Decatur, AL and Wellington, OH — 4/27/26 Alliance Technical Group, a leading provider of environmental testing, monitoring, and compliance services, announced today the acquisition of Grace Consulting, Inc. (GCI), a nationally recognized air sampling and stack testing firm specializing in air emissions testing and environmental compliance services. Founded in 2000 and operating out of offices in Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas, GCI has established itself as one of the largest privately held stack testing companies in the nation. Over the past two decades, GCI has served clients across a broad range of industries, providing comprehensive air sampling services backed by the latest sampling techniques and technical advancements. "Grace Consulting has built a remarkable reputation as a premier stack testing firm in the country, with deep technical expertise and a strong commitment to client service," said Chris LeMay, CEO of Alliance Technical Group. "Their capabilities in air emissions testing, combined with their extensive equipment inventory and highly credentialed field teams, make them an outstanding addition to the Alliance family and significantly strengthen our national footprint." With the addition of GCI, Alliance further deepens its technical capabilities in source emissions testing while broadening its geographic reach across the continental United States. GCI's experienced field teams will integrate with Alliance's expansive environmental services network, providing clients with greater resources, enhanced technical depth, and expanded coverage. "Becoming part of Alliance Technical Group marks an exciting new chapter for GCI and the team we've built since 2000," said Scott Teague, President of Grace Consulting, Inc. "We share a commitment to delivering high-quality, reliable environmental testing services, and joining Alliance gives us the platform to offer our clients even greater resources and capabilities as we continue to grow together." This acquisition reflects Alliance's ongoing strategy to strengthen its environmental testing and compliance services and extend its reach across North America. The Exit Group supported Alliance Technical Group in sourcing and executing the transaction.

Facilities preparing for Appendix K optical gas imaging (OGI) monitoring requirements often face a common challenge: managing documentation, inspection data, videos and reporting across multiple systems. This often creates challenges during audits when records must be compiled or verified. Appendix K programs require structured documentation of OGI inspections, including daily verification checks, weather conditions, and video documentation.  What Data Must Be Collected for Appendix K OGI Inspections Inspection records must capture operational parameters such as: Temperature Wind speed Sky conditions Gas type Flow rate  Camera distance  This information is stored directly within the inspection record within SkyBridge, ensuring that verification documentation remains linked to the survey data. How SkyBridge Supports Appendix K OGI Monitoring and Documentation SkyBridge Software includes integrated functionality designed to support Appendix K workflows, helping environmental teams capture and manage the required documentation directly within a single platform. SkyBridge is part of Alliance Technical Group’s suite of environmental compliance software tools designed to streamline monitoring programs and reduce manual data management. SkyBridge operates as a cloud-based compliance management system, allowing organizations to manage LDAR, OGI, and Cooling Tower and Fenceline Monitoring programs in one centralized database. Core capabilities include: LDAR scheduling and repair tracking Method 21 monitoring support Visual leak documentation Visible vapor and OGI camera integration Leak management tracking Recordkeeping and LDAR reporting GPS tracking for field technicians Because SkyBridge integrates web and mobile applications, technicians can collect inspection data in the field while syncing information directly to the system. OGI Monitoring and Appendix K Verification and Documentation SkyBridge includes specific functionality designed to support Appendix K OGI monitoring documentation requirements. Field technicians can document and upload verification data directly from the inspection location, including: Daily verification check documentation and video uploads - Creating a traceable record that verification checks were completed prior to surveys, helping facilities demonstrate that OGI cameras were operating properly and that monitoring procedures were followed.  Daily field check documentation and video uploads - Ensures required checks are consistently recorded in real time, reducing reliance on manual logs and minimizing gaps in documentation. Weather and environmental conditions documentation - Captures required conditions at the time of monitoring, supporting data validity and helping avoid challenges to inspection results. Leak Image and video file documentation - Provides visual evidence of findings, improving transparency, supporting repair prioritization, and strengthening compliance records. QA Verification video - Documents quality assurance activities, reinforcing program credibility and helping facilities demonstrate adherence to Appendix K requirements. Supporting Scalable OGI and Appendix K Compliance Programs As OGI monitoring programs continue to expand, environmental teams need tools that help simplify field documentation and maintain consistent records. By combining inspection documentation, leak management, video uploads, and reporting into one system, SkyBridge provides a structured approach to managing Appendix K monitoring programs.

