall promptly report deviations from permit requirements including those attributable
to upset conditions, as upset is defined in the permit. To be considered prompt, deviations
shall be reported to the Department using the schedule and content as described in Section
V.E (unless otherwise specified in an applicable requirement) (ARM 17.8.1212).

A.20. On or before February 15 and August 15 of each year, Talen shall submit to the Department
the compliance monitoring reports required by Section V.D. These reports must contain all
information required by Section V.D, as well as the information required by each individual
emissions unit. For the reports due by February 15 of each year, Talen may submit a single
report, provided that it contains all the information required by Section V.B & V.D. Per
ARM 17.8.1207,

any application form, report, or compliance certification submitted pursuant to
ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 12 (including semiannual monitoring
reports), shall contain certification by a responsible official of truth, accuracy and
completeness. This certification and any other certification required under ARM
Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 12, shall state that, “based on
information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the
statements and information in the document are true, accurate
and complete.”

A.21. By February 15 of each year, Talen shall submit to the Department the compliance
certification report required by Section V.B. The annual certification report required by
Section V.B must include a statement of compliance based on the information available that
identifies any observed, documented or otherwise known instance of noncompliance for
each applicable requirement. Per ARM 17.8.1207,

any application form, report, or compliance certification submitted pursuant to
ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 12 (including annual certifications),
shall contain certification by a responsible official of truth, accuracy and
completeness. This certification and any other certification required under ARM
Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 12, shall state that, “based on
information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the
statements and information in the document are true, accurate
and complete.”
OP0513-14 9 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

B. EU001 and EU002 – Tangential Coal Fired Units 1 & 2

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
B.1, B.8, B.14,
B.15, B.25,
B.26, B.31,
B.32, B.33,
B.35, B.37

Opacity

20%/27%
COMS Ongoing Quarterly
Method 9
As required
by the
Department
and Section
III.A.1
Semiannually

B.2, B.16, B.25,
B.31, B.32,
B.35 B.37
Filterable PM 0.1 lb/MMBtu Method 5 or
5B Annual
B.3, B.8, B.9,
B.17, B.18,
B.22, B.25,
B.27, B.31,
B.32, B.35,
B.37
SO2 1.2 lb/MMBtu
Method 6 or
6C Annual Semiannually
CEMS Ongoing Quarterly
B.3, B.8, B.9,
B.11, B.17,
B.20, B.22,
B.25, B.27,
B.31, B.32,
B.35, B.37
NOx
0.7 lb/MMBtu
Method 7 or
7E Annual Semiannually
CEMS Ongoing Quarterly
0.40 lb/MMBtu
(annual average)
40 CFR Parts
72-78 and
Appendix H
As required
by Appendix
H

B.4, B.19, B.27,
B.29, B.32,
B.35
SO2
(Consent Decree 1:13-
cv-00032-DLC-JCL)
0.40 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling
average)
CEMS Ongoing Quarterly
B.4, B.19, B.27,
B.29, B.32,
B.35 NOx (Consent Decree 1:13-
cv-00032-DLC-JCL)
0.45 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling
average) for Unit
1 CEMS Ongoing Quarterly 0.20 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling
average) for Unit
2
B.4, B.19, B.27,
B.29, B.35
Units 1 & 2
(Consent Decree 1:13-
cv-00032-DLC-JCL)
Cease operation
by July 1, 2022 Notification Recordkeeping Initial
B.5, B.21, B.30,
B.35, B.36,
B.37
Emission Limitations-
40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart UUUUU
(Table 2)
Table 2 - 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
Semiannually
B.6, B.21, B.30,
B.35, B.36,
B.37
Work Practice
Standards - 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU (Table 3)
Table 3 - 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
B.7, B.21, B.30,
B.35, B.36,
B.37
Operating Limits - 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU (Table 4)
Table 4 - 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
OP0513-14 10 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
B.9, B.10, B.11,
B.17, B.22,
B.27, B.29,
B.31, B.34,
B.35, B.37
Acid Rain Provisions
40 CFR Parts 72-
78 and Appendix
H
40 CFR Parts
72-78 and
Appendix H
As required
by Appendix
H
Quarterly B.12, B.23,
B.28, B.31,
B.35, B.37 PM CAM Plan ARM 17.8.1506
Provisions
from CAM
Plan,
Appendix I
Ongoing
B.13, B.24,
B.31, B.35,
B.37
Scrubbers Maintain &
Operate Log Daily

Conditions

B.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize to be discharged into the atmosphere from Units 1 & 2
any visible emissions that exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes except for one 6-minute period per hour of not greater than 27% opacity (ARM
17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D).

B.2. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere filterable PM in excess of 0.10
lb/MMBtu, as averaged over 3 hours (minimum) of reference method testing (ARM
17.8.340, and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D).

B.3. Any gaseous emissions discharged into the atmosphere shall not exceed 1.2 lb/MMBtu
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and 0.7 lb/MMBtu NOx (ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
D).

B.4. The following conditions apply to Units 1 & 2 as required by Consent Decree Case 1:13-cv-
00032-DLC-JCL entered 9/06/16 (Consent Decree Case 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL):

a. Units 1 & 2 shall each achieve and maintain a 30-day rolling average emission rate for
SO2 of no greater than 0.40 lb/MMBtu.

b. Unit 1 shall achieve and maintain a 30-day rolling average emission rate for NOx of no
greater than 0.45 lb/MMBtu.

c. Unit 2 shall achieve and maintain a 30-day rolling average emission rate for NOx of no
greater than 0.20 lb/MMBtu.

d. On or before July 1, 2022, Talen and Puget Sound Energy shall cease combustion of fuel
at and permanently cease operation of the boilers for Colstrip Power Plant Units 1 and 2
and shall not, thereafter, burn any fuel in or otherwise operate those boilers. This
obligation applies to Talen and Puget Sound Energy (hereinafter, “Owners of Colstrip
Units 1 and 2”) as the current owners of Units 1 and 2. This obligation is transferable
pursuant to section VI of Consent Decree in Case 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL.

OP0513-14 11 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Note: The following definitions apply to the conditions required by Consent Decree Case
1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL:

• “Boiler” means such equipment used to facilitate combustion of fuel as well as the
transfer of heat generated to water so as to generate steam for use in an associated steam
turbine to generate electricity.

• “CEMS” or “Continuous Emission Monitoring System,” means, for obligations
involving the monitoring of NOx and SO2 emissions under this Consent Decree, the
devices defined in 40 CFR § 72.2 and installed and maintained as required by 40 CFR
Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 75.

• “Day” shall mean, unless otherwise specified, calendar day.

• “Emission Rate” for a given pollutant means the number of pounds of that pollutant
emitted per million British thermal units of heat input (lb/MMBtu), measured in
accordance with this Consent Decree.

• A “30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate” for a Unit shall be determined by calculating
an arithmetic average of all hourly emission rates in lb/MMBtu for the current Unit
Operating Day and all hourly emission rates in lb/MMBtu for the previous 29 Unit
Operating Days. A new 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate shall be calculated for
each new Unit Operating Day. Each 30-Day Rolling Average Emission Rate shall
exclude all data from periods of startup and shutdown, as defined in 40 CFR § 63.10042.

• “Unit Operating Day” means any Day on which a Unit fires any fossil fuel.

B.5. Talen shall comply with the applicable emission limitations of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units. These emission limits apply at all times except during periods
of startup and shutdown. As stated in 40 CFR § 63.9991, an existing source must comply
with the applicable emission limits summarized in the table below (ARM 17.8.342 and 40
CFR Part 63, Subparts A and UUUUU):

OP0513-14 12 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Pollutants (a, b, and c) Emission Limit
a. Filterable particulate matter (PM) 0.030 lb/MMBtu or 0.30 lb/MWh
OR
Total non-Hg HAP metals 0.000050 lb/MMBtu or 0.50 lb/GWh
OR
Individual HAP metals:
Antimony (Sb) 0.80 lb/TBtu or 0.0080 lb GWh
Arsenic (As) 1.1 lb/TBtu or 0.020 lb/GWh
Beryllium (Be) 0.20 lb/TBtu or 0.0020 lb/GWh
Cadmium (Cd) 0.30 lb/TBtu or 0.0030 lb/GWh
Chromium (Cr) 2.8 lb/TBtu or 0.030 lb/GWh
Cobalt (Co) 0.80 lb/TBtu or 0.0080 lb/GWh
Lead (Pb) 1.2 lb/TBtu or 0.020 lb/GWh
Manganese (Mn) 4.0 lb/TBtu or 0.050 lb/GWh
Nickel (Ni) 3.5 lb/TBtu or 0.040 lb/GWh
Selenium (Se) 5.0 lb/TBtu or 0.060 lb/GWh
b.
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.0020 lb/MMBtu or 0.020 lb/MWh
OR
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.20 lb/MMBtu or 1.5 lb/MWh
c. Mercury (Hg) 1.2 lb/TBtu or 0.013 lb/GWh

NOTE: Talen shall comply with the emission limits in the table for the pollutants in the rows labeled a., b.,
and c; however, the standard allows the source to elect the pollutant in rows a. and b. for which it will
demonstrate compliance. For row a, Talen may elect to demonstrate compliance with either filterable PM,
total non-Hg HAP metals, or each of the individually-listed HAP metal emission limits. For row b., Talen
may elect to demonstrate compliance with either the HCl or the SO2 limit. The SO2 limit may be used only if
some form of flue gas desulfurization is used and a SO2 CEMS installed.

B.6. Talen shall comply with the applicable work practice standards of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU (ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A and UUUUU).

B.7. Talen shall comply with the applicable operating limits of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU
(ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A and UUUUU).

B.8. Talen shall install, operate, calibrate and maintain continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) for the following:

a. A CEMS for the measurement of SO2 shall be operated on each stack (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR 60.45);

b. A CEMS for the measurement of NOx shall be operated on each stack (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR 60.45);

c. A CEMS for the measurement of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) shall be operated on each stack
(ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR 60.45);

d. A CEMS for the measurement of opacity shall be operated on each stack (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR 60.45); and

e. Continuous monitoring for stack gas temperature, stack gas moisture (where necessary),
megawatt production, and Btu per hour shall be performed on each unit (40 CFR 75.59).

OP0513-14 13 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

B.9. Talen shall comply with all requirements in the Acid Rain Appendix H of this permit
including the operation and maintenance of the SO2 and NOx CEMS (ARM 17.8.1210(3)).
B.10. Emissions shall not be permitted in excess of any allowances that Talen lawfully holds under
Title IV of the FCAA or the regulations promulgated thereunder (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(a)).

a. A permit revision is not required for increases in emissions authorized by allowances
acquired pursuant to the acid rain program, provided that such increases do not require a
permit revision under any other applicable requirement (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(b)).

b. Talen may not use allowances as a defense to noncompliance with any other applicable
requirement (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(c)).

c. Any allowances shall be accounted for according to the procedures established in
regulations promulgated under Title IV of the FCAA (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(d)).

B.11. Pursuant to 40 CFR 76.7, Talen shall not discharge or allow to be discharged, emissions of
NOx to the atmosphere in excess of 0.40 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis (40 CFR
76.7(a)).

B.12. Talen shall provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with emission limitations or
standards for the anticipated range of operations of the Tangential Coal-Fired Boilers, Units
1 & 2 for PM (ARM 17.8.1504).

B.13. Talen shall maintain and operate the scrubbers to control emissions on Units 1 & 2 (ARM
17.8.749).

Compliance Demonstration

B.14. Talen shall perform a Method 9 test on the boilers as required by the Department and
Section III.A.1 while the boilers are in operation to monitor compliance with the opacity
limitation in Section III.B.1. The testing shall be performed in accordance with the Montana
Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual or another method approved by the
Department (ARM 17.8.749 and ARM 17.8.106).

B.15. Talen shall operate and maintain the continuous opacity monitor (COM) to monitor
compliance with the opacity limitation in Section III.B.1. The operation and maintenance
shall be performed in accordance with the Opacity CEMS Appendix E of this permit (ARM
17.8.749).

B.16. Talen shall perform a Method 5 or 5B PM test annually during periods the equipment is in
operation to monitor compliance with the filterable PM limit in Section III.B.2. The testing
shall be performed in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures
Manual (ARM 17.8.749 and ARM 17.8.106).

B.17. Talen shall monitor compliance with emission limits in Section III.B.3 pursuant to the
requirements in 40 CFR Part 75, SO2 CEMS, Appendix F, and the NOx CEMS Appendix G
of this permit (ARM 17.8.1213).

OP0513-14 14 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

B.18. Talen shall perform a Method 6 or 6C test annually during periods of boiler operation to
monitor compliance with the SO2 limit in Section III.B.3. The testing shall be performed in
accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.749
and ARM 17.8.106).
B.19. Talen shall comply with the conditions of Consent Decree Case 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL
entered 9/06/16 as described in that document, including the following (ARM 17.8.1213
and Consent Decree Case 1:13-cv-00032-DLC-JCL):

a. Compliance with the 30-day rolling average emission rate limit for SO2 in Section
III.B.4.a for Units 1 & 2 shall be determined by emission data obtained from a CEMS
according to the procedures of 40 CFR Part 75, except that SO2 emissions data need not
be bias adjusted and the missing data substitution procedures of 40 CFR Part 75 shall
not apply to such determinations. Diluent capping (i.e., 5% CO2) will be applied to the
SO2 emission rate for any hours where the measured CO2 concentration is less than 5%
following the procedures in 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F, Section 3.3.4.1.

b. Compliance with the 30-day rolling average emission rate for NOx in Section III.B.4.b
and III.B.4.c for Units 1 & 2 shall be based on NOx emission data obtained from a
CEMS in accordance with the procedures of 40 CFR Part 75, except that NOx emissions
data need not be bias adjusted and the missing data substitution procedures of 40 CFR
Part 75 shall not apply to such determinations. Diluent capping (i.e., 5% CO2) will be
applied to the NOx emission rate for any hours where the measured CO2 concentration
is less than 5% following the procedures in 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F, Section 3.3.4.1.

c. Talen shall provide notification to the Department confirming the cessation of
operations for Units 1 & 2. The notification shall clearly indicate the final date of
operation for both Units 1 & 2.

B.20. Talen shall perform a Method 7 or 7E test annually during periods of boiler operation to
monitor compliance with the NOx limit in Section III.B.3. The testing shall be performed in
accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.749
and ARM 17.8.106).

B.21. Talen shall monitor compliance with the applicable emission limitations in Section III.B.5,
work practice standards in Section III.B.6, and the operating limits in Section III.B.7 in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU. Continued compliance shall be
demonstrated by conducting the required performance tests and monitoring in 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart UUUUU (ARM 17.8.1213, ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU).

B.22. Talen shall monitor compliance with the Acid Rain Provisions according to 40 CFR Parts
72-78 and Appendix H of this permit, including monitoring as described in the SO2 CEMS
Appendix F and NOx CEMS Appendix G of this permit (ARM 40 CFR Parts 72-78).

B.23. Talen shall monitor compliance by following the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM)
Plan (Appendix I). The CAM Plan, written by Colstrip in accordance with ARM 17.8.1504,
is included in Appendix I of the permit (ARM 17.8.1213 and ARM 17.8.1503).

OP0513-14 15 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

B.24. Talen shall maintain records of scrubber maintenance and operation to monitor compliance
with Section III.B.13 (ARM 17.8.1213).

Recordkeeping

B.25. All source testing recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the Montana Source
Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on site. Method 9 source test
reports for opacity need not be submitted unless requested by the Department (ARM
17.8.106).

B.26. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with the Opacity CEMS Appendix E
of this permit (ARM 17.8.1212).

B.27. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 and Appendix
H of this permit, the SO2 CEMS Appendix F, and the NOx CEMS Appendix G of this
permit (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Parts 72-78).

B.28. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with 40 CFR Part 64 and the CAM
Plan Appendix I of this permit (ARM 17.8.1212 and ARM 17.8.1513).

B.29. Talen shall maintain the following records (ARM 17.8.1212):

a. All SO2 and NOx CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling or
measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.

b. Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions measuring
systems including, but not limited to, any records required by 40 CFR Part 75.

c. Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on emission units, air pollution
control equipment, and CEMS.

d. Any other records required by 40 CFR Part 75.

e. All particulate matter stack test results.

B.30. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements
of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU).

B.31. Talen shall maintain as a permanent business record under its control for at least 5 years, all
records required for compliance monitoring. Furthermore, the records must be available at
the plant site for inspection by the Department and EPA, and must be submitted to the
Department upon request (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU).

Reporting

B.32. The testing results shall be submitted to the Department in accordance with the Montana
Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106 and ARM 17.8.1212).

OP0513-14 16 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

B.33. Reporting for the opacity CEMS shall be performed according to Appendix E of this permit
(ARM 17.8.1212).

B.34. Reporting for the Acid Rain Provisions shall be performed according to 40 CFR Parts 72-78
and Appendix H of this permit (40 CFR Parts 72-78).

B.35. The annual compliance certification report required by Section V.B must contain a
certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

B.36. Talen shall meet the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUUUU and
Section III.B.5 of this Operating Permit (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A
and UUUUU).

B.37. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide a compliance report meeting the applicable
reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU and Section III.B.5 of this
Operating Permit, a summary of results of any Method 9, Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, Method
6 or 6C, and Method 7 or 7E tests conducted during the period; the actual test reports for
Method 9 need only be submitted to the Department by request, as specified by Section
III.B.14 (ARM 17.8.1212).
OP0513-14 17 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

C. EU003 and EU004 – Tangential Coal Fired Units 3 & 4

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
C.1, C.24,
C.27, C.28,
C.46, C.48,
C.49, C.49,
C.51, C.54,
C.55, C.57,
C.58, C.59
Opacity 20%/27%
COMS Ongoing Quarterly
Method 9
As required
by the
Department
and Section
III.A.1 Semiannually
C.2, C.3, C.4,
C.29, C.30,
C.47, C.48,
C.54, C.55,
C.57
PM
0.05 lb/MMBtu
Method 5 or
Method 5B Annual
379 lb/hr
0.10 lb/MMBtu
C.4, C.5, C.6,
C.7, C.8,
C.24, C.31,
C.32, C.41,
C.48, C.49,
C.51, C.53,
C.54, C.55,
C.56, C.57,
C.58, C.59
SO2

1.2 lb/MMBtu Method 6 or 6C Annual
0.18 lb/MMBtu
(calendar day
average)
CEMS

Ongoing

Quarterly
761 lb/hr (30
day rolling
average)
1363 lb/hr
(calendar day
average)
4140 lb/hr (3-hr
rolling average)
C.9, C.33,
C.43, C.48,
C.54, C.55,
C.57, C.59
% sulfur 1% sulfur
content of coal
Weekly average
of composite
coal samples in
accordance with
Method 19
Ongoing Semiannually

C.4, C.10,
C.11, C.12,
C.24, C.34,
C.35, C.36,
C.41, C.44,
C.48, C.49,
C.51, C.53,
C.54, C.55,
C.56, C.57,
C.58, C.59
NOx
0.7 lb/MMBtu Method 7 or 7E Annual
CEMS Ongoing
Quarterly

5301 lb/hr
0.40 lb/MMBtu
(annual average)
40 CFR Parts
72-78 and
Appendix H
As required
by Appendix
H

OP0513-14 18 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements

E=0.2x+0.3y+0
.7z
x + y + z
Emissions limit
calculations
When
burning fuel
other than
coal
Semiannually
C.13, C.35,
C.41, C.49,
C.51, C.53,
C.54, C.55,
C.57, C.58,
C.59
NO2
0.7 lb/MMBtu
(calendar day
average)
CEMS Ongoing
Quarterly

C.14, C.20,
C.35, C.41,
C.49, C.51,
C.53, C.54,
C.55, C.57,
C.58, C.59
NOx (30-day rolling
average)
0.18 lb/MMBtu
if unit operating
> 400 MW
CEMS Ongoing
0.30 lb/MMBtu
if unit operating
=<400 MW
1,363 lb/hr
NOx (24-hour average)
0.25 lb/MMBtu
if unit operating
> 400 MW
0.30 lb/MMBtu
if unit operating
=<400 MW
1,893 lb/hr
C.15, C.37,
C.53, C.54,
C.55, C.56,
C.57, C.58
Emission Limitations-
40 CFR 63, Subpart
UUUUU (Table 2)
Table 2 - 40
CFR 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
Semiannually
C.16, C.37,
C.53, C.54,
C.55, C.56,
C.57
Work Practice
Standards - 40 CFR 63,
Subpart UUUUU
(Table 3)
Table 3 - 40
CFR 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
C.17, C.37,
C.53, C.55,
C.56, C.57,
C.58
Operating Limits - 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU (Table 4)
Table 4 - 40
CFR 63, Part
Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart
UUUUU
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
UUUUU
C.18, C.19,
C.38, C.45,
C.55, C.57 NOx Control
Operate digital
controls, low-
NOx burners,
overfire air
Documentation Ongoing Semiannually
C.21, C.38,
C.45, C.55,
C.57 NOx Control
Classification,
BART,
visibility, and
Baseline
Visibility
As required by
EPA
As required
by EPA
As required by
EPA
C.22, C.23,
C.39, C.49,
C.50, C.55,
C.57
Acid Rain Provisions
40 CFR Parts
72-78 and
Appendix H
40 CFR Parts
72-78 and
Appendix H
As required
by Appendix
H
Quarterly
OP0513-14 19 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
C.24, C.41,
C.46, C.49,
C.51, C.53,
C.55, C.57,
C.58
SO2
CEMS Install, Operate
and Maintain Ongoing
Quarterly

NOx
diluent
Opacity
C.25, C.40,
C.55, C.57 Heat Input 6.63 x 107
MMBtu/yr
Coal analysis
and tonnage Monthly
log Monthly
C.24, C.41,
C.49, C.51,
C.55, C.57 Stack Parameters Measure stack
parameters
Monitor stack
gas temperature,
moisture, Mwatt
production and
Btu/hr
Ongoing
C.26, C.42,
C.52, C.55,
C.57
PM CAM Plan ARM 17.8.1506
Provisions from
CAM Plan,
Appendix I
Ongoing

Conditions

C.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize to be discharged into the atmosphere from Units 3 & 4
any visible emissions that exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes except for one 6-minute period per hour of not greater than 27% opacity (ARM
17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D).

C.2. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere filterable PM in excess of 0.05
lb/MMBtu, as averaged over 3 hours (minimum) of reference method testing (40 CFR
52.21).

C.3. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere filterable PM in excess of 379
lb/hr (ARM 17.8.749).

C.4. Any gaseous emissions discharged into the atmosphere from burning coal shall not exceed
0.10 lb/MMBtu filterable PM, 1.2 lb/MMBtu SO2 and 0.7 lb/MMBtu NOx (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D).

C.5. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere SO2 at a rate of 0.18 lb/MMBtu
heat input, averaged over any calendar day, not to be exceeded more than once during any
calendar month (40 CFR 52.21).

C.6. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere SO2 at a rate of 761 lb/hr,
averaged over any rolling 30-day period, calculated each day at midnight, using hourly data
calculated each hour on the hour (40 CFR 52.21).

C.7. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere SO2 at a rate of 1363 lb/hr,
averaged over any calendar day, not to be exceeded more than once during any calendar
month (40 CFR 52.21).

OP0513-14 20 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

C.8. Talen shall be limited to a maximum of 4140 lb/hr of SO2 averaged over a 3-hr rolling
period from both Units 3 & 4 stacks combined (ARM 17.8.749).
C.9. Talen shall be limited to a sulfur content in coal of 1% (ARM 17.8.749 and BHES Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed on November 21, 1975; this requirement is “State
Only”).

Talen has developed a contingency plan for blending coal to achieve the 1.0% (sulfur as
received basis) limit. Implementation of the plan will not be required unless the coal exceeds
the “worst case coal” design criteria, which is a heat content of less than 8162 Btu/lb, and
ash content of greater than 12.5% and a sulfur content greater than 1%, all on an as-received
basis.

C.10. Pursuant to 40 CFR 76.7, Talen shall not discharge or allow discharged emissions of NOx to
the atmosphere in excess of 0.40 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis (40 CFR 76.7(a)).

C.11. Talen shall be limited to 5301 lb/hr of NOx from each of the tangential coal fired boilers,
Units 3 & 4 (ARM 17.8.749).

C.12. Any gaseous NOx emissions discharged into the atmosphere when burning fuel other than
coal shall not exceed (ARM 17.8.749):

E = 0.2x + 0.3y + 0.7z
x + y + z

where: E = allowable emissions in lb/MMBtu heat input
x = fraction of total heat input derived from gaseous fuels
y = fraction of total heat input derived from liquid fuels
z = fraction of total heat input derived from solid fuels.

C.13. Talen shall not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere NOx, expressed as NO2, at a rate
exceeding 0.7 lb/MMBtu, as averaged over any calendar day (40 CFR 52.21).

C.14. Beginning January 1, 2008, for Unit 3 and January 19, 2010, for Unit 4, Talen shall not
exceed any of the following NOx emission limits from Units 3 or 4 (ARM 17.8.749, Consent
Decree CV-07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO entered 5/14/07 and Stipulation to Consent Decree CV-
07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO entered 12/22/09):

a. 30-day rolling average emission rate of:

i. 0.18 lb/MMBtu weighted average for each hour that either unit is operating above
400 gross megawatts (MW); and

ii. 0.30 lb/MMBtu weighted average for each hour that either unit is operating at or
below 400 gross MW

b. 1,363 lb/hr 30-day rolling average emission rate for each unit

c. 24-hour average emission rate (for each Operating Day) of:

OP0513-14 21 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

i. 0.25 lb/MMBtu weighted average for each hour that either unit is operating above
400 gross MW; and

ii. 0.30 lb/MMBtu weighted average for each hour that either unit is operating at or
below 400 gross MW

d. 1,893 lb/hr 24-hour average emission rate (for each Operating Day) for each unit.

For the purposes of this section, if a unit is operating above 400 MW for part of one hour
and at or below 400 MW for the remainder of that hour, the applicable emissions limits shall
be based on the average load for the hour. In addition, the emission rates for this condition
are considered for an “Operating Day” as defined in the Consent Decree entered 5/14/07
(CV-07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO), except for the purposes of the Montana Air Quality Permits
(MAQP), “Operating Day” means any calendar day (midnight to midnight) in which any fuel
is combusted in the unit.

C.15. Talen shall comply with the applicable emission limitations of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units. These emission limits apply at all times except during periods of
startup and shutdown. As stated in 40 CFR § 63.9991, an existing source must comply with the
applicable emission limits summarized in the table below (ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63,
Subparts A and UUUUU):

Pollutants (a, b, and c) Emission Limit
a. Filterable particulate matter (PM) 0.030 lb/MMBtu or 0.30 lb/MWh

OR
Total non-Hg HAP metals 0.000050 lb/MMBtu or 0.50 lb/GWh
OR
Individual HAP metals:
Antimony (Sb) 0.80 lb/TBtu or 0.0080 lb GWh
Arsenic (As) 1.1 lb/TBtu or 0.020 lb/GWh
Beryllium (Be) 0.20 lb/TBtu or 0.0020 lb/GWh
Cadmium (Cd) 0.30 lb/TBtu or 0.0030 lb/GWh
Chromium (Cr) 2.8 lb/TBtu or 0.030 lb/GWh
Cobalt (Co) 0.80 lb/TBtu or 0.0080 lb/GWh
Lead (Pb) 1.2 lb/TBtu or 0.020 lb/GWh
Manganese (Mn) 4.0 lb/TBtu or 0.050 lb/GWh
Nickel (Ni) 3.5 lb/TBtu or 0.040 lb/GWh
Selenium (Se) 5.0 lb/TBtu or 0.060 lb/GWh
b.
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.0020 lb/MMBtu or 0.020 lb/MWh
OR
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.20 lb/MMBtu or 1.5 lb/MWh
c. Mercury (Hg) 1.2 lb/TBtu or 0.013 lb/GWh
NOTE: Talen shall comply with the emission limits in the table for the pollutants in the rows labeled a., b.,
and c; however, the standard allows the source to elect the pollutant in rows a. and b. for which it will
demonstrate compliance. For row a, Talen may elect to demonstrate compliance with either filterable PM,
total non-Hg HAP metals, or each of the individually-listed HAP metal emission limits. For row b., Talen
may elect to demonstrate compliance with either the HCl or the SO2 limit. The SO2 limit may be used only if
some form of flue gas desulfurization is used and a SO2 CEMS installed.

C.16. Talen shall comply with the applicable work practice standards of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU (ARM 17.8.342 and ARM 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A and UUUUU).
OP0513-14 22 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

C.17. Talen shall comply with the applicable operating limits of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU
(ARM 17.8.342 and ARM 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A and UUUUU).

C.18. Talen shall operate digital controls, low-NOx burners and overfire air on Unit 3 sufficient to
meet the emissions limits in Section III.C.14 (ARM 17.8.749 and Consent Decree CV-07-40-
BLG-RFC-CSO entered 5/14/07).

C.19. By January 1, 2009, Talen shall complete the final design and by January 19, 2010, Talen
shall install and operate digital controls, low-NOx burners and overfire air on Unit 4
sufficient to meet the Unit 4 emissions limits in Section III.C.14 (ARM 17.8.749, Consent
Decree CV-07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO entered 5/14/07 and Stipulation to Consent Decree CV-
07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO entered 12/22/09).

C.20. The Unit 3 & 4 NOx emission limits specified in Section III.C.14 shall apply at all times,
including periods of start-up, shutdown, load fluctuation, maintenance and malfunction,
regardless of cause (ARM 17.8.749 and Consent Decree CV-07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO entered
5/14/07).

C.21. Should the Northern Cheyenne Reservation be redesignated to any PSD classification less
stringent than Class I, the following conditions in Section III.C.21 shall be of no force and
effect. However, any control designed and implemented pursuant to Section III.C.21 shall
remain operable.

At such time as EPA promulgates requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) for NOx control under the Clean Air Act, Talen shall review Colstrip Units 3 & 4
for implementation of BART for NOx control. Talen shall submit this analysis and
recommendation for appropriate control to EPA for review and approval. This BART
determination by EPA shall be subject to a formal hearing on the record after due notice to
Talen and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The determination of what constitutes BART
shall be specific to Units 3 & 4 and shall take into consideration the costs of compliance, the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the
degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. Failure to implement those control measures found to constitute
BART shall be a violation of this permit. Compliance with the requirements of the consent
decree entered 5/14/07 is deemed to satisfy this above requirement (Consent Decree CV-
07-40-BLG-RFC-CSO entered 5/14/07, EPA PSD Permit, and 40 CFR 52.21).

If there is a perceptible particulate plume on the Northern Cheyenne Tribe Reservation, as
observed by an impartial observer designated by EPA, Talen shall review Units 3 & 4 for
implementation of BART for PM control. Talen shall submit this analysis and a
recommendation for appropriate control to EPA for review and approval. This BART
determination by EPA shall be subject to a formal hearing on the record after due notice to
Talen and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. The determination of what constitutes BART
shall be specific to Units 3 & 4 and shall take into consideration the costs of compliance, the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the
degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
OP0513-14 23 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

use of such technology. Failure to implement those control measures found to constitute
BART shall be a violation of this permit (EPA PSD Permit and 40 CFR 52.21).

OP0513-14 24 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

C.22. Talen shall comply with all requirements in the Acid Rain Appendix H of this permit (ARM
17.8.1210).

C.23. Emissions shall not be permitted in excess of any allowances that Talen lawfully holds under
Title IV of the FCAA or the regulations promulgated thereunder (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(a)).

a. A permit revision is not required for increases in emissions authorized by allowances
acquired pursuant to the acid rain program, provided that such increases do not require a
permit revision under any other applicable requirement (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(b)).

b. Talen may not use allowances as a defense to noncompliance with any other applicable
requirement (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(c)).

c. Any allowances shall be accounted for according to the procedures established in
regulations promulgated under Title IV of the FCAA (ARM 17.8.1210(3)(d)).

C.24. Talen shall install, operate, calibrate and maintain CEMS for the following:

a. A CEMS for the measurement of SO2 shall be operated on each stack (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR 60.45);

b. A CEMS for the measurement of NOx shall be operated on each stack (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR 60.45);

c. A CEMS for the measurement of diluent (CO2 or oxygen) shall be operated on each
stack (ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR 60.45);

d. A CEMS for the measurement of opacity shall be operated on each stack (ARM 17.8.340
and 40 CFR 60.45); and

e. Continuous monitoring for stack gas temperature, stack gas moisture (where necessary),
megawatt production, and Btu per hour shall be performed on each unit (40 CFR 52.21
and 40 CFR 75.59).

f. Talen shall maintain the data acquisition system such that load data in megawatts is
recorded no less than once per minute (ARM 17.8.749 and Consent Decree CV-07-40-
BLG-RFC-CSO entered 5/14/07).

C.25. Talen shall not exceed the heat input value of 6.63 x 107 MMBtu/yr averaged over any
rolling 12-month period (ARM 17.8.749).

C.26. Talen shall provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with emission limitations or
standards for the anticipated range of operations at the Tangential Coal-fired Boilers, Units 3
& 4 for PM (ARM 17.8.1504).

OP0513-14 25 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Compliance Demonstration

C.27. Talen shall perform a Method 9 test or another method approved by the Department to
monitor compliance with the opacity limitation in Section III.C.1. The testing shall be
performed in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual
(ARM 17.8.749 and ARM 17.8.106).

C.28. Talen shall operate and maintain the opacity CEM to monitor compliance with the opacity
limitation in Section III.C.1 according to the Opacity CEMS Appendix E (ARM 17.8.1213).

C.29. Talen shall perform a Method 5 or Method 5B PM test, or another method approved by the
Department, on the boilers annually to monitor compliance with the filterable PM fuel
burning limitation in Section III.C.2 and III.C.3. The testing shall be performed in
accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual and the heat
input must be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix F, §5. Procedures for
Heat Input (ARM 17.8.106 and 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix F).

C.30. Talen shall operate and maintain the venturi scrubbers in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations to control emissions on Units 3 & 4 in demonstrating compliance with
filterable PM limitations (ARM 17.8.1213).