Stack testing — also called performance testing or source testing — is used to measure a facility's air emissions and verify compliance with emission limits established under the Clean Air Act (CAA). A stack test tends to go one of two ways: planned and predictable, or compressed and reactive. The difference comes down to coordination. Delays in scheduling or execution can quickly lead to retesting costs, missed compliance deadlines, production disruptions, and increased regulatory risk. What starts as a timing issue can escalate into a much larger operational and financial impact. This guide breaks down what stack testing is, when it is required, and how to execute it in a way that supports compliance and operations. What Is Stack Testing? Stack testing quantifies regulated air emissions at the source and is required to demonstrate compliance under federal programs, including NSPS, MACT, and NESHAP. It is used to demonstrate both initial and ongoing compliance under major federal programs, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR Part 60, Acid Rain Program (Part 75, CEMS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR Part 61, and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards under 40 CFR Part 63. When Is Stack Testing Required? Initial Compliance New or modified sources typically face specific regulatory deadlines for completing an initial stack test: NSPS (40 CFR Part 60): Within 180 days after initial startup, or 60 days after reaching maximum production rate MACT (40 CFR Part 63): Notice of Compliance Status is typically due within 150 days for certain subparts Ongoing Permit Requirements Facilities with an Air Pollution Control Permit are commonly required to conduct periodic testing to demonstrate continuous compliance. Regulatory agencies can also require a test at their discretion, particularly when no continuous monitoring system exists or when previous results showed a narrow compliance margin. Specific Operational Triggers Stack testing is also required in these situations: CEMS evaluations – Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) and linearity checks to verify Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Rule changes – Updates to federal standards (Residual Risk and Technology Reviews, revised PM thresholds) can trigger new testing mandates Information Collection Requests (ICRs) – EPA may require testing under CAA Section 114 to support new rulemaking Engineering and Investigative Testing Not all stack testing is regulation driven. Facilities routinely test for internal purposes — process optimization, control device evaluation, and emissions profiling for future planning. Core Requirements for a Valid Stack Test To produce defensible data, stack tests must meet strict regulatory criteria: Representative Conditions: testing must reflect normal or worst-case operations  Run Structure: compliance is based on the average of three consecutive valid runs   Advance Regulatory Notification: These windows exist to give the regulatory agency the opportunity to observe. 30 days (Part 60, Part 61)  60 days (Part 63)  Data Integrity: invalid runs must be reported and may require replacement  Failure to meet these requirements can result in rejected data or required retesting. How a Stack Test Works Most compliance tests follow the same general structure: Pre-test planning and method selection Site-specific test plan development and agency notification Equipment setup and calibration Three test runs per emission point, with QA/QC checks Final report preparation and submission A straightforward test typically takes one to two days per emission point. Complex programs — multiple pollutants, restricted access points, or extended run times — take longer. What Does a Stack Test Report Include? The final report is the primary compliance document. A well-structured report should include: Executive summary – What was tested, why, and how results compare to limits Test program summary – Facility details, regulatory drivers, emission sources, control systems, and site-specific plans Summary of results – Emissions data alongside operating conditions, compared directly to permit limits Methodology – EPA reference methods used and any method-specific considerations Appendices – Field data sheets, calibration records, process data, and example calculations Stack testing is as much about scheduling coordination as it is about testing execution. Facilities that align planning, operations, and testing early gain flexibility and reduce risk. Those that delay often face limited options and higher costs. Alliance is the largest stack testing provider in the U.S. Alliance Technical Group provides stack testing services nationwide, with accredited laboratories (NELAC, LELAP, TCEQ), on-site FTIR capabilities, and integrated field and analytical teams. Whether you're planning an initial compliance test or managing an ongoing permit requirement, we help you get through it with reliable data and fewer surprises. If you are approaching a compliance deadline, the most important step is simple: Secure your test window early. Frequently Asked Questions