C.31. Talen shall perform a Method 6 or 6C test annually, to monitor compliance with the SO2
limit in Section III.C.4. Heat input must be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75
Appendix F, §5. Procedures for Heat Input (ARM 17.8.1213 and 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix
F).

C.32. Talen shall operate and maintain the SO2 CEMS in accordance with the SO2 CEMS
Appendix F of this permit (ARM 17.8.1213).

C.33. Compliance with the sulfur in coal limit in Section III.C.9 shall be based on a weekly average
of individual daily composite coal samples as measured by 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
Method 19 or another sampling schedule as approved by the Department (ARM 17.8.1213
and BHES Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed on November 21, 1975; this
requirement is “State Only”).

C.34. Talen shall perform a Method 7 or 7E test annually, to monitor compliance with the NOx
limit in Section III.C.4. Heat input must be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75
Appendix F, §5. Procedures for Heat Input (ARM 17.8.1213 and 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix
F).

C.35. Talen shall operate and maintain the NOx CEMS in accordance with the NOx CEMS
Appendix G of this permit (ARM 17.8.1213).

C.36. Talen shall maintain a log of any exceedance of NOx when burning fuel other than coal as
required by Section III.C.12. The Department will compare the calculated emission limit
with the results from the NOx CEMS (ARM 17.8.1213).

OP0513-14 26 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

C.37. Talen shall monitor compliance with the applicable emission limitations in Section III.C.15,
work practice standards in Section III.C.16, and the operating limits in Section III.C.17 in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU. Continued compliance shall be
demonstrated by conducting the required performance tests and monitoring in 40 CFR Part
63, Subpart UUUUU (ARM 17.8.1213, ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
UUUUU).

C.38. Talen shall monitor compliance with Section III.C.21 as required by EPA in the consent
decree entered May 14, 2007. As part of these requirements, Talen will maintain records
demonstrating compliance with the NOx emission control requirements contained in Section
III.C.18 & C.19 (ARM 17.8.1213, ARM 17.8.749, and Consent Decree CV-07-40-BLG-
RFC-CSO entered 5/14/07).

C.39. Talen shall monitor compliance with Section III.C.22 and C.23 as required by Appendix H –
Acid Rain Appendix (ARM 17.8.1213 and Appendix H).

C.40. Compliance with the heat input limit of Section III.C.25 shall be monitored based on the
total tons of coal combusted in each of the boilers multiplied by a representative average Btu
content for the coal. Talen shall document, by month, the total fuel combusted in each
boiler. By the 25th day of each month, Talen shall calculate the tons of coal combusted for
the previous month. The monthly information will be used to verify compliance with the
rolling 12-month limitation in Section III.C.25. The information for each of the previous 12
months shall be submitted to the Department along with the either the annual emission
inventory or with other periodic reports as approved by the Department. The coal analysis
shall be done as required by the NOx CEMS Appendix G, Section 5, 6, and 7 (ARM
17.8.1213).

C.41. All continuous monitors shall be operated, excess emissions reported, and performance tests
conducted, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D, 40 CFR
60.7, 60.8, 60.11, 60.13, and 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B Performance Specifications #1, #2,
and #3 subject to the following:

a. The requirements of 40 CFR 60.48Da – Compliance Provisions (40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Da) shall apply to Units 3 & 4 (40 CFR 52.21);

b. The requirements of 40 CFR 60.49Da – Emissions Monitoring (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
Da) shall apply to Units 3 & 4 (40 CFR 52.21);

c. The requirements of 40 CFR 60.50Da – Compliance Determination Procedure and
Methods (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da) shall apply to Units 3 & 4 (40 CFR 52.21);

d. The requirements of 40 CFR 60.51Da – Reporting Requirements (40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Da) shall apply to Units 3 & 4 (40 CFR 52.21);

e. Talen shall operate the required monitors in accordance with the CEMS quality
assurance (QA) plan submitted to the EPA in May 1998, unless an updated plan is
accepted by the EPA. This plan may be revised by Talen with approval of the
Department (40 CFR 52.21);

OP0513-14 27 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

f. Compliance requirements of 40 CFR 60.11(a) shall be amended per Section III.C.24 (40
CFR 52.21);

g. Each monitor modular part (i.e., opacity, SO2, NOx, diluent, and data handling units) of a
continuous monitoring system shall attain a minimum annual on-line availability time of
85% on a minimal quarterly availability of 75% for each individual quarter. Should any
given yearly or quarterly availability time drop below these respective limits, Talen shall,
within 90 days of the end of the first unexcused year or quarter, cause to be delivered to
the facility factory tested and compatible monitor module(s) which had unacceptable
availability times, unless Talen can excuse the unacceptable performance by
demonstrating, within ten calendar days of the end of such year or quarter, that the
reason for the poor availability time has not caused another previous occurrence of
unacceptable availability in question will be prevented in the future by a more effective
maintenance/inventory program (40 CFR 52.21);

h. Upon two non-overlapping periods of unexcused, unacceptable availability of a module
(yearly, quarterly or combination), Talen shall within 30 days of the end of the year or
quarter of the second unacceptable availability period, install, calibrate, operate, maintain,
and report emission data using the second compatible module required by (g) above (40
CFR 52.21);

i. Within 60 days of the year or the quarter causing the second unacceptable availability
period under Section (h) above, Talen shall conduct a complete performance evaluation
of the entire CEMS for that pollutant under 40 CFR 60.13(c) showing acceptability of
the entire CEMS in question unless the module was the data handling unit alone. Within
75 days of the end of the year or quarter causing the second unacceptable availability
period, Talen shall furnish the Department with a written report of such evaluations and
tests demonstrating acceptability of the system (40 CFR 52.21); and

j. In the event of a conflict between the requirements of the above-referenced federal
regulations [specifically 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da] and the requirements of this
permit, the requirements of this permit shall apply.

C.42. Talen shall monitor compliance by following the CAM Plan (Appendix I). The CAM Plan,
written by Talen in accordance with ARM 17.8.1504, is included in Appendix I of the
permit. (ARM 17.8.1213 and ARM 17.8.1503).

Recordkeeping

C.43. Talen shall maintain, on site, a log of the results of the daily composite coal samples as
required by Section III.C.33 and submit them to the Department upon request (ARM
17.8.1212).

C.44. Talen shall maintain, on site, a log to record the emission limit calculations when burning
fuel other than coal (ARM 17.8.1212).

C.45. Talen shall complete all recordkeeping for Section III.C.21 and III.C.38 as required by EPA
(ARM 17.8.1212).

OP0513-14 28 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

C.46. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with the Opacity CEMS Appendix E
of this permit (ARM 17.8.1212).

C.47. Talen shall prepare and maintain records of all inspection, maintenance, and operation
activities associated with the venturi scrubbers (ARM 17.8.1212).

C.48. All source-testing recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the Montana Source
Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on site. Method 9 source test
reports for opacity need not be submitted unless requested by the Department (ARM
17.8.106).

C.49. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 and Acid Rain
Appendix H, the SO2 CEMS Appendix F, and the NOx CEMS Appendix G of this permit
(ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Parts 72-78).

C.50. Talen shall complete all recordkeeping for Section III.C.22 and C.23 as required by the Acid
Rain Appendix H in this permit (ARM 17.8.1212).

C.51. Talen shall maintain on-site records for the CEMS and the stack parameter data as required
in Section III.C.41 (ARM 17.8.1212).

C.52. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with 40 CFR Part 64 and the CAM
Plan Appendix I of this permit (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Part 64).

C.53. Records shall be prepared and data kept in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements
of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUUUU).

C.54. Talen shall maintain, as a permanent business record under its control for at least 5 years, all
records required for compliance monitoring. Furthermore, the records must be available at
the plant site for inspection by the Department and EPA, and must be submitted to the
Department upon request (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart UUUUU).

Reporting

C.55. The annual compliance certification report required by Section V.B must contain a
certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

C.56. Talen shall meet the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUUUU and
Section III.C.15 of this Operating Permit (ARM 17.8.1212 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subparts A
and UUUUU).

C.57. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide (ARM 17.8.1212):

a. A summary of the log of daily composite coal samples;

b. A summary of any Method 9, 5, 5B, 6, 6C, 7, or 7E test conducted during the period; the
actual test report for Method 9 tests need only be submitted to the Department upon
request, as specified by Section III.C.27;

OP0513-14 29 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

c. A compliance report meeting the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart UUUUU and Section III.C.15 of this Operating Permit;

d. A summary of the stack parameter data and any other reports as required by Section
III.C.51; and

e. A summary of the log required by Section III.C.36.

C.58. Talen shall submit a written report of excess emission and monitoring system performance
as required by 40 CFR 60.7(c). For the purposes of the report, excess emission shall be
defined as any 6-minute, 3-hour, 24-hour, or 30-day period as applicable, for which the
average emissions of the period of concern for opacity, NOx, SO2, as measured by the
CEMS, exceed the applicable emissions for the periods as follows:

a. 6-minute average applies to each 6-minute non-overlapping period starting on the hour;

b. 3-hour period applies to any running 3-hour period containing 3 contiguous one-hour
periods, starting on the hour;

c. 24-hour period applies to any calendar day; and

d. 30-day period applies to any running period of 30 consecutive operating calendar days.

C.59. Talen shall submit the following information along with the excess emission reports:

a. The fuel feed rate and associated production figures corresponding to all periods of
excess emissions (40 CFR 52.21);

b. The proximate analysis of the weekly composite sample of the fuel fired in each unit (40
CFR 52.21); and

c. Date, time and initial calibration values for each required calibration adjustment made on
any monitor during the quarter, including any time in which the monitor was removed or
inoperable for any reason (40 CFR 52.21).

OP0513-14 30 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

D. EU007, EU008, and EU009– Coal Handling Systems (Units 1 & 2 – Enclosed conveyors,
dust suppressant, telescopic chute), Coal Handling Systems (Units 3 & 4 – silos,
distribution bin, surge pile tunnel, crushing and sampling house, and vacuum cleaning
system) and Coal Piles

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirement
s
D.1, D.2, D.5,
D.6, D.7, D.9,
D.10, D.12,
D.13
Opacity 20%

Visual
Survey/Method
9
Weekly
Semiannually

D.3, D.6, D.9,
D.10, D.12,
D.13
PM E = 55 * p0.11 –
40
Visual
Survey/Method
9
Weekly
D.4, D.8,
D.11, D.12,
D.13
Uncovered coal
storage piles
Sealed Operation of
controls
Ongoing

Conditions

D.1. Talen may not cause or authorize emissions from the Coal Handling Systems and Coal Piles
to be discharged into the outdoor atmosphere that exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater
averaged over 6 consecutive minutes (ARM 17.8.304(2)).

D.2. Talen shall not cause or authorize the production, handling transportation, or storage of any
material unless reasonable precautions to control emissions of PM are taken. Such
emissions of airborne particulate from any stationary source shall not exhibit an opacity of
20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive minutes (ARM 17.8.308(1)).

D.3. The particulate emissions from process weight shall not exceed the value calculated by E =
55.0 * p0.11 – 40, where E = Emissions in pounds per hour and P = process weight rate in
tons per hour (ARM 17.8.310).

D.4. Uncovered coal storage piles, which are not routinely in use, must be sealed to prevent
airborne emissions (ARM 17.8.749).

Compliance Demonstration

D.5. Talen shall conduct a weekly visual survey of visible emissions on the Coal Handling System.
Once per calendar week, during daylight hours, Talen shall visually survey the Coal Handling
System for any visible emissions. If visible emissions are observed during the visual survey,
Talen must conduct a Method 9 source test. The Method 9 source test must begin within
one hour of any observation of visible emissions. If visible emissions meet or exceed 15%
opacity based on the Method 9 source test, Talen shall immediately take corrective action to
contain or minimize the source of emissions. If corrective actions are taken, then Talen shall
immediately conduct a subsequent visual survey (and subsequent Method 9 source test if
visible emissions remain) to monitor compliance. The person conducting the visual survey
shall record the results of the survey (including the results of any Method 9 source test
OP0513-14 31 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

performed) and any corrective action taken in a log. Conducting a visual survey does not
relieve Talen of the liability for a violation determined using Method 9 (ARM 17.8.1213).
D.6. For Units 3 & 4, Talen shall use a dust suppression system using chemical or water sprays in
Lowering Well “A”, Lowering Well “B”, the coal at transfer points in area “C” transfer
house, and the vibratory feeders associated with Conveyor 80A as necessary to monitor
compliance with Section III.D.2 (ARM 17.8.1213).

D.7. For Units 1 & 2, Talen shall use enclosed conveyors to contain dust from handling and
crushing materials. An enclosed drop chute with elevation doors shall be used to contain
dust from materials falling from Lowering Wells #6, and #7. Dust suppressant shall be used
as necessary to reduce particulate emission from coal (ARM 17.8.1213).

D.8. Talen shall maintain an onsite log of all actions taken to monitor compliance with Section
III.D.4. The log should include the action taken along with the date and time the action
occurred (ARM 17.8.1213).

Recordkeeping

D.9. All source test recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the test method used
and the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on
site. The reports must be submitted in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol
and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

D.10. Talen shall maintain on-site a log containing all visual observations monitoring compliance
with the visual survey requirement(s). The log shall include, at a minimum, the required
information, the date, the time, and the initials of the documenting personnel (ARM
17.8.1212).

D.11. Recordkeeping of the log required in Section III.D.8 shall be maintained on site (ARM
17.8.1212).

Reporting

D.12. The annual compliance certification report required by Section V.B must contain a
certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

D.13. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide a (ARM 17.8.1212):

a. Summary of all visual observations monitoring compliance with the visual survey
requirements; and

b. Summary of the log relating to the actions taken on the uncovered coal piles.

OP0513-14 32 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

E. EU010 – Emergency Engines

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
E.1, E.6, E.8,
E.11, E.12,
E.16, E.17,
E.18
Opacity 20% Visual
Survey/Method
9
Weekly Semiannually

E.2, E.7,
E.11, E.13,
E.15, E.16,
E.17, E.18
Particulate from fuel
combustion
E = 1.026 *
H-0.233
Method 5 As required
by the
Department
and Section
III.A.1
Semiannually
E.3, E.8,
E.11, E.13,
E.17, E.18
Hours of Operation Operations
Limited to
Specific
Situations
Operating Log Monthly Semiannually
E.4, E.9,
E.14, E.17,
E.19
40 CFR Part 60,
Subparts IIII & JJJJ
40 CFR Part
60, Subparts
IIII & JJJJ
40 CFR Part
60, Subparts
IIII & JJJJ
40 CFR
Part 60,
Subparts
IIII & JJJJ
40 CFR Part
60, Subparts
IIII & JJJJ
E.5, E.10,
E.15, E.17,
E.20
40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart ZZZZ
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
ZZZZ
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
ZZZZ
40 CFR
Part 63,
Subpart
ZZZZ
40 CFR Part
63, Subpart
ZZZZ

Conditions

E.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize emissions to be discharged into the outdoor atmosphere
from any source that exhibits an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes (ARM 17.8.304(2)).

E.2. Talen shall not cause or authorize PM caused by the combustion of fuel to be discharged
from any stack or chimney into the outdoor atmosphere in excess of E = 1.026 * H-0.233 for
existing fuel burning equipment, where H = heat input capacity in MMBtu/hr and E
maximum allowable emission rate in lbs/MMBtu (ARM 17.8.309).

E.3. Talen shall limit the use of the emergency diesel engines to times of need for emergency
power generation or up to 100 hours per year for maintenance and testing in accordance
with 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ (ARM 17.8.342, 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ, and ARM
17.8.749).

E.4. Talen shall comply with all applicable standards and limitations, and the reporting,
recordkeeping, and notification requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII,
Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines & Subpart
JJJJ, Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, for any
applicable engine (ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII & JJJJ).

OP0513-14 33 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

E.5. Talen shall comply with all applicable standards and limitations, and the reporting,
recordkeeping, and notification requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ,
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines, for any applicable engine (ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
ZZZZ).

Compliance Demonstration

E.6. Only in times of engine operations, Talen shall conduct a weekly visual survey (during
daylight hours) of visible emissions on the emergency diesel engines. If visible emissions are
observed during the visual survey, Talen must conduct a Method 9 source test. The Method
9 source test must begin within one hour of any observation of visible emissions. If visible
emissions meet or exceed 15% opacity based on the Method 9 source test, Talen shall
immediately take corrective action to contain or minimize the source of emissions. If
corrective actions are taken, then Talen shall immediately conduct a subsequent visual survey
(and subsequent Method 9 source test if visible emissions remain) to monitor compliance.
The person conducting the visual survey shall record the results of the survey (including the
results of any Method 9 source test performed) and any corrective action taken in a log.
Conducting a visual survey does not relieve Talen of the liability for a violation determined
using Method 9 (ARM 17.8.1213).

E.7. As required by the Department and Section III.A.1, Talen shall perform a Method 5 in
accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

E.8. Compliance with the limits in Section III.E.3 shall be demonstrated by logging the date,
time, hours of operation, reason for use, and operator’s initials whenever the emergency
diesel engines are used. Talen shall clearly specify within this log the hours of operation for
maintenance and testing purposes, or maintain a separate log for this information (ARM
17.8.1213).

E.9. Compliance monitoring shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts
IIII & JJJJ, as applicable (ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII & JJJJ).

E.10. Compliance monitoring shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
ZZZZ, as applicable (ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ).

Recordkeeping

E.11. All source test recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the test method used
and the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on
site. The reports must be submitted in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol
and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

E.12. Talen shall maintain on-site a log containing all visual observations monitoring compliance
with the visual survey requirement(s). The log shall include, at a minimum, the required
information, the date, the time, and the initials of the documenting personnel (ARM
17.8.1212).

OP0513-14 34 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

E.13. Talen shall maintain on site a log as described in Section III.E.8. Talen shall log the monthly
sum of the total hours of operation of the emergency engines for the previous rolling 12-
month time period. Talen shall clearly specify within this log the hours of operation for
maintenance and testing purposes, or maintain a separate log for this information (ARM
17.8.1212).

E.14. Recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII & JJJJ,
as applicable (ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII & JJJJ).

E.15. Recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, as
applicable (ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ).

Reporting

E.16. All source test reports must be submitted to the Department in accordance with the
Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

E.17. The annual compliance certification report required by Section V.B must contain a
certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

E.18. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide (ARM 17.8.1212):

a. A summary of all visual observations monitoring compliance with the visual survey
requirement(s);

b. A summary of any Method 5 tests that were conducted; and

c. A summary of emergency engine use including a summary of hours used and reason for
use.

E.19. Reporting shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII & JJJJ, as
applicable (ARM 17.8.340 and 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts IIII & JJJJ).

E.20. Reporting shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, as
applicable (ARM 17.8.342 and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ).

OP0513-14 35 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

F. EU012 - Lime Handling System

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit
Limit
Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
F.1, F.4, F.6,
F.9, F.10
Reasonable
Precautions
20% Operation of
controls
Ongoing Semiannually

F.2, F.5, F.7,
F.9, F.10
Opacity 20% Visual
Survey/Method
9
Weekly
F.3, F.5, F.8,
F.9, F.10
PM E = 55 * p0.11
– 40
Visual
Survey/Method
9
Weekly

Conditions

F.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize the production, handling, transportation, or storage of any
material unless reasonable precautions to control emissions of airborne PM are taken (ARM
17.8.308(1)).

F.2. Talen shall not cause or authorize emissions to be discharged into the outdoor atmosphere
from any source that exhibits an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes (ARM 17.8.304(2)).

F.3. The particulate emissions from process weight shall not exceed the value calculated by E =
55.0 * P0.11 – 40, where E is the rate of emissions in pounds per hour and P is the process
weight rate in tons per hour (ARM 17.8.310).

Compliance Demonstration

F.4. Talen shall operate the pneumatic system when unloading lime to monitor compliance with
the reasonable precautions requirement (ARM 17.8.1213).

F.5. Talen shall conduct a weekly visual survey of visible emissions on the Lime Handling
System. Once per calendar week, during daylight hours, Talen shall visually survey the Lime
Handling System for any visible emissions. If visible emissions are observed during the
visual survey, Talen must conduct a Method 9 source test. The Method 9 source test must
begin within one hour of any observation of visible emissions. If visible emissions meet or
exceed 15% opacity based on the Method 9 source test, Talen shall immediately take
corrective action to contain or minimize the source of emissions. If corrective actions are
taken, then Talen shall immediately conduct a subsequent visual survey (and subsequent
Method 9 source test if visible emissions remain) to monitor compliance. The person
conducting the visual survey shall record the results of the survey (including the results of
any Method 9 source test performed) and any corrective action taken in a log, Conducting a
visual survey does not relieve Talen of the liability for a violation determined using Method 9
(ARM 17.8.1213).

OP0513-14 36 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Recordkeeping

F.6. Talen shall maintain a log of the operation of the pneumatic system as required in Section
III.F.4. The log shall include date and time of operation of the pneumatic conveyor
coinciding with the unloading of lime (ARM 17.8.1212).

F.7. All source test recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the test method used
and the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on
site. The reports must be submitted in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol
and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

F.8. Talen shall maintain on-site a log containing all visual observations monitoring compliance
with the visual survey requirement(s). The log shall include, at a minimum, the required
information, the date, the time, and the initials of the documenting personnel (ARM
17.8.1212).

Reporting

F.9. The annual compliance certification report required by Section V.B must contain a
certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

F.10. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide (ARM 17.8.1212):

a. A summary of the log of operation of the pneumatic system as required in Section
III.F.6; and

b. A summary of all visual observations monitoring compliance with the visual survey
requirement(s).
OP0513-14 37 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

G. EU013 - Plant Roads; EU014 – Process Ponds

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit Limit Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
G.1, G.3–
G.7
Reasonable
Precautions
20% Visual
Surveys/Method
9
Weekly Semiannually

G.2– G.7 Opacity 20% Visual Surveys/
Method 9
Weekly

Conditions

G.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize the production, handling, transportation, or storage of any
material unless reasonable precautions to control emissions of airborne PM are taken (ARM
17.8.308).

G.2. Talen may not cause or authorize emissions from the plant roads to be discharged into the
outdoor atmosphere that exhibit an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes (ARM 17.8.304(2)).

Compliance Demonstration

G.3. Talen shall conduct a weekly visual survey of visible emissions on the plant roads and
process ponds. Once per calendar week, during daylight hours, Talen shall visually survey
the plant roads and process ponds for any visible emissions. If visible emissions are
observed during the visual survey, Talen must conduct a Method 9 source test. The Method
9 source test must begin within one hour of any observation of visible emissions. If visible
emissions meet or exceed 15% opacity based on the Method 9 source test, Talen shall
immediately take corrective action to contain or minimize the source of emissions. If
corrective actions are taken, then Talen shall immediately conduct a subsequent visual survey
(and subsequent Method 9 source test if visible emissions remain) to monitor compliance.
The person conducting the visual survey shall record the results of the survey (including the
results of any Method 9 source test performed) and any corrective action taken in a log.
Conducting a visual survey does not relieve Talen of the liability for a violation determined
using Method 9 (ARM 17.8.1213).

Recordkeeping

G.4. All source test recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the test method used
and the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on
site. The reports must be submitted in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol
and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

G.5. Talen shall maintain on-site a log containing all visual observations monitoring compliance
with the visual survey requirement(s). The log shall include, at a minimum, the required
information, the date, the time, and the initials of the documenting personnel (ARM
17.8.1212).

OP0513-14 38 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Reporting

G.6. The annual compliance certification report required and logged as specified by Section V.B
must contain a certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM
17.8.1212).

G.7. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide a summary of all visual observations
monitoring compliance with the visual survey requirement(s) (ARM 17.8.1212).
OP0513-14 39 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

H. EU015 – Underground Gasoline Tank

Condition(s) Pollutant/Parameter Permit
Limit
Compliance Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
H.1, H.3,
H.5, H.7,
H.8, H.9
Opacity 20% Method 9 As required by
the
Department
and Section
III.A.1
Semiannually
H.2, H.4,
H.6, H.8, H.9
Underground gasoline
tank
250 gallons
or > gasoline
in tank
Submerged
fill pipe
Ongoing/when
loading

Conditions

H.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize emissions to be discharged into the outdoor atmosphere
from any source that exhibits an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes (ARM 17.8.304(2)).

H.2. Talen shall not load or permit the loading of gasoline into any stationary tank with a capacity
of 250 gallons or more from any tank truck or trailer, except through a permanent
submerged fill pipe, unless such tank is equipped with a vapor loss control device or is a
pressure tank (ARM 17.8.324(3)).

Compliance Demonstration

H.3. As required by the Department and Section III.A.1, Talen shall perform a Method 9 test to
monitor compliance with the permit limit in Section III.H.1. The testing shall be performed
in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, or another
method approved by the Department (ARM 17.8.106 and ARM 17.8.749).

H.4. Talen has an installed tank with a permanently submerged fill pipe and shall continue to
operate the submerged fill pipe during loading (ARM 17.8.749).

Recordkeeping

H.5. All compliance source-testing recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the
Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on site. Method 9
source test reports for opacity need not be submitted unless requested by the Department
(ARM 17.8.106).

H.6. Talen shall maintain a log to monitor continuous use of the submerged fill pipe by
maintaining a log of tank loading. The log shall include the date and time of loading, and
state that a permanent submerged fill pipe was used or that the tank is equipped with a vapor
loss control device or is a pressure tank (ARM 17.8.1213).

Reporting

H.7. Method 9 test reports as specified in Section III.H.5 shall be submitted in accordance with
the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).
OP0513-14 40 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

H.8. The annual compliance certification report required by Section V.B must contain a
certification statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

H.9. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide (ARM 17.8.1212):

a. A summary of any instances that the submerged fill pipe (or vapor loss control) was not
used during tank loading, including date, time, and duration of loading; and

b. A summary of any Method 9 test conducted during the period.

I. EU017 – Tangential Coal Fired Units 1-4 Mercury Emissions

Condition(s) Pollutant/
Parameter Permit Limit
Compliance
Demonstration
Method
Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
I.1, I.2, I.3,
I.4, I.5, I.6,
I.7, I.8, I.9
Mercury
Emissions
0.9 lb/TBtu and
Installation/
Operation of
Mercury Control
System
MEMS Ongoing Quarterly

Conditions

I.1. Beginning January 1, 2010, facility-wide emissions of mercury (Hg) shall not exceed 0.9
pounds per trillion British thermal units (lb/TBtu), calculated as a rolling 12-month average.
The facility-wide emissions shall be calculated according to the following equation (ARM
17.8.771, this requirement is “State Only”):

Facility-wide Hg emissions = (1/4) × (Unit1lb/TBtu + Unit2 lb/TBtu + Unit3 lb/TBtu + Unit4
lb/TBtu)

Where: Unit1lb/TBtu = rolling 12-month mercury emissions from Unit 1 as an average of
the last 12 individual calendar monthly averages.

Unit2lb/TBtu = rolling 12-month mercury emissions from Unit 2 as an average of
the last 12 individual calendar monthly averages.

Unit3lb/TBtu = rolling 12-month mercury emissions from Unit 3 as an average of
the last 12 individual calendar monthly averages.

Unit4lb/TBtu = rolling 12-month mercury emissions from Unit 4 as an average of
the last 12 individual calendar monthly averages.

I.2. On each Unit 1-4, Talen shall install a mercury control system that oxidizes and sorbs
emissions of mercury. Talen shall implement the operation and maintenance of mercury
control systems on or before January 1, 2010 (ARM 17.8.771, this requirement is “State
Only”).

OP0513-14 41 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Compliance Demonstration

I.3. Talen shall comply with all applicable standards and limitations, and the applicable operating,
reporting, recordkeeping, and notification requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 75 or as
approved by the Department (ARM 17.8.771, this requirement is “State Only”).

I.4. Enforcement of Section III.I.1., where applicable, shall be determined by utilizing data taken
from Mercury Emission Monitoring Systems (MEMS), installed on each Unit 1-4. The
MEMS shall be comprised of equipment as required in 40 CFR 75.81(a) and defined in 40
CFR 72.2. The above does not relieve Talen from meeting any applicable requirements of
40 CFR Part 75. Testing requirements shall be as specified in 40 CFR Part 75, and shall
conform to the requirements of the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual
(ARM 17.8.106 and ARM 17.8.771, this requirement is “State Only”).
I.5. The MEMS shall be installed, certified, and operating on each Unit 1-4 stack outlet on or
before January 1, 2010. MEMS shall comply with the applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part
75. The monitors shall also conform with requirements included in Appendix J (ARM
17.8.771, this requirement is “State Only”).

Recordkeeping

I.6. Talen shall conduct recordkeeping pursuant to Appendix J (ARM 12.8.1212, this
requirement is “State Only”).

Reporting

I.7. Talen shall report to the Department within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter,
as described in Appendix J (ARM 17.8.749, this requirement is “State Only”):

a. For each Unit 1-4, the monthly average lb/TBtu mercury emission rate, for each month
of the quarter;

b. For each Unit 1-4, the 12-month rolling average lb/TBtu mercury emission rate, for each
month of the reporting quarter;

c. The 12-month facility-wide rolling average lb/TBtu mercury emission rate, calculated
according to Section III.I.1, for each month of the reporting quarter; and

d. For each Unit 1-4, the number of operating hours that the MEMS were unavailable or
not operating within quality assurance limits (monitor downtime).

I.8. The first quarterly report must be received by the Department by April 30, 2010, but shall
not include 12-month rolling averages. The first quarterly report to include 12-month rolling
averages must be received by the Department by January 30, 2011 (ARM 17.8.749).

I.9. The annual compliance certification required by Section V.B must contain a certification
statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).
OP0513-14 42 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

J. EU018 – Mercury Oxidizer/Sorbent Handling Systems (Units 1-4)

Condition(s) Pollutant/
Parameter Permit Limit
Compliance
Demonstration
Method Frequency
Reporting
Requirements
J.1, J.3, J.4, J.5,
J.6, J.7, J.8 Opacity 20% Visual
Survey/
Method 9
Weekly Semiannual J.2, J.3, J.4, J.5,
J.6, J.7, J.8
Oxidizer/Sorbent
Handling System
Operate/
maintain bin
vent

Conditions

J.1. Talen shall not cause or authorize emissions to be discharged into the outdoor atmosphere
from any source that exhibits an opacity of 20% or greater averaged over 6 consecutive
minutes (ARM 17.8.304(2)).

J.2. Talen shall operate and maintain the mercury oxidizer/sorbent handling systems, including
the bin vent filter systems, to provide the maximum air pollution control for that which the
systems were designed (ARM 17.8.749).

Compliance Demonstration

J.3. Talen shall conduct a weekly visual survey of visible emissions on the Mercury
Oxidizer/Sorbent Handling System. Once per calendar week, during daylight hours, Talen
shall visually survey the Mercury Oxidizer/Sorbent Handling System for any visible
emissions. If visible emissions are observed during the visual survey, Talen must conduct a
Method 9 source test. The Method 9 source test must begin within one hour of any
observation of visible emissions. If visible emissions meet or exceed 15% opacity based on
the Method 9 source test, Talen shall immediately take corrective action to contain or
minimize the source of emissions. If corrective actions are taken, then Talen shall
immediately conduct a subsequent visual survey (and subsequent Method 9 source test if
visible emissions remain) to monitor compliance. The person conducting the visual survey
shall record the results of the survey (including the results of any Method 9 source test
performed) and any corrective action taken in a log. Conducting a visual survey does not
relieve Talen of the liability for a violation determined using Method 9 (ARM 17.8.1213).

Recordkeeping

J.4. All source test recordkeeping shall be performed in accordance with the test method used
and the Montana Source Test Protocol and Procedures Manual, and shall be maintained on
site. The reports must be submitted in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol
and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106).

J.5. Talen shall maintain on-site a log containing all visual observations monitoring compliance
with the visual survey requirement(s). The log shall include, at a minimum, the required
information, the date, the time, and the initials of the documenting personnel (ARM
17.8.1212).

OP0513-14 43 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Reporting

J.6. All method reports shall be submitted in accordance with the Montana Source Test Protocol
and Procedures Manual (ARM 17.8.106 and ARM 17.8.1212).

J.7. The annual compliance certification required by Section V.B must contain a certification
statement for the above applicable requirements (ARM 17.8.1212).

J.8. The semiannual monitoring report shall provide a summary of all visual observations
monitoring compliance with the visual survey requirement(s) (ARM 17.8.1212).

OP0513-14 44 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

SECTION IV. NON-APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS

Air Quality Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) and Federal Regulations identified as not
applicable to the facility or to a specific emissions unit at the time of the permit issuance are listed
below (ARM 17.8.1214). The following list does not preclude the need to comply with any new
requirements that may become applicable during the permit term.

A. Facility-Wide

The following table contains non-applicable requirements, which are administrated by the Air
Resources Management Bureau of the Department of Environmental Quality.

Rule Citation Reason
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts C, Ca, Cb
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts Da, Db, Dc
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts E-J
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts K, Ka, Kb
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts L-Z
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts AA-EE
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts GG-HH
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts KK-NN
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts PP-XX
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts AAA-BBB
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts DDD
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts FFF-LLL
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts NNN-VVV
40 CFR Part 61 Subparts B-F
40 CFR Part 61 Subparts H-L
40 CFR Part 61 Subparts N-T
40 CFR Part 61 Subparts V-W
40 CFR Part 61 Subpart Y
40 CFR Part 61 Subpart BB
40 CFR Part 61 Subpart FF
40 CFR Part 63 Subparts F-I
40 CFR Part 63 Subparts L-O
40 CFR Part 63 Subpart Q
40 CFR Part 63 Subpart R
40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T
40 CFR Part 63 Subpart W
40 CFR Part 63 Subpart X
40 CFR Part 63 Subpart EE

These requirements are not applicable because
the facility is not an affected source as defined in
these regulations.
40 CFR Part 82 Subpart A
40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C
40 CFR Part 82 Subpart D
40 CFR Part 82 Subpart E
40 CFR Part 82 Subpart G

The facility does not conduct the activities
addressed by these regulations.