Facilities subject to NSPS Subpart OOOOb must monitor flare performance to demonstrate proper combustion and emissions control. One of the key parameters required under the rule is Net Heating Value (NHV) .  Understanding how NHV sampling works, which equipment is affected, and current compliance timelines is critical for oil and gas operators preparing for NSPS OOOOb. We asked our experts to answer the most common NHV sampling questions facilities ask, including practical considerations shaped by real fieldwork. Here’s what to know before you start building or adjusting your program. How Alliance Technical Group Supports OOOOb NHV Compliance  Preparing for NSPS OOOOb compliance requires coordination across sampling, laboratory analysis, and reporting. With the June 1, 2026 deadline approaching, any gaps in personnel, process, or data management can slow you down. Alliance Technical Group supports oil and gas operators through the full scope of NSPS OOOOb compliance. From applicability determinations and NHV sampling program development to laboratory analysis and data interpretation, our teams help facilities implement monitoring programs that meet current requirements and stay ahead of upcoming deadlines. Meet Our Experts  MaryBeth Clifford Emissions Compliance Specialist Dan Smith Project Director, Air Quality Steve LaRue Sr. Operations Manager Frequently Asked Questions

On April 4, 2026, the U.S. EPA finalized revisions to portions of the 2024 oil and natural gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, commonly referred to as OOOOb/c. These updates follow industry petitions, additional data submitted after the 2024 rule, and a formal reconsideration process initiated in 2025.   While the structure of the original rule remains in place, several key provisions have been adjusted to address implementation challenges, particularly around flaring and net heating value (NHV) monitoring.   Here is what changed and what it means for your compliance program.   What Changed in OOOOb/c   1. Temporary Flaring Extended to 72 Hours   The allowable duration for temporary flaring of associated gas has been extended from 24 hours to up to 72 hours for troubleshooting and repairs.   The rule also introduces a new "exigent circumstances" provision that grants additional time beyond 72 hours in cases where site access is limited due to:   Severe weather  Personnel shortages  Supply chain constraints  Operators must document and report these events.   2. Adjusted NHV Monitoring Requirements   Operators are no longer required to perform routine Net Heating Value (NHV) sampling for flares or enclosed combustion devices (ECDs)   unless conditions exist that could lower heating value , such as the presence of inert gases.   3. Associated Gas Exemption Removed   Additionally, the general exemption from NHV monitoring for associated gas at well sites has been removed. Going forward, associated gas sources will be subject to the same monitoring framework as other affected facilities.   4. Updated Parameters for Alternative Performance Tests   The revised rule also finalizes several updates to the alternative performance test option for both new and existing sources. Specific changes include:   NHV grab sampling can now be conducted upstream of the inlet to the control device.  The performance test window is set to 14 operating days, with weekend and holiday breaks allowed, provided sampling is spaced no more than 3-operating days apart from the previous sampling day.  Block hourly averaging is required for continuous samples.  A one-hour minimum sampling time applies to twice-daily samples, with an exception for sites where low or intermittent flow makes that duration infeasible.  5. Sampling Demonstration Clarification   The finalized rule also adds clarifying language confirming that the sampling demonstration can serve as an alternative to continuous monitoring for all air-assisted and steam-assisted flares and ECDs.   What Has Not Changed   It is important to note that the broader structure of OOOOb/c remains intact:   Performance standards for new, modified, and reconstructed sources still apply  States are still responsible for implementing emissions guidelines for existing sources  Documentation, reporting, and defensibility remain central to compliance  Current Compliance Deadlines   The EPA issued an Interim Final Rule on December 3, 2025, extending several OOOOb compliance deadlines. Those deadlines remain in effect.   What Oil & Gas Operators Should Do Next   Re-evaluate NHV compliance strategies:  Determine where sampling is still required and where it may no longer apply  Review flare and ECD operations:  Identify scenarios where inert gases or variable gas streams could still trigger monitoring  Update internal procedures and documentation:  Especially for flaring events exceeding 72 hours and exigent circumstances  Monitor upcoming rulemaking:  The EPA has indicated that additional revisions to the 2024 rule are still under development  Navigating OOOOb Requirements with Alliance   These revisions do not remove compliance obligations, but they do change how those obligations are met once they take effect. As the June 1, 2026, NHV compliance date approaches, many facilities are operating in a narrow window where the existing requirements remain in effect, even as the EPA has finalized changes that will soon alter monitoring and testing expectations.   Alliance Technical Group helps operators navigate this transition—clarifying what is required today, what will change once the amendments become effective, and how to implement a compliant, defensible approach that minimizes rework and enforcement risk while positioning facilities for the updated rule.   Read the official press release on the EPA Website.