OP0513-14 45 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

B. Emission Units

Emission
Units
Rule Citation Reason
State Federal
EU005,
EU006,
EU007,
EU008,
EU009,
EU013
40 CFR Part 60
Subpart D
40 CFR Part 82
Subpart B
40 CFR Parts 72-73
40 CFR Parts 75-78
This emitting unit is not in the source
category or the equipment is not used at the
facility
EU001,
EU002,
EU003,
EU004
40 CFR Part 73
Subpart G
40 CFR Part 82
Subpart B
OP0513-14 46 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

SECTION V. GENERAL PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. Compliance Requirements
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1210(2)(a)-(c)&(e), §1206(6)(c)&(b)

1. The permittee must comply with all conditions of the permit. Any noncompliance with the
terms or conditions of the permit constitutes a violation of the Montana Clean Air Act, and
may result in enforcement action, permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination, or denial of a permit renewal application under ARM Title 17, Chapter 8,
Subchapter 12.

2. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance,
or termination, or of a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does
not stay any permit condition.

3. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
conditions of the permit. If appropriate, this factor may be considered as a mitigating factor
in assessing a penalty for noncompliance with an applicable requirement if the source
demonstrates that both the health, safety or environmental impacts of halting or reducing
operations would be more serious than the impacts of continuing operations, and that such
health, safety or environmental impacts were unforeseeable and could not have otherwise
been avoided.

4. The permittee shall furnish to the Department, within a reasonable time set by the
Department (not to be less than 15 days), any information that the Department may request
in writing to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating the permit, or to determine compliance with the permit. Upon request, the
permittee shall also furnish to the Department copies of those records that are required to
be kept pursuant to the terms of the permit. This subsection does not impair or otherwise
limit the right of the permittee to assert the confidentiality of the information requested by
the Department, as provided in 75-2-105, MCA.

5. Any schedule of compliance for applicable requirements with which the source is not in
compliance with at the time of permit issuance shall be supplemental to, and shall not
sanction noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it was based.

6. For applicable requirements that will become effective during the permit term, the source
shall meet such requirements on a timely basis unless a more detailed plan or schedule is
required by the applicable requirement or the Department.

B. Certification Requirements
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1207 and §1213(7)(a)&(c)-(d)

1. Any application form, report, or compliance certification submitted pursuant to ARM Title
17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 12, shall contain certification by a responsible official of truth,
accuracy and completeness. This certification and any other certification required under
ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 12, shall state that, based on information and belief
OP0513-14 47 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the document are true,
accurate and complete.
2. Compliance certifications shall be submitted by February 15 of each year, or more frequently
if otherwise specified in an applicable requirement or elsewhere in the permit. Each
certification must include the required information for the previous calendar year (i.e.,
January 1 – December 31).

3. Compliance certifications shall include the following:

a. The identification of each term or condition of the permit that is the basis of the
certification;

b. The identification of the method(s) or other means used by the owner or operator for
determining the status of compliance with each term or condition during the certification
period, and whether such methods or other means provide continuous or intermittent
data, as well as the additional information required by ARM 17.8.1213(7)(c)(ii);

c. The status of compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit for the period
covered by the certification, including whether compliance during the period was continuous or
intermittent (based on the method or means designated in ARM 17.8.1213(7)(c)(ii), as
described above); and

d. Such other facts as the Department may require to determine the compliance status of
the source.

4. All compliance certifications must be submitted to the EPA, as well as to the Department, at
the addresses listed in the Notification Addresses Appendix of this permit.

C. Permit Shield
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1214(1)-(4)

1. The applicable requirements and non-federally enforceable requirements are included and
specifically identified in this permit and the permit includes a precise summary of the
requirements not applicable to the source. Compliance with the conditions of the permit
shall be deemed compliance with any applicable requirements and any non-federally
enforceable requirements as of the date of permit issuance.

2. The permit shield described in 1 above shall remain in effect during the appeal of any permit
action (renewal, revision, reopening, or revocation and reissuance) to the Board of
Environmental Review (Board), until such time as the Board renders its final decision.

3. Nothing in this permit alters or affects the following:

a. The provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7603 of the FCAA, including the authority of the
administrator under that section;

b. The liability of an owner or operator of a source for any violation of applicable
requirements prior to or at the time of permit issuance;

OP0513-14 48 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

c. The applicable requirements of the Acid Rain Program, consistent with 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7651g(a) of the FCAA;

d. The ability of the administrator to obtain information from a source pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 7414 of the FCAA;

e. The ability of the Department to obtain information from a source pursuant to the
Montana Clean Air Act, Title 75, Chapter 2, MCA;

f. The emergency powers of the Department under the Montana Clean Air Act, Title 75,
Chapter 2, MCA; and

g. The ability of the Department to establish or revise requirements for the use of
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as defined in ARM Title 17, Chapter
8. However, if the inclusion of a RACT into the permit pursuant to ARM Title 17,
Chapter 8, Subchapter 12, is appealed to the Board, the permit shield, as it applies to the
source’s existing permit, shall remain in effect until such time as the Board has rendered
its final decision.

4. Nothing in this permit alters or affects the ability of the Department to take enforcement
action for a violation of an applicable requirement or permit term demonstrated pursuant to
ARM 17.8.106, Source Testing Protocol.

5. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.132, for the purpose of submitting a compliance certification, nothing
in these rules shall preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance. However, when
compliance or noncompliance is demonstrated by a test or procedure provided by permit or
other applicable requirements, the source shall then be presumed to be in compliance or
noncompliance, unless that presumption is overcome by other relevant credible evidence.

6. The permit shield will not extend to minor permit modifications or changes not requiring a
permit revision (see Sections I & J).

7. The permit shield will extend to significant permit modifications and transfer or assignment
of ownership (see Sections K & N).

D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1212(2)&(3)

1. Unless otherwise provided in this permit, the permittee shall maintain compliance
monitoring records that include the following information:

a. The date, place as defined in the permit, and time of sampling or measurement;

b. The date(s) analyses were performed;

c. The company or entity that performed the analyses;

d. The analytical techniques or methods used;
OP0513-14 49 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

e. The results of such analyses; and

f. The operating conditions at the time of sampling or measurement.
2. The permittee shall retain records of all required monitoring data and support information
for a period of at least 5 years after the date of the monitoring sample, measurement, report,
or application. Support information includes all calibration and maintenance records and all
original strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all
reports required by the permit. All monitoring data, support information, and required
reports and summaries may be maintained in computerized form at the plant site if the
information is made available to Department personnel upon request, which may be for
either hard copies or computerized format. Strip-charts must be maintained in their original
form at the plant site and shall be made available to Department personnel upon request.

3. The permittee shall submit to the Department, at the addresses located in the Notification
Addresses Appendix of this permit, reports of any required monitoring by February 15 and
August 15 of each year, or more frequently if otherwise specified in an applicable
requirement or elsewhere in the permit. The monitoring report submitted on February 15 of
each year must include the required monitoring information for the period of July 1 through
December 31 of the previous year. The monitoring report submitted on August 15 of each
year must include the required monitoring information for the period of January 1 through
June 30 of the current year. All instances of deviations from the permit requirements must
be clearly identified in such reports. All required reports must be certified by a responsible
official, consistent with ARM 17.8.1207.

E. Prompt Deviation Reporting
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1212(3)(b)

The permittee shall promptly report deviations from permit requirements, including those
attributable to upset conditions as defined in the permit, the probable cause of such deviations,
and any corrective actions or preventive measures taken. To be considered prompt, deviations
shall be reported to the Department within the following timeframes (unless otherwise specified
in an applicable requirement):

1. For deviations which may result in emissions potentially in violation of permit limitations:

a. An initial phone notification (or faxed or electronic notification) describing the incident
within 24 hours (or the next business day) of discovery; and,

b. A follow-up written, faxed, or electronic report within 30 days of discovery of the
deviation that describes the probable cause of the reported deviation and any corrective
actions or preventative measures taken.

2. For deviations attributable to malfunctions, deviations shall be reported to the Department
in accordance with the malfunction reporting requirements under ARM 17.8.110; and

3. For all other deviations, deviations shall be reported to the Department via a written, faxed,
or electronic report within 90 days of discovery (as determined through routine internal
review by the permittee).
OP0513-14 50 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Prompt deviation reports do not need to be resubmitted with regular semiannual (or other
routine) reports, but may be referenced by the date of submittal.

F. Emergency Provisions
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1201(13) and §1214(5), (6)&(8)

1. An “emergency” means any situation arising from sudden and reasonably unforeseeable
events beyond the control of the source, including acts of God, which situation requires
immediate corrective action to restore normal operation and causes the source to exceed a
technology-based emission limitation under this permit due to the unavoidable increases in
emissions attributable to the emergency. An emergency shall not include noncompliance to
the extent caused by improperly designed equipment, lack of reasonable preventive
maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator error.

2. An emergency constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance
with a technology-based emission limitation if the permittee demonstrates through properly
signed, contemporaneous logs, or other relevant evidence, that:

a. An emergency occurred and the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the emergency;

b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;

c. During the period of the emergency the permittee took all reasonable steps to minimize
levels of emissions that exceeded the emission standards or other requirements in the
permit; and

d. The permittee submitted notice of the emergency to the Department within 2 working
days of the time when emission limitations were exceeded due to the emergency. This
notice fulfills the requirements of ARM 17.8.1212(3)(b). This notice must contain a
description of the emergency, any steps taken to mitigate emissions, and corrective
actions taken.

3. These emergency provisions are in addition to any emergency, malfunction or upset
provision contained in any applicable requirement.

G. Inspection and Entry
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1213(3)&(4)

1. Upon presentation of credentials and other requirements as may be required by law, the
permittee shall allow the Department, the administrator, or an authorized representative
(including an authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Department or the
administrator) to perform the following:

a. Enter the premises where a source required to obtain a permit is located or emissions-
related activity is conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of the
permit;

OP0513-14 51 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the
conditions of the permit;

c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, emission units, equipment (including
monitoring and air pollution control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or
required under the permit; and
d. As authorized by the Montana Clean Air Act and rules promulgated thereunder, sample
or monitor, at reasonable times, any substances or parameters at any location for the
purpose of assuring compliance with the permit or applicable requirements.

2. The permittee shall inform the inspector of all workplace safety rules or requirements at the
time of inspection. This section shall not limit in any manner the Department’s statutory
right of entry and inspection as provided for in 75-2-403, MCA.

H. Fee Payment
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1210(2)(f) and ARM 17.8, Subchapter 5,
Air Quality Permit Application, Operation, and Open Burning Fees §505(3)-(5) (STATE
ONLY)

1. The permittee must pay application and operating fees, pursuant to ARM Title 17, Chapter
8, Subchapter 5.

2. Annually, the Department shall provide the permittee with written notice of the amount of
the fee and the basis for the fee assessment. The air quality operation fee is due 30 days after
receipt of the notice, unless the fee assessment is appealed pursuant to ARM 17.8.511. If
any portion of the fee is not appealed, that portion of the fee that is not appealed is due 30
days after receipt of the notice. Any remaining fee, which may be due after the completion
of an appeal, is due immediately upon issuance of the Board’s decision or upon completion
of any judicial review of the Board’s decision.

3. If the permittee fails to pay the required fee (or any required portion of an appealed fee)
within 90 days after the due date of the fee, the Department may impose an additional
assessment of 15% of the fee (or any required portion of an appealed fee) or $100,
whichever is greater, plus interest on the fee (or any required portion of an appealed fee),
computed at the interest rate established under 15-31-510(3), MCA.

I. Minor Permit Modifications
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1226(3)&(11)

1. An application for a minor permit modification need only address in detail those portions of
the permit application that require revision, updating, supplementation, or deletion, and may
reference any required information that has been previously submitted.

2. The permit shield under ARM 17.8.1214 will not extend to any minor modifications
processed pursuant to ARM 17.8.1226.

J. Changes Not Requiring Permit Revision
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1224(1)-(3), (5)&(6)

OP0513-14 52 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

1. The permittee is authorized to make changes within the facility as described below, provided
the following conditions are met:

a. The proposed changes do not require the permittee to obtain a Montana Air Quality
Permit under ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 7;

b. The proposed changes are not modifications under Title I of the FCAA, or as defined in
ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapters 8, 9, or 10;

c. The emissions resulting from the proposed changes do not exceed the emissions
allowable under this permit, whether expressed as a rate of emissions or in total
emissions;

d. The proposed changes do not alter permit terms that are necessary to enforce applicable
emission limitations on emission units covered by the permit; and

e. The facility provides the administrator and the Department with written notification at
least 7 days prior to making the proposed changes.

2. The permittee and the Department shall attach each notice provided pursuant to 1.e above
to their respective copies of this permit.

3. Pursuant to the conditions above, the permittee is authorized to make 42 USC Sec.
7661a(b)(10) changes, as defined in ARM 17.8.1201(30), without a permit revision. For each
such change, the written notification required under 1.e above shall include a description of
the change within the source, the date on which the change will occur, any change in
emissions, and any permit term or condition that is no longer applicable as a result of the
change.

4. The permittee may make a change not specifically addressed or prohibited by the permit
terms and conditions without requiring a permit revision, provided the following conditions
are met:

a. Each proposed change does not weaken the enforceability of any existing permit
conditions;

b. The Department has not objected to such change;

c. Each proposed change meets all applicable requirements and does not violate any
existing permit term or condition; and

d. The permittee provides contemporaneous written notice to the Department and the
administrator of each change that is above the level for insignificant emission units as
defined in ARM 17.8.1201(22) and 17.8.1206(3), and the written notice describes each
such change, including the date of the change, any change in emissions, pollutants
emitted, and any applicable requirement that would apply as a result of the change.

OP0513-14 53 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

5. The permit shield authorized by ARM 17.8.1214 shall not apply to changes made pursuant
to ARM 17.8.1224(3) and (5), but is applicable to terms and conditions that allow for
increases and decreases in emissions pursuant to ARM 17.8.1224(4).

OP0513-14 54 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

K. Significant Permit Modifications
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1227(1), (3)&(4)

1. The modification procedures set forth in 2 below must be used for any application
requesting a significant modification of this permit. Significant modifications include the
following:

a. Any permit modification that does not qualify as either a minor modification or as an
administrative permit amendment;

b. Every significant change in existing permit monitoring terms or conditions;

c. Every relaxation of permit reporting or recordkeeping terms or conditions that limit the
Department’s ability to determine compliance with any applicable rule, consistent with
the requirements of the rule; or

d. Any other change determined by the Department to be significant.

2. Significant modifications shall meet all requirements of ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, including
those for applications, public participation, and review by affected states and the
administrator, as they apply to permit issuance and renewal, except that an application for a
significant permit modification need only address in detail those portions of the permit
application that require revision, updating, supplementation or deletion.

3. The permit shield provided for in ARM 17.8.1214 shall extend to significant modifications.

L. Reopening for Cause
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1228(1)&(2)

This permit may be reopened and revised under the following circumstances:

1. Additional applicable requirements under the FCAA become applicable to the facility when
the permit has a remaining term of 3 or more years. Reopening and revision of the permit
shall be completed not later than 18 months after promulgation of the applicable
requirement. No reopening is required under ARM 17.8.1228(1)(a) if the effective date of
the applicable requirement is later than the date on which the permit is due to expire, unless
the original permit or any of its terms or conditions have been extended pursuant to ARM
17.8.1220(12) or 17.8.1221(2);

2. Additional requirements (including excess emission requirements) become applicable to an
affected source under the Acid Rain Program. Upon approval by the administrator, excess
emission offset plans shall be deemed incorporated into the permit;

3. The Department or the administrator determines that the permit contains a material mistake
or that inaccurate statements were made in establishing the emission standards or other
terms or conditions of the permit; and

4. The administrator or the Department determines that the permit must be revised or revoked
and reissued to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements.
OP0513-14 55 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

M. Permit Expiration and Renewal
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1210(2)(g), §1220(11)&(12), and
§1205(2)(c)

1. This permit is issued for a fixed term of 5 years.

2. Renewal of this permit is subject to the same procedural requirements that apply to permit
issuance, including those for application, content, public participation, and affected state and
administrator review.

3. Expiration of this permit terminates the permittee’s right to operate unless a timely and
administratively complete renewal application has been submitted to the Department
consistent with ARM 17.8.1221 and 17.8.1205(2)(d). If a timely and administratively
complete application has been submitted, all terms and conditions of the permit, including
the application shield, remain in effect after the permit expires until the permit renewal has
been issued or denied.

4. For renewal, the permittee shall submit a complete air quality operating permit application to
the Department not later than 6 months prior to the expiration of this permit, unless
otherwise specified. If necessary to ensure that the terms of the existing permit will not
lapse before renewal, the Department may specify, in writing to the permittee, a longer time
period for submission of the renewal application. Such written notification must be
provided at least 1 year before the renewal application due date established in the existing
permit.

N. Severability Clause
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1210(2)(i)&(l)

1. The administrative appeal or subsequent judicial review of the issuance by the Department
of an initial permit under this subchapter shall not impair in any manner the underlying
applicability of all applicable requirements, and such requirements continue to apply as if a
final permit decision had not been reached by the Department.