The Biogas Regulatory Reform Rule (BRRR) has tightened federal oversight of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) production under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). RNG from landfills, dairies, and wastewater treatment plants must now be measured, sampled, and verified using EPA-approved methods before it qualifies for RIN generation or downstream sale. This shift makes RNG compliance, RNG sampling, and data verification under the Renewable Fuel Standard central to maintaining eligibility and supporting RIN generation.   What Is Required for RNG Compliance Under BRRR? BRRR introduces standardized, auditable requirements for RNG facilities across the Renewable Fuel Standard. Operators must now demonstrate: Verified RNG sampling and measurement using EPA-approved methods Documented gas composition and flow rate data Traceable records supporting RIN generation under the RFS Audit-ready documentation aligned with EPA reporting expectations These requirements apply across the RNG value chain, including landfill operators, dairy digesters, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and RNG developers. BRRR implementation began July 1, 2024 for new facilities , required registration updates by October 1, 2024, and is fully enforceable for all RNG pathways as of January 1, 2025. Facilities that did not align registration, sampling, and reporting processes ahead of these deadlines are now operating under increased compliance risk. Sampling and measurement are no longer supporting tasks—they are now part of the core compliance framework for RNG operations.   How to Meet RNG Sampling Requirements Under BRRR To meet BRRR requirements, facilities must implement structured RNG sampling programs that are consistent, repeatable, and defensible. A compliant RNG sampling program includes: Flow rate measurement to quantify gas production volumes Gas composition sampling to confirm methane content and renewable gas quality Certified laboratory analysis using validated testing methods Chain-of-custody documentation to track sample handling and transfer Audit-ready records that connect field sampling to RFS reporting These elements verify methane yield and renewable content, which are required for RIN qualification and compliance under the Renewable Fuel Standard.   Data Verification and Audit Requirements for RFS Compliance BRRR places increased emphasis on data integrity, traceability, and audit readiness. Facilities must ensure that: RNG sampling data is consistent and reproducible Laboratory results are certified and traceable Documentation connects field sampling to final RFS reporting Records can withstand third-party and EPA audit review Certified lab results and third-party audit trails protect project owners, off-takers, and marketers by ensuring that RNG data is defensible. Without verified sampling and traceable data, RNG does not meet compliance requirements under BRRR. How Alliance Helps Facilities Meet BRRR Compliance Requirements Alliance Technical Group supports RNG facilities with end-to-end gas quality programs designed to meet BRRR and Renewable Fuel Standard requirements. From field sampling and chain-of-custody control to certified laboratory analysis (CH₄, CO₂, H₂S, O₂, siloxanes, moisture) and regulatory-grade RFS reporting, our programs are built to produce consistent, traceable, and audit-ready data. Through this work, advisors like Shane Lee partner with facilities to translate regulatory requirements into practical, defensible sampling and reporting programs. Shane Lee RNG/Biogas Project Manager

Decatur, AL and Edmonton, AB — 3/09/26 Alliance Technical Group , a leading provider of environmental testing, monitoring, and compliance services, announced today the acquisition of   Protocol2 Air Sciences Inc. ,  a Canadian environmental consulting firm specializing in industrial source emission testing and air quality services. Founded in 2003 and headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta, Protocol2 Air Sciences is a Canadian firm known for its expertise in industrial air emissions testing and environmental consulting. Over the past two decades, the company has completed more than 3,000 projects supporting industrial facilities with stack emissions testing, air monitoring, and regulatory compliance assessments. Protocol2’s experienced professionals provide services across a diverse range of sectors including oil and gas, power generation, pulp and paper, mining, hazardous waste management, and other industrial operations. “Protocol2 Air Sciences has established itself as a trusted provider of air emissions testing services with deep technical knowledge and strong client relationships,” said Chris LeMay, CEO of Alliance Technical Group. “Their expertise and experience across a wide range of industrial sectors enhance our ability to support clients with reliable testing, regulatory insight, and the high-quality environmental solutions they expect from Alliance.” Protocol2 has earned long-term client relationships by delivering accurate emissions data and practical technical insight that helps facilities navigate evolving regulatory requirements. In addition to compliance testing, the company supports clients with process optimization evaluations, pollution control system performance assessments, and air monitoring programs. Its teams utilize advanced instrumentation and proven testing methodologies to ensure defensible results and consistent service quality. With the addition of Protocol2, Alliance further expands its technical capabilities in source emissions testing while strengthening its footprint within the Canadian environmental services market. The integration of Protocol2’s experienced field teams with Alliance’s broader environmental services network will provide clients with expanded resources, technical depth, and broader geographic coverage. “Joining Alliance provides an exciting opportunity to continue delivering the high standards of service our clients rely on while gaining access to additional resources and technical expertise,” said Kevin Smith, President of Protocol2 Air Sciences Inc. “We look forward to working together to provide expanded environmental testing solutions and support for clients across Canada and beyond.” This acquisition underscores Alliance’s continued growth strategy to expand its environmental testing and compliance services while strengthening its presence throughout North America. The Exit Group supported Alliance Technical Group in sourcing and executing the transaction.

EPA’s finalized revisions to NSPS Subpart KKKKa significantly change how new and modified stationary combustion turbines must demonstrate NOₓ compliance. If your facility constructed, modified, or reconstructed a turbine after December 13, 2024 , this rule likely applies. For electric utility power plants, independent power producers (IPPs), and industrial facilities with onsite generation, the update introduces: Stricter NOₓ emission limits New subcategorization based on utilization and efficiency Continuous compliance expectations (including startup and shutdown) Expanded reliance on CEMS and data validation This is a structural shift in how compliance is demonstrated.   When Does Subpart KKKKa Apply? Subpart KKKKa applies to stationary combustion turbines ≥10 MMBtu/hr that were constructed, modified, or reconstructed after December 13, 2024. The final rule became effective January 15, 2026. Turbines subject to KKKKa are no longer subject to Subparts GG or KKKK. Facilities should confirm: Construction commencement dates Whether recent changes qualify as “modification” or “reconstruction” Heat input rating Subcategory classification   What Changed: Key Technical Differences 2006 Subpart KKKK 2026 Subpart KKKKa >850 MMBtu/hr: 15 ppm @ 15% O₂ >850 MMBtu/hr (high utilization): 5 ppm @ 15% O₂ Size-based categories Utilization + efficiency criteria Traditional SSM interpretation Standards apply at all times Under Subpart KKKK (2006), large natural gas turbines (>850 MMBtu/hr) were typically limited to 15 ppm NOₓ @ 15% O₂. Under Subpart KKKKa (2026 revisions): High-utilization turbines (>45% capacity factor): 5 ppm @ 15% O₂ Low-utilization turbines with ≥38% design efficiency: 25 ppm @ 15% O₂ Low-utilization turbines with <38% efficiency: 9 ppm @ 15% O₂   The rule now integrates utilization rate and design efficiency directly into the regulatory structure. This means compliance is no longer based solely on turbine size and fuel type. Subpart KKKKa also clarifies that standards apply at all times , removing historical startup/shutdown exemptions and reinforcing continuous compliance expectations. A Large Operational Shift: Continuous Compliance for NSPS Subpart KKKKa The most significant practical change is EPA’s increased emphasis on continuous monitoring. Traditional Model New KKKKa Model Periodic stack test Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems Quarterly / annual Rolling averages Snapshot compliance Continuous compliance Data validation & reporting For turbines using SCR or post-combustion controls, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) are required to demonstrate compliance with stringent limits such as 5 ppm NOₓ @ 15% O₂ on rolling averages. This shifts compliance from: Periodic stack testing → Continuous, data-driven performance demonstration Facilities must now ensure: Monitoring systems operate during all load conditions QA/QC procedures are robust and documented Data validation workflows are audit-ready Electronic reporting processes are accurate and timely   What Facilities Should Be Reviewing Now Facilities subject to Subpart KKKKa should treat this as a compliance program refresh. Key focus areas include: Applicability and affected unit inventory 12-month capacity factor calculations SCR performance capability and tuning CEMS configuration and certification Startup and shutdown monitoring procedures Recordkeeping structure and retention policies Reporting calendars and notification tracking Facilities planning future turbine installations should also evaluate how design efficiency and projected utilization will influence subcategory classification. How Alliance Technical Group Supports KKKKa Programs If you are assessing impacts or building a KKKKa compliance strategy, Alliance Technical Group can support your environmental team through: Applicability analysis and compliance matrix development Site-specific emissions testing and operating limit validation CEMS selection, installation support, and QA/QC programs Data validation and reporting system development Recordkeeping framework design and pre-submittal reviews Our regulatory specialists and emissions testing experts work alongside facility teams to build defensible, technically sound programs aligned with current NSPS requirements. Glen Capra Technical Advisor Manager

The United States Environmental Protection Agency finalized the repeal of specific amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs), commonly referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), that were promulgated on May 7, 2024.   The rule takes effect April 27, 2026, and restores specific compliance provisions that facilities have historically relied on under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart UUUUU .  This article summarizes what changed, what didn’t, and what it means for coal and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) going forward.  What Did the EPA Repeal in 2026?  The EPA removed three major elements of the 2024 amendments, each of which would have tightened emissions or monitoring requirements. These repeals are documented in the rule and are listed below.   1. Stricter Filterable PM (fPM) Limit   Repealed: 0.010 lb/MMBtu for existing coal units  Restored: 0.030 lb/MMBtu (2012 standard)  Also reverses the associated tighter metal HAP limits.  2. Mandatory PM CEMS Requirement   Repealed: PM CEMS as the only compliance method  Restored: Flexibility to use:   Quarterly stack testing  PM CPMS  PM CEMS  3. Tightened Mercury Limit for Lignite Units   Repealed: 1.2 lb/TBtu  Restored: 4.0 lb/TBtu  What Was Not Repealed?  The EPA removed only three elements of the 2024 amendments. All other provisions of the 2012 MATS rule and the 2020 Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) remain fully enforceable. Key Requirements That Remain in Effect  All original 2012 emission limits (PM, metals, acid gases, Hg, SO₂ surrogate)  All 2012/2020 work practice standards  All performance testing requirements (Methods 5, 29, 26A, 320, 30B, etc.)  