2. If any provision of a permit is found to be invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the
invalid part remain in effect. If a provision of a permit is invalid in one or more of its
applications, the provision remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from
the invalid applications.

O. Transfer or Assignment of Ownership
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1225(2)&(4)

1. If an administrative permit amendment involves a change in ownership or operational
control, the applicant must include in its request to the Department a written agreement
containing a specific date for the transfer of permit responsibility, coverage and liability
between the current and new permittee.

2. The permit shield provided for in ARM17.8.1214 shall not extend to administrative permit
amendments.
OP0513-14 56 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

P. Emissions Trading, Marketable Permits, Economic Incentives
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1226(2)

Notwithstanding ARM 17.8.1226(1) and (7), minor air quality operating permit modification
procedures may be used for permit modifications involving the use of economic incentives,
marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches, to the extent that such
minor permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the Montana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) or in applicable requirements promulgated by the administrator.

Q. No Property Rights Conveyed
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 12, Operating Permit Program §1210(2)(d)

This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.

R. Testing Requirements
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 1, General Provisions §105

The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.105.

S. Source Testing Protocol
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 1, General Provisions §106

The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.106.

T. Malfunctions
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 1, General Provisions §110

The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.110.

U. Circumvention
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 1, General Provisions §111

The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.111.

V. Motor Vehicles
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 3, Emission Standards §325

The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.325.

W. Annual Emissions Inventory
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 5, Air Quality Permit Application, Operation and Open Burning Fees
§505 (STATE ONLY)

The permittee shall supply the Department with annual production and other information for all
emission units necessary to calculate actual or estimated actual amount of air pollutants emitted
during each calendar year. Information shall be gathered on a calendar-year basis and submitted
to the Department by the date required in the emission inventory request, unless otherwise
specified in this permit. Information shall be in the units required by the Department.

OP0513-14 57 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

X. Open Burning
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 6, Open Burning §604, 605 and 606

The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.604, 605 and 606.

Y. Montana Air Quality Permits
ARM 17.8, Subchapter 7, Permit, Construction and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources
§745, and 764

1. Except as specified, no person shall construct, install, modify or use any air contaminant
source or stack associated with any source without first obtaining a permit from the
Department or Board. A permit is not required for the sources or stacks listed in ARM
17.8.745(1)(a)-(k).

2. The permittee shall comply with ARM 17.8.743, 744, 745, 748, and 764.

3. ARM 17.8.745(1) defines de minimis changes as construction or changed conditions of
operation at a facility holding a Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) issued under Chapter
8 that does not increase the facility’s potential to emit by more than 5 tons per year (TPY)
of any pollutant, except:

a. Any construction or changed condition that would violate any condition in the
facility’s existing MAQP or any applicable rule contained in Chapter 8 is prohibited,
except as provided in ARM 17.8.745(2);

b. Any construction or changed conditions of operation that would qualify as a major
modification under ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapters 8, 9 or 10 of Chapter 8;

c. Any construction or changed condition of operation that would affect the plume rise
or dispersion characteristic of emissions that would cause or contribute to a violation
of an ambient air quality standard or ambient air increment as defined in ARM
17.8.804;

d. Any construction or improvement project with a Potential to Emit (PTE) more than 5
TPY may not be artificially split into smaller projects to avoid Montana Air Quality
Permitting; and

e. Emission reductions obtained through offsetting within a facility are not included
when determining the potential emission increase from construction or changed
conditions of operation, unless such reductions are made federally enforceable.

4. Any facility making a de minimis change pursuant to ARM 17.8.745(1) shall notify the
Department if the change would include a change in control equipment, stack height, stack
diameter, stack gas temperature, source location or fuel specifications, or would result in
an increase in source capacity above its permitted operation or the addition of a new
emission unit. The notice must be submitted, in writing, 10 days prior to start up or use of
the proposed de minimis change, or as soon as reasonably practicable in the event of an
OP0513-14 58 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

unanticipated circumstance causing the de minimis change, and must include the
information requested in ARM 17.8.745(1).

Z. National Emission Standard for Asbestos
40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart M

The permittee shall not conduct any asbestos abatement activities except in accordance with
40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M (National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Asbestos).

AA. Asbestos
ARM 17.74, Subchapter 3, General Provisions, and Subchapter 4, Fees

The permittee shall comply with ARM Title 17, chapter 74, subchapter 301. and ARM Title
17, Chapter 74, subchapter 4. (State-only)

BB. Stratospheric Ozone Protection – Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
40 CFR, Part 82, Subpart B

If the permittee performs a service on motor vehicles and this service involves ozone-
depleting substance/refrigerant in the motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC), the permittee
is subject to all the applicable requirements as specified in 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart B.

CC. Stratospheric Ozone Protection – Recycling and Emission Reductions
40 CFR, Part 82, Subpart F

The permittee shall comply with the standards for recycling and emission reductions in 40
CFR Part 82, Subpart F, except as provided for MVACs in Subpart B of that part.

1. Persons opening appliances for maintenance, service, repair, or disposal must comply
with the required practices pursuant to 40 CFR 82.156.

2. Equipment used during the maintenance, service, repair or disposal of appliances must
comply with the standards for recycling and recovery equipment pursuant to 40 CFR
82.158.

3. Persons performing maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances must be
certified by an approved technical certification program pursuant to 40 CFR 82.161.

4. Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like (as defined at §82.152)
appliances must comply with recordkeeping requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 82.166.

5. Persons owning commercial or industrial process refrigeration equipment must comply
with the leak repair requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 82.156.

6. Owners/operators of appliances normally containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant
must keep records of refrigerant purchased and added to such appliances pursuant to 40
CFR 82.166.

OP0513-14 59 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

DD. Emergency Episode Plan

The permittee shall comply with the requirements contained in Chapter 9.7 of the State of
Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan.

Each major source emitting 100 TPY located in a Priority I Air Quality Control Region, shall
submit to the Department a legally enforceable Emergency Episode Action Plan (EEAP)
that details how the source will curtail emissions during an air pollutant emergency episode.
The industrial EEAP shall be in accordance with the Department’s EEAP and shall be
submitted according to a timetable developed by the Department, following Priority I
reclassification.

EE. Definitions

Terms not otherwise defined in this permit or in the Definitions and Abbreviations
Appendix B of this permit, shall have the meaning assigned to them in the referenced
regulations.
OP0513-14 60 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

APPENDICES

OP0513-14 A-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix A INSIGNIFICANT EMISSION UNITS

Disclaimer: The information in this appendix is not State or Federally enforceable, but is
presented to assist Talen, the permitting authority, inspectors, and the public.

Pursuant to ARM 17.8.1201(22)(a), an insignificant emission unit means any activity or emissions
unit located within a source that: (i) has a PTE less than 5 TPY of any regulated pollutant; (ii) has a
PTE less than 500 pounds per year of lead; (iii) has a PTE less than 500 pounds per year of
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) listed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412 (b) of the FCAA; and (iv) is
not regulated by an applicable requirement, other than a generally applicable requirement that
applies to all emission units subject to ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapter 12.

List of Insignificant Activities:

The following table of insignificant sources and/or activities were provided by Talen.

Emissions Unit ID Description
IEU01 Hydrazine Bulk Storage Tank Vent
IEU02 LPG Vaporizer
IEU03 Unit #1 Cooling Tower
IEU04 Unit #2 Cooling tower
IEU05 Unit #3 Cooling Tower
IEU06 Unit #4 Cooling Tower
IEU07 Waste Site
IEU08 Boiler Chemical Cleaning Process
IEU09 LPG System Safety Valves and Vents
IEU10 Process Tank Vents
IEU11 Process Ponds
IEU12 Boiler Chemical Cleaning Process
IEU13 Diesel Tanks
IEU14 Scrubber Relining Process
OP0513-14 B-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix B DEFINITIONS and ABBREVIATIONS

"Act" means the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671.

"Administrative permit amendment" means an air quality operating permit revision that:

(a) Corrects typographical errors;

(b) Identifies a change in the name, address or phone number of any person identified in the
air quality operating permit, or identifies a similar minor administrative change at the
source;

(c) Requires more frequent monitoring or reporting by Talen;

(d) Requires changes in monitoring or reporting requirements that the Department deems to
be no less stringent than current monitoring or reporting requirements;

(e) Allows for a change in ownership or operational control of a source if the Department
has determined that no other change in the air quality operating permit is necessary,
consistent with ARM 17.8.1225; or

(f) Incorporates any other type of change that the Department has determined to be similar
to those revisions set forth in (a)-(e), above.

"Applicable requirement" means all of the following as they apply to emission units in a source
requiring an air quality operating permit (including requirements that have been promulgated or
approved by the Department or the administrator through rule making at the time of issuance of the
air quality operating permit, but have future-effective compliance dates, provided that such
requirements apply to sources covered under the operating permit):

(a) Any standard, rule, or other requirement, including any requirement contained in a
consent decree or judicial or administrative order entered into or issued by the
Department, that is contained in the Montana state implementation plan approved or
promulgated by the administrator through rule making under Title I of the FCAA;

(b) Any federally enforceable term, condition or other requirement of any Montana Air
Quality Permit issued by the Department under ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapters 7,
8, 9 and 10, or pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rule making
under Title I of the FCAA, including Parts C and D;

(c) Any standard or other requirement under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7411 of the FCAA, including
Sec. 7411(d);

(d) Any standard or other requirement under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412 of the FCAA, including
any requirement concerning accident prevention under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(r)(7), but
excluding the contents of any risk management plan required under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7412(r);

OP0513-14 B-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
(e) Any standard or other requirement of the acid rain program under Title IV of the FCAA
or regulations promulgated thereunder;

(f) Any requirements established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661c(b) or 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7414(a)(3) of the FCAA;

(g) Any standard or other requirement governing solid waste incineration, under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 7429 of the FCAA;

(h) Any standard or other requirement for consumer and commercial products, under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 7511b(e) of the FCAA;

(i) Any standard or other requirement for tank vessels, under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7511b(f) of the
FCAA;

(j) Any standard or other requirement of the regulations promulgated to protect
stratospheric ozone under Title VI of the FCAA, unless the administrator determines
that such requirements need not be contained in an air quality operating permit;

(k) Any national ambient air quality standard or increment or visibility requirement under
Part C of Title I of the FCAA, but only as it would apply to temporary sources permitted
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661c(e) of the FCAA; or

(l) Any federally enforceable term or condition of any air quality open burning permit
issued by the Department under ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapter 6.

"Department" means the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

"Emissions unit" means any part or activity of a stationary source that emits or has the potential
to emit any regulated air pollutant or any pollutant listed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(b) of the FCAA.
This term is not meant to alter or affect the definition of the term "unit" for purposes of Title IV of
the FCAA.

"FCAA" means the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended.

"Federally enforceable" means all limitations and conditions which are enforceable by the
administrator, including those requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
requirements within the Montana State Implementation Plan, and any permit requirement
established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51,
Subpart I, including operating permits issued under an EPA approved program that is incorporated
into the Montana State Implementation Plan and expressly requires adherence to any permit issued
under such program.

"Fugitive emissions" means those emissions that could not reasonably pass through a stack,
chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.

"General air quality operating permit" or "general permit" means an air quality operating
permit that meets the requirements of ARM 17.8.1222, covers multiple sources in a source category,
and is issued in lieu of individual permits being issued to each source.

OP0513-14 B-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
"Hazardous air pollutant" means any air pollutant listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(b) of the FCAA.

"Non-federally enforceable requirement" means the following as they apply to emission units in
a source requiring an air quality operating permit:

(a) Any standard, rule, or other requirement, including any requirement contained in a
consent decree, or judicial or administrative order entered into or issued by the
Department, that is not contained in the Montana State Implementation Plan approved
or promulgated by the administrator through rule making under Title I of the FCAA;

(b) Any term, condition or other requirement contained in any Montana Air Quality Permit
issued by the Department under ARM Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapters 7, 8, 9 or 10 that
is not federally enforceable;

(c) Does not include any Montana ambient air quality standard contained in ARM Title 17,
chapter 8, subchapter 2.

“Operating Day” means any calendar day (midnight to midnight) in which any fuel is combusted in
the unit.

"Permittee" means the owner or operator of any source subject to the permitting requirements of
this subchapter, as provided in ARM 17.8.1204, that holds a valid air quality operating permit or has
submitted a timely and complete permit application for issuance, renewal, amendment, or
modification pursuant to this subchapter.

"Regulated air pollutant" means the following:

(a) Nitrogen oxides or any volatile organic compounds;

(b) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated;

(c) Any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7411 of
the FCAA;

(d) Any Class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated under or established by
Title VI of the FCAA; or

(e) Any pollutant subject to a standard or other requirement established or promulgated
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412 of the FCAA, including but not limited to the following:

(i) Any pollutant subject to requirements under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(j) of the FCAA. If
the administrator fails to promulgate a standard by the date established in 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 7412(e) of the FCAA, any pollutant for which a subject source would be major
shall be considered to be regulated on the date 18 months after the applicable date
established in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(e) of the FCAA;

(ii) Any pollutant for which the requirements of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7412(g)(2) of the FCAA
have been met but only with respect to the individual source subject to a 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 7412(g)(2) requirement.
OP0513-14 B-4 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
"Responsible official" means one of the following:

(a) For a corporation: a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation
in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized
representative of such person if the representative is responsible for the overall
operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying for
or subject to a permit and either:

(i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars); or

(ii) The delegation of authority to such representative is approved in advance by the
Department.

(b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.

(c) For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. For the purposes of this part, a principal executive
officer of a federal agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for
the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., a regional
administrator of the environmental protection agency).

(d) For affected sources: the designated representative in so far as actions, standards,
requirements, or prohibitions under Title IV of the FCAA or the regulations
promulgated thereunder are concerned, and the designated representative for any other
purposes under this subchapter.

OP0513-14 B-5 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Abbreviations:

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana
ASTM American Society of Testing Materials
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BDT bone dry tons
Btu British thermal unit
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
dscf dry standard cubic foot
dscfm dry standard cubic foot per minute
EEAP Emergency Episode Action Plan
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Method Test methods contained in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
EU emissions unit
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
gr grains
HAP hazardous air pollutant
Hg mercury
IEU insignificant emissions unit
MAQP Montana Air Quality Permit
Mbdft thousand board feet
MEMS Mercury Emission Monitoring System
Method 5 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 5
Method 9 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Method 9
MMbdft million board feet
MMBtu million British thermal units
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
O2 oxygen
Pb lead
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
psi pounds per square inch
scf standard cubic feet
SIC Source Industrial Classification
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx oxides of sulfur
TPY tons per year
TBtu trillion British Thermal Units
U.S.C. United States Code
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound

OP0513-14 C-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Appendix C NOTIFICATION ADDRESSES

Compliance Notifications:

Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Air, Energy & Mining Division
Air Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901

United States EPA
Air Program Coordinator
Region VIII, Montana Office
10 W. 15th, Suite 3200
Helena, MT 59626

Permit Modifications:

Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Air, Energy & Mining Division
Air Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Air and Radiation Program
US EPA Region VIII 8P-AR
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202 -1129

OP0513-14 D-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix D AIR QUALITY INSPECTOR INFORMATION

Disclaimer: The information in this appendix is not State or Federally enforceable, but is
presented to assist Talen, permitting authority, inspectors, and the public.

1. Direction to Plant: The facility is located in Colstrip, Montana and is accessed by traveling
south on Highway 39 from I-90 and turning east into the City of Colstrip on Willow Avenue.

2. Safety Equipment Required: The following safety guidelines were submitted by Talen:

General Safety Guidelines for Talen Units 1, 2, 3, & 4

The following are excerpts from the Talen Employee Safety Handbook. These rules apply to all
visitors as well. In all instances, visitors will be escorted by a Company employee.

Safety Glasses and Hard Hats: Approved eye protection and company issued hard hats
are required while on Talen Project Division property, except in the following areas;

▪ Control Rooms
▪ Rest Rooms
▪ Lunch Rooms
▪ Offices
▪ To and from the parking lots and buildings
▪ Other areas as posted

Proper Clothing: Clothing and shoes, which are suitable for the particular type of work
and existing weather conditions, shall be worn. The following should be kept in mind:

▪ Thin cotton, rayon, or other synthetic materials are highly flammable and will
readily ignite.

▪ Long-sleeved shirts with sleeves rolled down and buttoned provide primary
protection from many types of injuries, particularly from burns, electrical
contact, irritants, splinters, and scratches.

▪ Cuffed trousers and short-topped shoes catch and hold hot or corrosive
materials, endangering the wearer.

▪ Special protective clothing and equipment is furnished when required.

▪ Loose clothing and gloves must not be worn when working around moving
machinery. Long sleeves must be rolled down and buttoned tight.

▪ For all functions involving the use of chemicals outside of the Chem Lab and
EED lab, the use of goggles, face shields, chemical/resistant gloves, and
chemical suits are required.

▪ It is mandatory that an acid suit shall be worn during all functions involving
acids or caustics.
OP0513-14 D-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

▪ Rubber gloves, Tyvek (white suits), or similar suits, rubber boots and vision
protection shall be worn during all operations involving lime.