Continuous monitoring requirements (Hg CEMS, sorbent traps, HCl/HF CEMS, SO₂ CEMS, PM CPMS)  Electronic reporting through ECMPS  2020 residual risk findings  All Subpart UUUUU definitions, test methods, appendices, and rule text (except where directly tied to the repealed 2024 amendments)  As a result, facilities must continue to maintain existing monitoring systems, meet emissions limits, and comply with performance testing and reporting requirements under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart UUUUU .    Additional Updates to Electronic Reporting  The EPA also clarified electronic reporting requirements under the MATS rule. These revisions do not alter the underlying reporting requirements but update references and file format specifications used for electronic submissions.   Removed references to “ECMPS” and replacing with “ECMPS Reporting Tool”  Revised the XML file format to “any file format specified by the Administrator”    What This Means for Power Plant Operators  The 2026 repeal simplifie s MATS compliance by returning to a familiar regulatory framework. Operators regain flexibility in monitoring methods, face less stringent fPM and Hg limits, and may benefit from reduced compliance costs.  At the same time, the core structure of MATS—emission limits, monitoring, reporting, and work practices—remains unchanged. Facilities must continue to meet all 2012 MATS and the 2020 Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) requirements.  How Alliance Technical Group Can Help  Alliance Technical Group supports power plants and industrial facilities with MATS compliance programs, including stack testing, monitoring strategy support, CEMS, QA/QC procedures, and ECMPS reporting .  If you are evaluating how the 2026 MATS repeal may impact your compliance approach, Alliance Technical Group can help review your current program and identify any adjustments needed to remain aligned with the rule.   Susan Butler-Kennedy, QAP Regulatory Manager, ACS/DAS Susan has 25+ years of experience in the power industry, helping power plants and related facilities comply with various environmental laws and regulations. Her expertise lies in the communication, analysis, and documentation of Federal and State air emission compliance. She holds a Bachelor of Science ('92) and a Master of Science ('96) from Auburn University.

On February 12, 2026, the EPA finalized the rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), concluding that this Section does not provide statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles for climate purposes (“the February 2026 Rescission”). 1  This action follows a multi-agency review initiated in early 2025. The agency has further stated its intent to reconsider all regulations that rely on the Endangerment Finding, including those GHG provisions promulgated under Section 111 of the CAA. What Has Been Proposed and Changed for Industrial Sources   While the February 2026 Rescission directly addresses only mobile sources, it signals a broader shift in federal GHG regulatory policy.    The EPA has proposed or finalized several actions affecting industrial facilities:   On September 12, 2025, EPA proposed permanently removing GHG reporting obligations under 40 CFR Part 98 all source categories, except for Subpart W (reporting delayed until RY2034), including petroleum refineries, power plants, and most other industrial facilities. Rescinded the Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) that would have imposed fees on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities.    Initiated regulatory shift for stationary sources under Section 111, including pursuing to repeal all GHG emissions standards for the power sector. 2    Finalized on December 3, 2025, extended compliance deadlines for oil and natural gas facilities under NSPS OOOOb/c. 3    Timing and Legal Considerations   Any comprehensive repeal of GHG regulations for stationary sources would require successful defense of the February 2026 Rescission against inevitable litigation before it can pursue a similar challenge to the Section 111 authorities that underpin NSPS rules. With less than three years remaining in the current presidential term, some regulatory reconsiderations may extend beyond this administration.    The Bottom Line   While the rescission signals a shift in regulatory direction, final outcomes will depend on rulemaking completion and court decisions. Most stationary source requirements remain in place today. Facilities should avoid assuming immediate elimination of GHG-related obligations.      Alliance continues to monitor federal and state regulatory developments closely. If you have questions about how these proposed changes may affect your facility, our team can help assess your current obligations and planning considerations.      1   https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-rescission-greenhouse-gas-endangerment#rule-summary    2   https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/06/17/2025-10991/repeal-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-for-fossil-fuel-fired-electric-generating-units     3   https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-operations/2025-interim-final-rule-extend-compliance

Environmental Journal Recognizes Firms for Business Achievement in Growth, M&A, IT, AI, Technology, Project Merit, Industry Leadership and Social Contribution San Diego, Calif. (January 2026)  —Environmental Business Journal®* (EBJ), an independent business research publication that has provided strategic market intelligence to the environmental industry* since 1988, has honored Alliance Technical Group with a Business Achievement Award for Mergers & Acquisitions in 2025.  “In a year of growth but some volatility for the $570-billion U.S. environmental industry in 2025, a number of companies distinguished themselves with business model evolution, new practices, technical innovation, M&A, or signature projects that merit the special recognition of an EBJ Business Achievement Award. With traditional environmental markets in infrastructure, air quality, remediation, water and wastewater, as well as energy transition and climate resilience, it is understandable that companies report growing demand for environmental technology and services,” said Grant Ferrier, editor of Environmental Business Journal and chair of the EBJ Business Achievement Award selection committee. “Pivoting with political change and overcoming the multiple challenges of inflation, supply chains, wage increases, labor shortages and changing markets has almost become routine for the resilient leaders in the environmental industry.” Alliance Technical Group was recognized for accelerating its growth strategy through a series of acquisitions and mergers that expanded North American coverage, deepened technical expertise, and strengthened its ability to deliver fully integrated, end-to-end environmental compliance solutions. The additions of Global Analyzer Systems Ltd., ESC Spectrum, Environmental 360, Slipstream Environmental Services, Earth Analytical Sciences, Inc., and Element One were selected for their complementary capabilities, enhancing Alliance’s position as North America’s leading provider of stack testing, CEMS, engine testing, and LDAR services, supported by advanced DAS technology, emissions monitoring, combustion expertise, and comprehensive laboratory analysis. Expanded U.S. and Canadian coverage improved localized service delivery across major industrial regions, while unified technical teams enabled tailored solutions across diverse regulatory environments. ESC Spectrum’s best-in-class DAS capabilities, combined with expanded monitoring and laboratory services, improve data accuracy, streamline reporting, and strengthen compliance confidence. By consolidating services under a single provider, Alliance simplifies compliance management for clients and delivers a seamless, client-centered experience from measurement and analysis through program management and regulatory reporting. The 2025 EBJ awards will be presented live and in-person at the EBJ Business Achievement Awards banquet at Environmental Industry Summit XXIV on April 1-3, 2026 in San Diego, along with CCBJ Business Achievement, Lifetime Achievement and 50-Year Company anniversary awards. About Alliance Technical Group Alliance Technical Group, LLC (Alliance), headquartered in Decatur, AL, is the premier environmental services and solutions company dedicated to helping facilities achieve their environmental goals and navigate regulatory changes through the company’s On-site Testing and Monitoring, Environmental Compliance, and Laboratory Testing and Analysis offerings. Driven by innovation, committed to service, and focused on client success, Alliance delivers on the promise of responsiveness, reliability, and results. Learn more about how Alliance helps clients maximize their environmental opportunities: www.alliancetg.com Environmental Business Journal has been published since 1988 by Environmental Business International Inc., an independent research and publishing company focused on the environmental and climate change industries. * Environmental Business Journal® provides strategic market intelligence to executives and investors in 13 business segments of the environmental industry including environmental consulting & engineering, remediation & industrial services, water & wastewater equipment, air quality & pollution control equipment, hazardous waste management, resource recovery, solid waste management, water/wastewater infrastructure, renewable energy and environmental instrumentation & information systems.

Decatur, Alabama, January 8, 2026 - Alliance Technical Group, LLC (Alliance), the leading provider of environmental testing services and solutions, announced the acquisition of Earth Analytical Sciences , Mid-Continent Testing Laboratories, Inc. , and Element One, Inc. , three established environmental testing laboratories serving clients across North America. The acquisitions were completed at the end of 2025. The addition of these organizations expands Alliance’s analytical capabilities and strengthens its growing North American network. Together, the three labs enhance Alliance’s ability to deliver high-quality analytical data across air, water, soil, and waste matrices while maintaining consistent service and turnaround times. Earth Analytical Sciences, Mid-Continent Testing, and Element One each bring specialized technical expertise, experienced teams, and strong regional client relationships. Their locations strengthen Alliance’s presence across key industrial and regulatory markets, improving geographic coverage and supporting faster, more efficient sample processing for clients across the United States and Canada. “These laboratories have built their reputations by doing the work the right way and standing behind their data,” said Chris LeMay, Chief Executive Officer of Alliance Technical Group. “By bringing these teams into Alliance, we are expanding our lab capacity and geographic reach while continuing to deliver the dependable results and regulatory insight our clients rely on.” Jordan Laster, Senior Vice President, Laboratory & Analytical at Alliance, added, “Each of these organizations operates with a strong technical foundation and a clear commitment to quality. Integrating them into our network allows us to increase analytical capacity, share best practices across locations, and provide our clients with consistent, defensible data backed by experienced professionals.” Clients of Earth Analytical Sciences, Mid-Continent Testing, and Element One will continue working with their existing lab teams, with access to Alliance’s broader technical resources and national environmental services platform. The acquisitions support Alliance’s continued investment in infrastructure and its strategy to build a laboratory network that delivers consistent, high-quality environmental testing services across North America. About Alliance Technical Group Alliance Technical Group, LLC (Alliance), headquartered in Decatur, AL, is the premier environmental services and solutions company dedicated to helping facilities achieve their environmental goals and navigate regulatory changes through the company’s On-site Testing and Monitoring, Environmental Compliance, and Laboratory Testing and Analysis offerings. Driven by innovation, committed to service, and focused on client success, Alliance delivers on the promise of responsiveness, reliability, and results.