Protective Footwear: Shoes of good quality construction, with leather or equivalent
material to provide protection from abrasion and punctures, are required.

Signs: Special instruction signs are for the safety of employees, visitors, and equipment.
These instructions shall be observed at all times:

▪ Caution Signs (Black and Yellow) – Indicate a possible hazard against which
proper precaution should be taken. Caution signs warn against potential
hazards or caution against an unsafe practice.

▪ Danger Signs (Red, Black, and White) – Indicate immediate danger, and
special precautions are necessary.

▪ Safety Instruction Signs (Green and White) – Provide general instructions
and for suggestive information.

▪ Radiation Warning Signs (Reddish Purple and Yellow) – Warn of a radiation
hazard only. Special precautions and equipment are necessary.

▪ Direction Signs (Black and White) – Ensure the safe and efficient flow of
vehicles and pedestrian traffic.

▪ Vision, Hearing and Respiratory Protection Signs, where posted, shall be
observed.

Horseplay – Scuffling or practical jokes are dangerous and are strictly forbidden.

Smoking Policy – Smoking or open flames shall not be permitted in areas where explosive
atmospheres might be present, including but not limited to, oil storage rooms, hydrogen
areas, coal handling systems, LPG handling and storage facility, and any other area posted as
a “NO SMOKING” area. Absence of “NO SMOKING” signs shall not excuse smoking in
dangerous places.

Seat Belts – Where seat belts are provided in vehicles and equipment, they shall be used at
all times while the vehicle or equipment is being operated.

Drugs and Alcohol – The use of intoxicating beverages on Company premises is strictly
forbidden. The use of any drug on Company property, except those prescribed by a
competent medical authority, is strictly forbidden by Company Policy.

3. Facility Plot Plan: The facility plot plans were submitted as part of the applications for
Operating Permit #OP0513-00 and Operating Permit #OP1187-00.

OP0513-14 E-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix E Opacity CEMS

Nothing in this appendix is intended to alter the requirements in the Acid Rain Appendix.

1. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75, Talen shall calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring
systems.

Except for system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments
required pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(d), 40 CFR Part 75 and the accuracy audits required below,
all continuous monitoring systems shall be in continuous operation.

Talen shall conduct annual accuracy audits using a calibration jig and NBS-traceable neutral
density filters on the continuous monitoring system.

2. Talen shall maintain records for a minimum of 5 years of the log sheets, computerized data,
analysis, and calculations used to prepare the required reports.

3. Compliance with this appendix shall be deemed compliance with the requirements contained in
the EPA PSD permit Appendix III issued September 11, 1979.

4. Compliance with this appendix shall be deemed compliance with the requirements contained in
MAQP #0513-09, Section II.C.1.e., Section II.C.2., Section II.E.1., and Section II.E.2.

5. Talen shall submit reports to the Department containing the information required by 40 CFR
60.7 and as required below. The Department is requiring all opacity CEMS reports to be
submitted quarterly.

a. Talen shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any malfunction of the air pollution
control equipment; or any periods during which the continuous monitoring system is
inoperative.

b. Talen shall submit an excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report
and/or a summary report form (see paragraph (c) below) to the Department. Written
reports of reportable excess emissions greater than 20% opacity shall include the
following information:

i. The magnitude of excess emissions, any conversion factor(s) used, and the date
and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess
emissions; and the process operating time during the reporting period.

ii. Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the affected facility; and the nature and
cause of any malfunction (if known), the corrective action taken or preventative
measures adopted.

iii. The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous
monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks and the
nature of the system repairs or adjustments.
OP0513-14 E-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
iv. When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring
system(s) have not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall
be stated in the report.

c. The summary report form shall contain the information and be in the format shown in
Figure 1. The summary report form shall be submitted:

i. If the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is less than 1%
of the total operating time for the reporting period and CEMS downtime for the
reporting period is less than 5% of the total operating time for the reporting
period, only the summary report form shall be submitted and the excess emission
report described in Section (b) above need not be submitted unless requested.

ii. If the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is 1% or greater
of the total operating time for the reporting period or the total CEMS downtime
for the reporting period is 5% or greater of the total operating time for the
reporting period, the summary report form and the excess emission report
described in Section (b) above shall both be submitted.

Figure 1--Summary Report-- Excess Emission and Monitoring
System Performance

Pollutant:
Reporting period dates: From _____ to _______
Emission Limitation:
Monitor Manufacturer and Model No.:
Date of Latest CEMS Certification or Audit:
Process Unit(s) Description:
Total source operating time in reporting period:

Emission Data Summary
1. Duration of excess emission in reporting period due to:
a. Startup/shutdown.
b. Control equipment problems.
c. Process problems.
d. Other known causes.
e. Unknown causes.

2. Total duration of excess emissions.

3. Total duration of excess emissions x (100) = % excess emissions
Total Boiler Operating Time

CEMS Performance Summary
1. CEMS downtime in reporting period due to:
a. Monitor equipment malfunctions.
b. Non-Monitor equipment malfunctions.
c. Quality assurance calibrations.
d. Other known causes.
e. Unknown causes.
OP0513-14 E-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

2. Total CEMS Downtime when the boiler is operating (nearest quarter hour).

3. Total CEMS downtime when the boiler is operating x 100 = % downtime
Total boiler operating time

4. Total boiler operating time (nearest quarter hour).

The quarterly reports must be postmarked by the 30th day after the end of each quarter.
OP0513-14 F-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix F SO2 CEMS

Nothing in this appendix is intended to alter the requirements in the Acid Rain Appendix.

1. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75, Talen shall calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring
systems.

The monitoring systems shall be capable of determining emissions in the units of the applicable
standards.

Except for system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments
required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75, all continuous monitoring systems shall be in continuous
operation.

2. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 shall be deemed compliance with the requirements contained
in 40 CFR 60.13(a) through (c), (e) through (g), and (i) through (j) and with 40 CFR 60.45(c).

3. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 and this appendix shall be deemed compliance with the
requirements contained in the EPA PSD permit Appendix III issued September 11, 1979.

4. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 and this appendix shall be deemed compliance with the
requirements contained in MAQP #0513-09, Section II.C.1.e., Section II.C.2., Section II.E.1.,
and Section II.E.2.

5. Talen shall maintain, for a minimum of 5 years, records of the log sheets, computerized data,
analysis, and calculations used to prepare the required reports.

6. Talen shall submit reports to the Department containing the information required by 40 CFR
60.7 and as required below. The Department is requiring all SO2 CEMS reports to be submitted
quarterly.

a. Talen shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any malfunction of the air pollution
control equipment; or any periods during which the continuous monitoring system is
inoperative.

b. Talen shall submit an excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report
and/or a summary report form (see Paragraph (c) below) to the Department. Written
reports of excess emissions shall be reported in the units of the standard exceeded and
shall include the following information:

i. The magnitude of excess emissions, any conversion factor(s) used, and the date
and time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess
emissions; and the process operating time during the reporting period.

ii. Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the affected facility; and the nature and
cause of any malfunction (if known), the corrective action taken or preventative
measures adopted.
OP0513-14 F-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
iii. The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous
monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks and the
nature of the system repairs or adjustments.

iv. When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring
system(s) have not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall
be stated in the report.

c. The summary report form shall contain the information and be in the format shown in
Figure 1. The summary report form shall be submitted:

i. If the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is less than 1%
of the total operating time for the reporting period and CEMS downtime for the
reporting period is less than 5% of the total operating time for the reporting
period, only the summary report form shall be submitted and the excess emission
report described in Section (b) above need not be submitted unless requested.

ii. If the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is 1% or greater
of the total operating time for the reporting period or the total CEMS downtime
for the reporting period is 5% or greater of the total operating time for the
reporting period, the summary report form and the excess emission report
described in Section (b) above shall both be submitted.

Figure 1--Summary Report--Gaseous Excess Emission and Monitoring
System Performance

Pollutant:
Reporting period dates: From _____ to _______
Emission Limitation:
Monitor Manufacturer and Model No.:
Date of Latest CEMS Certification or Audit:
Process Unit(s) Description:
Total source operating time in reporting period:

Emission Data Summary
1. Duration of excess emission in reporting period due to:
a. Startup/shutdown.
b. Control equipment problems.
c. Process problems.
d. Other known causes.
e. Unknown causes.

2. Total duration of excess emissions.

3. Total duration of excess emissions x (100) = % excess emissions
Total Boiler Operating Time

OP0513-14 F-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
CEMS Performance Summary
1. CEMS downtime in reporting period due to:
a. Monitor equipment malfunctions.
b. Non-Monitor equipment malfunctions.
c. Quality assurance calibrations.
d. Other known causes.
e. Unknown causes.

2. Total CEMS Downtime when the boiler is operating (nearest quarter hour).

3. Total CEMS downtime when the boiler is operating x 100 = % downtime
Total boiler operating time

4. Total boiler operating time (nearest quarter hour).

The quarterly reports must be postmarked by the 30th day after the end of each quarter.

7. Talen shall submit quarterly reports to the Department containing the following information for
each month of the quarter:

a. Tons of emissions calculated as the sum of Eh=K x Ch x Qh where Eh = emission rate
(lb/hr), K = 1.66 x 10-7 (lb/scf)/ppm (SO2), Ch = Measured Pollutant Concentration
(ppmwet), and Qh = Measured Stack Gas Flow Rate (SCFHwet); and

b. A summary report including the information identified in 40 CFR 75.64 (a)(2) in writing
that includes:

Tons (rounded to the nearest tenth) of SO2 emitted during the quarter and cumulative
SO2 emissions for calendar year.

The quarterly reports must be postmarked by the 30th day after the end of the calendar quarter.

8. Talen shall submit copies of all RATAs performed to the Department in accordance with ARM
17.8.106, Source Testing Protocol.

9. Talen shall submit copies of each monitoring plan revision that results in the need to recertify
the CEMS.

OP0513-14 G-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Appendix G NOx CEMS

Nothing in this appendix is intended to alter the requirements in the Acid Rain Appendix.

1. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75, Talen shall calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous
monitoring systems.

The monitoring systems shall be capable of determining emissions in the units of the
applicable standards.

Except for system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments
required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 75, all continuous monitoring systems shall be in
continuous operation.

2. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 shall be deemed compliance with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR 60.13(a) through (c), (e) through (g), and (i) through (j) and 40 CFR
60.45(c).

3. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 and this appendix shall be deemed compliance with the
requirements contained in the EPA PSD permit Appendix III issued September 11, 1979.

4. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 75 and this appendix shall be deemed compliance with the
requirements contained in MAQP #0513-09, Section II.C.1.e., Section II.C.2., Section
II.E.1., and Section II.E.2.

5. Talen shall conduct a “Standard Practice for Ultimate Analysis of Coal and Coke”, ASTM
D3176-89 (Reapproved 2002), at a minimum of once per year for each fuel used.

6. Talen shall determine the gross calorific value (GCV) of the fuels using ASTM D2015-91,
“Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke by the Adiabatic Bomb
Calorimeter” or other method as identified in 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix F, 3.3.6.2, at a
minimum of once per year for each fuel used.

7. Talen shall conduct a weekly fuel analysis using ASTM D4239-85 or other method approved
by the Department.

8. Talen shall maintain records for a minimum of 5 years of the log sheets, computerized data,
analysis, and calculations used to prepare the required reports.

9. Talen shall submit reports to the Department containing the information required by 40
CFR 60.7 and as required below. The Department is requiring all NOx CEMS reports to be
submitted quarterly.

a. Talen shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any malfunction of the air pollution
control equipment; or any periods during which the continuous monitoring system is
inoperative.

OP0513-14 G-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

b. Talen shall submit an excess emissions and monitoring systems performance report
and/or a summary report form (see paragraph (c) below) to the Department. Written
reports of excess emissions shall be reported in the units of the standard exceeded and
shall include the following information:

i. The magnitude of excess emissions, any conversion factor(s) used, and the date and
time of commencement and completion of each time period of excess emissions;
and the process operating time during the reporting period.

ii. Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the affected facility; and the nature and cause of any
malfunction (if known), the corrective action taken or preventative measures
adopted.

iii. The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous monitoring
system was inoperative except for zero and span checks and the nature of the system
repairs or adjustments.

iv. When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring system(s)
have not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall be stated in
the report.

c. The summary report form shall contain the information and be in the format shown in
Figure 1. The summary report form shall be submitted

i. If the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is less than 1% of
the total operating time for the reporting period and CEMS downtime for the
reporting period is less than 5% of the total operating time for the reporting period,
only the summary report form shall be submitted and the excess emission report
described in Section (b) above need not be submitted unless requested.

ii. If the total duration of excess emissions for the reporting period is 1% or greater of
the total operating time for the reporting period or the total CEMS downtime for the
reporting period is 5% or greater of the total operating time for the reporting period,
the summary report form and the excess emission report described in Section (b)
above shall both be submitted.

OP0513-14 G-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

Figure 1--Summary Report--Gaseous Excess Emission and Monitoring
System Performance

Pollutant:
Reporting period dates: From _____ to _______
Emission Limitation:
Monitor Manufacturer and Model No.:
Date of Latest CEMS Certification or Audit:
Process Unit(s) Description:
Total source operating time in reporting period:

Emission Data Summary
1. Duration of excess emission in reporting period due to:
a. Startup/shutdown.
b. Control equipment problems.
c. Process problems.
d. Other known causes.
e. Unknown causes.

2. Total duration of excess emissions.

3. Total duration of excess emissions x (100) = % excess emissions
Total Boiler Operating Time

CEMS Performance Summary
1. CEMS downtime in reporting period due to:
a. Monitor equipment malfunctions.
b. Non-Monitor equipment malfunctions.
c. Quality assurance calibrations.
d. Other known causes.
e. Unknown causes.

2. Total CEMS Downtime when the boiler is operating (nearest quarter hour).

3. Total CEMS downtime when the boiler is operating x 100 = % downtime
Total boiler operating time

4. Total boiler operating time (nearest quarter hour).

The quarterly reports must be postmarked by the 30th day after the end of each quarter.

10. Talen shall submit quarterly reports to the Department containing the following information
for each month of the quarter:

a. Monthly average coal analysis;

b. Coal consumption;

c. Other fuels combusted and the amount;
OP0513-14 G-4 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

d. Tons of emissions calculated as the sum of Eh=K x Ch x Qh where Eh = emission rate
(lb/hr), K = 1.19 x 10-7 (lb/scf)/ppm (NOx), Ch = Measured Pollutant Concentration
(ppmwet), and Qh = Measured Stack Gas Flow Rate (SCFHwet); and

e. A summary report including the information identified in 40 CFR 75.64 (a)(3) through
(5) in writing which includes:

i. Average NOx emission rate (lb/mmBtu, rounded to the nearest hundredth) during
the quarter and cumulative NOx emission rate for calendar year.

ii. Tons of CO2 emitted during quarter and cumulative CO2 for calendar year.

iii. Total heat input (mmBtu) for quarter and cumulative heat input for calendar year.

The quarterly reports must be postmarked by the 30th day after the end of the calendar
quarter.

11. Talen shall submit copies of all RATAs performed to the Department in accordance with
ARM 17.8.106, Source Testing Protocol.

12. Talen shall submit copies of each monitoring plan revision that results in the need to a
recertify the CEMS.

OP0513-14 H-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix H Acid Rain

OP0513-14 H-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 H-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 H-4 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 H-5 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 H-6 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix I Compliance Assurance Monitoring Plan

OP0513-14 I-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-4 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-5 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-6 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-7 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-8 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-9 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-10 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 I-11 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OP0513-14 J-1 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
Appendix J Mercury Emissions Monitoring System (MEMS)
(These requirements are “State Only”)

MEMS

a. For each Unit 1-4, Talen shall install, calibrate, certify, maintain, and operate an MEMS to
monitor and record the rate of mercury emissions discharged into the atmosphere from all
mercury emitting generating units (units) as defined in the Administrative Rules of Montana
17.8.740.

(1) The MEMS shall be comprised of equipment as required in 40 CFR 75.81(a) and defined
in 40 CFR 72.2.

(2) The MEMS shall conform to all applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 75.

(3) The MEMS data will be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations
contained in Section III.I.1.

b. Talen shall prepare, maintain and submit a written MEMS Monitoring Plan to the
Department.

(1) The monitoring plan shall contain sufficient information on the MEMS and the use of
data derived from these systems to demonstrate that all the gaseous mercury stack
emissions from each unit are monitored and reported.

(2) Whenever Talen makes a replacement, modification, or change in a MEMS or alternative
monitoring system under 40 CFR Part 75 subpart E, including a change in the
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) or in the flue gas handling
system, that affects information reported in the monitoring plan (e.g. a change to a serial
number for a component of a monitoring system), then the owner or operator shall
update the monitoring plan.

(3) If any monitoring plan information requires an update pursuant to Section b.(2),
submission of the written monitoring plan update shall be completed prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the quarterly report required in c. below for the quarter
in which the update is required.

(4) The initial submission of the Monitoring Plan to the Department shall include a copy of
a written Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan as detailed in 40 CFR Part
75 Appendix B, Section 1. Subsequently, the QA/QC Plan need only be submitted to
the Department when it is substantially revised. Substantial revisions can include items
such as changes in QA/QC processes resulting from rule changes, modifications in the
frequency or timing of QA/QC procedures, or the addition/deletion of equipment or
procedures.

(5) The Monitoring Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

(a) Facility summary including:

OP0513-14 J-2 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
(i) A description of each mercury-emitting generating unit at the facility.

(ii) Maximum and average loads (in megawatts (MW)) with fuels combusted and fuel
flow rates at the maximum and average loads for each unit.

(iii) A description of each unit’s air pollution control equipment and a description of
the physical characteristics of each unit’s stack.

(b) Mercury emission control summary including a description of control strategies,
equipment, and design process rates.

(c) MEMS description, including:

(i) Identification and description of each monitoring component in the MEMS
including manufacturer and model identifications; monitoring method
descriptions; and normal operating scale and units descriptions. Descriptions of
stack flow, diluent gas, and moisture monitors (if used) in the system must be
described in addition to the mercury monitor or monitors.

(ii) A description of the normal operating process for each monitor including a
description of all QA/QC checks.

(iii) A description of the methods that will be employed to verify and maintain the
accuracy and precision of the MEMS calibration equipment.

(iv) Identification and description of the DAHS, including major hardware and
software components, conversion formulas, constants, factors, averaging
processes, and missing data substitution procedures.

(v) A description of all initial certification and ongoing recertification tests and
frequencies; as well as all accuracy auditing tests and frequencies.

(d) The Maximum Potential Concentration (MPC), Maximum Expected Concentration
(MEC), span value, and range value as applicable and as defined in 40 CFR Part 75
Appendix A, 2.1.7.

(e) Examples of all data reports required in c. below.

c. Talen shall submit written, Quarterly Mercury Monitoring Reports. The reports shall be
received by the Department within 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, and
shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Mercury emissions. The reports shall include:

(a) For each Unit 1-4, the monthly average lb/TBtu mercury emission rate for each
month of the quarter;

(b) For each Unit 1-4, the 12-month rolling average lb/TBtu emission rate for each
month of the reporting quarter. The rolling 12-month basis is an average of the last
12 individual calendar monthly averages, with each monthly average calculated at the
end of each calendar month; and
OP0513-14 J-3 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018
(c) For each Unit 1-4, the total heat input to the boiler (in TBtu) for each 12-month
rolling period of the quarter.

(d) The 12-month facility-wide rolling average lb/TBtu mercury emission rate, calculated
according to Section III.I.1, for each month of the quarter.

(2) Mercury excess emissions. The report shall describe the magnitude of excess mercury
emissions experienced during the quarter, including:

(a) The date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess
emissions. Periods of excess emissions shall be defined as those emissions calculated
on a rolling 12-month basis which are greater than the limitation established in
Section III.I.1.

(b) The nature and cause of each period of excess emissions and the corrective action
taken or preventative measures adopted in response.

(c) If no periods of excess mercury emissions were experienced during the quarter, the
report shall state that information.

(3) MEMS performance. The report shall describe:

(a) The number of operating hours that the MEMS was unavailable or not operating
within quality assurance limits (monitor downtime) during the reporting quarter,
broken down by the following categories:

• Monitor equipment malfunctions;

• Non-Monitor equipment malfunctions;

• Quality assurance calibration;

• Other known causes; and

• Unknown causes.

(b) The percentage of unit operating time that the MEMS was unavailable or not
operating within quality assurance limits (monitor downtime) during the reporting
quarter. The percentage of monitor downtime in each calendar quarter shall be
calculated according to the following formula:

100%

OpHours
ursMEMSDownHomeMEMSDownti where

MEMSDowntime% = Percentage of unit operating hours classified as
MEMS
monitor downtime during the reporting quarter.

MEMSDownHours = Total number of hours of MEMS monitor downtime
during the reporting quarter.
OP0513-14 J-4 Decision: 06/15/2018
Effective Date: 07/17/ 2018

OpHours = Total number of hours the unit operated during the
reporting quarter.

(c) For any reporting quarter in which monitor downtime exceeds 10%, a description of
each time period during which the MEMS was inoperative or operating in a manner
defined in 40 CFR Part 75 as “out of control.” Each description must include the
date, start and end times, total downtime (in hours), the reason for the system
downtime, and any necessary corrective actions that were taken. In addition, the
report shall describe the values used for any periods when missing data substitution
was necessary as detailed in 40 CFR 75.30.

(4) The quarterly report shall include the results of any QA/QC audits, checks, or tests
conducted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 75 Appendices A, B or K.

(5) Compliance certification. Each quarterly report shall contain a certification statement
signed by the facility’s responsible official based on reasonable inquiry of those persons
with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and
fully monitored. The certification shall indicate:

(a) Whether the monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 75 including the QA/QC procedures and
specifications of that part and its appendices, and any such requirements, procedures
and specifications of an applicable excepted or approved alternative monitoring
method as represented in the approved Monitoring Plan.

(b) That for all hours where data are substituted in accordance with 40 CFR 75.38, the
add-on mercury emission controls were operating within the range of parameters
listed in the quality-assurance plan for the unit, and that the substitute values do not
systematically underestimate mercury emissions.

(6) The format of each component of the quarterly report may be negotiated with the
Department’s representative to accommodate the capabilities and formats of the facility’s
DAHS.

(7) Each quarterly report must be received by the Department within 30 days following the
end of each calendar reporting period (January-March, April-June, July-September, and
October-December).

(8) The electronic data reporting detailed in 40 CFR Part 75 shall not be required unless
Montana is able to receive and process data in an electronic format.

d. Talen shall maintain a file of all measurements and performance testing results from the
MEMS; all MEMS performance evaluations; all MEMS or monitoring device calibration
checks and audits; and records of all adjustments and maintenance performed on these
systems or devices recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection. The file shall be
retained on site for at least 5 years following the date of such measurements and reports.
Talen shall make these records available for inspection by the Department and shall supply
these records to the Department upon request.
Steve Bullock, Governor I Tom Livers, Director I P.O. Box 200901 I Helena, MT 59620-0901 I [phone] I www.deq.mt.gov

August 31, 2018

Gordon Criswell
Talen Montana, LLC
Colstrip Steam Electric Station
P.O. Box 38
Colstrip, MT 59323

Sent via email to: [e-mail]

RE: Request for information related to compliance with Mercury & Air Toxics Standard

Dear Mr. Criswell:

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Department) requests additional information
regarding recent filterable particulate matter (PM) emissions tests and related facility operations at the
Colstrip Steam Electric Station (CSES).

Talen Montana, LLC (Talen) conducted PM emissions testing at CSES on June 21, 2018 and June 26,
2018 for Units 3 and 4, respectively. Test results indicated, and the Source Test Report submitted by
CSES confirmed, that CSES was operating in excess of the applicable emission limit contained in
Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63 (40 CFR 63) Subpart UUUUU, also referred to as the
Mercury & Air Toxics Standard (MATS).

To fully address the extent of this matter, DEQ requests that Talen provide the following information:

1. The daily calculation of the weighted 30-boiler operating day rolling average emission rate
(WAER) for each of Units 1-4 as specified by Equation 2a at §63.10009(b)(2), from September
8, 2016 to present. The calculation must identify the emissions rate used for each unit and the
source of the 30-day total heat input (HI) for that unit for each daily calculation. Provide a
description of the calculation methodology, including rationale for the chosen methodology,
and citation of applicable rules to justify the methodology used.

2. Records of the daily heat input (HI) for each of Units 1-4 from September 8, 2016 to present.
Please clearly demonstrate how these daily HI values are used in calculating the WAER.

3. Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup and/or shut down for each of Units
1-4 from September 8, 2016 to present. Provide a narrative description of how Talen complies
with the work practice standards of MATS during these occurrences and demonstrate how
these situations are addressed in the WAER calculations.

Talen Montana, LLC
Colstrip Steam Electric Station
August 31, 2018
Page 2 of 2

4. A description of all non-routine work performed, any operational changes, and any changes
to the coal supply or quality at Units 3 and 4 for the period between the fourth quarter 2017
and the second quarter 2018 that may have impacted the PM emissions performance.

5. A description of all inspection, maintenance, and operation activities associated with the
boilers and venturi scrubbers since the deviations.

6. Records of the date and time (start and end) for each period of noncompliance from June 21,
2018 to present.
The Department is requesting this information, subject to Section V.A.4 of Talen’s Operating Permit
(OP0513-14), be submitted no later than September 17, 2018. Should Talen have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail]. Thank you for your attention to
this matter.
Sincerely,
David L. Klemp Air Quality Bureau Chief
Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Research Brief:
Westmoreland Coal
Is in Trouble

February 2018
Seth Feaster, Energy Data Analyst

Overview

Colorado-based thermal-coal producer Westmoreland Coal Co, which had $1.5 billion
in revenue and 3,200 employees in 2016, has been losing money quarter after quarter
for the past few years as electricity-generation markets have moved away from coal.

The company’s difficulties are far-
reaching. Its holdings include
major assets across a broad
geographic area that includes
Ohio, Montana, Wyoming, New
Mexico, and Alberta, Canada.

The company has a market
capitalization of only about $10
million (as of Feb. 15), following a
97 percent fall in its stock price
over the past year, and shares are
now trading well under a dollar.
This stock collapse has occurred
as the broader stock market has
risen substantially. Westmoreland
Coal is weighed down by more
than $1.6 billion in debt,
according to S&P Global Ratings,
which gives them a credit rating
of CCC, a junk rating that is so far
below that of investment grade
debt that it can be considered
speculative. S&P Global Ratings
downgraded Westmoreland this
past November and warned at
the time of possible default.

The company’s CEO left at the end of November, and Westmoreland today is
negotiating with lenders in talks that could allow those lenders to take ownership of
Westmoreland assets in Ohio and Wyoming.

Risk is Growing for Investors;
Ratepayers and Taxpayers in New Mexico
and Montana Could Be Affected as Well

The growing possibility of a bankruptcy by Westmoreland raises risk not just to investors,
but to electric ratepayers and taxpayers in some areas where the company does
business. Effects could include job losses; loan defaults; mine closures; difficulties in
paying for mine reclamation; and local and state and federal government revenue
losses. Westmoreland could also run into trouble meeting long-term coal delivery
contracts.

Those risks are particularly high in New Mexico, where the company borrowed $125
million from an affiliate of Public Service of New Mexico, the largest utility in the state, to
buy the San Juan mine, which is the exclusive supplier to the San Juan Generating
Station near Farmington. Public Service of New Mexico (PNM) retired two of four units at
San Juan in December, cutting coal demand at the plant in half, and announced
plans to close the remaining two units by 2022, raising obvious questions as to how
Westmoreland will repay the $125 million loan. Also at issue: the true value of the mine
itself.

In Montana, the company owns three mines—Absaloka, Rosebud and Savage—under
growing pressure from declining demand and low coal prices. Only a few years ago,
the owners of the 2,100-megawatt Colstrip Power Plant, supplied by the adjacent
Rosebud mine, expected the plant to run well into the 2040s. Now, the utilities that own
Colstrip plan to shut units 1 and 2 by 2022, and Colstrip’s largest utility co-owner says it is
prepared to shut the remaining units, 3 and 4, by 2027, almost two decades earlier than
expected.

Westmoreland is proceeding nonetheless and inexplicably with plans to expand the
Rosebud mine. Regulators involved with decisions on Westmoreland’s mining permit,
lease applications for extension, and reclamation liabilities would do well to be
proceed with wariness. Vanishing demand for coal locally, regionally and nationally do
not bode well.

Distress in Ohio

The immediate source of Westmoreland’s current financial distress, and a potential
trigger for a bankruptcy filing for the company, centers on $300 million in debt owed by
its limited-partnership subsidiary, Westmoreland Resource Partners LP (WMLP).

The subsidiary was created in 2014 when Westmoreland acquired Oxford Resources. It
owns about 10 thermal coal mines in Eastern Ohio and one in Wyoming. Its customer
base is not diversified. Nearly 80 percent of Westmoreland Resource Partners’ sales
went to just three companies in 2016: AEP, Pacificorp Energy, and the East Kentucky
Power Cooperative.

The acquisition that led to the creation of the subsidy was hailed as an advantageous
one. But the promised benefits have failed to emerge, and the subsidiary is now sinking
under the weight of its debt. Westmoreland seems to be trying to avert bankruptcy by
transferring all of WMLP’S assets to it lenders—along perhaps with other assets—but no
agreement has been reached.

If these negotiations fail, bankruptcy could be around the corner.

Company Missteps and Industry Headwinds

Because of its debt load, Westmoreland Coal has little room to maneuver.

First, their strategy of focusing on mines with power plants nearby (called mine-mouth
plants) hasn’t worked out well. That approach was originally seen by analysts as
advantageous stabilizing for having a large, long-term customer dependent on using
the specific coal mined nearby. Instead, it has often proven the opposite: mines have
been more vulnerable to the utility decisions and market forces at a single plant;
isolation from transportation networks has made it difficult or impossible to gain
alternative customers; and these mines tend to be more susceptible to uncompetitive
operational cost structures when mining challenges emerge or coal demand at the
plant decreases.

In Texas, the company’s Jewett lignite mine, whose only customer was NRG’s Limestone
Plant, was closed and began a reclamation program at the end of 2016 after NRG
cancelled its coal contract two years early and switched to coal produced in the
Powder River Basin by a different mining company.

Westmoreland’s Beulah Mine in North Dakota, next to the Coyote Generating Plant, has
struggled since mid-2016 after that plant’s coal contract was also lost to a competitor.

Public Service of New Mexico’s decision to transition away from coal-fired electricity
has resulted in a sharp drop in coal demand and higher depreciation, depletion and
amortization expenses for Westmoreland by way of its San Juan mine ownership.

The company has been plagued by other problems.

Last year, it retired two coal-fired generating units it had built in North Carolina in the
1990s, as low power prices made running those plants uneconomic; Westmoreland had
already written off over $130 million in losses for those plants.

In Canada, Westmoreland’s four coal mines in Alberta and two in Saskatchewan,
which sell primarily to Canadian electric utilities or for export to Asia, are imperiled as
Alberta implements a phase-out of coal use by 2030 (Alberta’s government has said
the province produces more coal pollution than all other Canadian provinces
combined). Two of Westmoreland’s key power-producing customers, ATCO and
TransAlta, announced their own, accelerated plans to eliminate coal and convert their
plants to natural gas by 2020 and 2022, respectively. The companies say that abundant
supplies and low prices for natural gas in the province make the early transition
financially compelling.

Further, Westmoreland is facing the same headwinds hampering the rest of the U.S.
coal industry.

Utilities across the country continue to retire coal-fired units at a rapid pace, which cuts
heavily into overall demand for coal. Many plants’ advanced age and relatively high
maintenance and operating costs are making them uneconomic to run in competitive
electric markets, where cheap natural gas and the falling cost of wind and solar
generation are relentlessly stealing market share.

The coal mining industry as a whole has not adjusted to lower demand, however,
leading to an intensely competitive, oversupplied thermal coal market with low- or
nonexistent-profit margins for many producers. Companies that appear to be doing
better than some include those that have already gone through bankruptcy recently;
that produce metallurgical coal, which feeds a separate market with higher prices at
the moment; or that are able to export thermal coal, particularly to Asia.

While Westmoreland does export a limited amount of coal to Asia, it does not produce
metallurgical coal and is almost entirely dependent on selling to U.S. and Canadian
power generators.

Summary: Westmoreland Is in a
Precarious Financial Position

The company’s current stock price is currently trading around 50 cents a share,
reflecting an almost total loss in value over the past year. Westmoreland is well over a
billion dollars in debt and faces debt-service costs that will only increase as interest rates
rise. Its debt is in junk-bond territory and deteriorating. It continues to report losses,
quarter after quarter. Its negotiations with lenders has led it to try to give away assets to
avoid default. Intense competition, low prices, and overall falling demand for coal are
also buffeting the company.

All of these suggest that Westmoreland is in a precarious financial position that stands to
adversely affect its business and potentially expose investors, lenders—and, in some
instances, ratepayers and taxpayers—to fallout should the company go bankrupt.

About IEEFA
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis conducts research and
analyses on financial and economic issues related to energy and the environment. The
Institute’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable
energy. http://ieefa.org

Important Information
This report is for information and educational purposes only. The Institute for Energy
Economics and Financial Analysis (“IEEFA”) does not provide tax, legal, investment or
accounting advice. This report is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on
for, tax, legal, investment or accounting advice. Nothing in this report is intended as
investment advice, as an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or as a
recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any security, company, or fund.
IEEFA is not responsible for any investment decision made by you. You are responsible
for your own investment research and investment decisions. This report is not meant as a
general guide to investing, nor as a source of any specific investment
recommendation. Unless attributed to others, any opinions expressed are our current
opinions only. Certain information presented may have been provided by third parties.
IEEFA believes that such third-party information is reliable, and has checked public
records to verify it wherever possible, but does not guarantee its accuracy, timeliness or
completeness; and it is subject to change without notice.

About the Author
Seth Feaster is an IEEFA energy-data analyst and former data analyst for the New York
Times and the Federal Reserve of New York.