New York, NY – January 6, 2026 – Blackstone (NYSE: BX) announced today that funds affiliated with Blackstone Energy Transition Partners and other Blackstone funds (“Blackstone”) have acquired Alliance Technical Group (“ATG”), a leading provider of environmental testing, monitoring, and compliance services. Founded in 2000 and headquartered in Alabama, ATG has grown into one of the largest full-service environmental compliance providers in North America, with more than 2,200 employees located in 60-plus offices and labs across the U.S. and Canada. ATG delivers a comprehensive suite of solutions – including source and lab testing, continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS), and leak detection and repair, among others – to help businesses maintain regulatory compliance and safety, while driving efficiency through ATG’s data-driven insights. Chris LeMay, Chief Executive Officer at Alliance Technical Group, said: “Blackstone’s investment is a testament to our strong organic and strategic growth as a trusted market leader in the testing, inspection and compliance sector. With our partners at Blackstone, we look forward to continuing to scale and support our customers in navigating a complex, evolving regulatory landscape.” Darius Sepassi, Senior Managing Director, and Mark Henle, Managing Director, at Blackstone , said: “Alliance is a clear market leader in emissions testing and monitoring, providing mission-critical services that directly support customers’ compliance and operational performance. Chris and the ATG management team have built a diversified platform with a strong reputation for technical quality and reliability. Together, we are excited to leverage Blackstone’s scale and resources to help support ATG’s continued growth, serving its existing and new customers across the power, energy and industrial sectors.” David Foley, Global Head of Blackstone Energy Transition Partners, added: “Our investment strategy focuses on identifying leading businesses that we believe are positioned to disproportionately benefit from the growing demand for electricity and the broader energy transition. We are excited to back Alliance, which plays a critical role in helping energy and industrial facilities operate safely, efficiently, and in compliance with environmental regulations.” Alliance Technical Group represents the latest in a number of recent transactions Blackstone Energy Transition Partners has announced behind its high-conviction investment themes in electricity demand growth and the ongoing energy transition, including  Maclean Power Systems , Wolf Summit Energy ,  Hill Top Energy Center ,  Shermco ,  Enverus , Lancium,  Westwood , and others. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Harris Williams and RBC acted as financial advisor and Kirkland & Ellis acted as a legal advisor to Blackstone. Piper Sandler served as financial advisor and Jones Day served as a legal advisor to Alliance. About Blackstone Energy Transition Partners Blackstone Energy Transition Partners is Blackstone’s strategy for control-oriented equity investments in energy-related businesses, a leading energy investor with a successful long-term record, having committed over $27 billion of equity globally across a broad range of sectors within the energy industry. Our investment philosophy is based on backing exceptional management teams with flexible capital to provide solutions that help energy companies grow and improve performance, thereby delivering more reliable, affordable and cleaner energy to meet the growing needs of the global community. In the process, we build stronger, larger scale enterprises, create jobs and generate lasting value for our investors, employees and all stakeholders. Further information is available at  https://www.blackstone.com/our-businesses/blackstone-energy-transition-partners/ . About Blackstone Blackstone is the world’s largest alternative asset manager. Blackstone seeks to deliver compelling returns for institutional and individual investors by strengthening the companies in which the firm invests. Blackstone’s over $1.2 trillion in assets under management include global investment strategies focused on real estate, private equity, credit, infrastructure, life sciences, growth equity, secondaries and hedge funds. Further information is available at  www.blackstone.com . Follow @blackstone on  LinkedIn ,  X (Twitter) , and  Instagram . About Alliance Technical Group Alliance Technical Group, LLC (Alliance), headquartered in Decatur, AL, is the premier environmental services and solutions company dedicated to helping facilities achieve their environmental goals and navigate regulatory changes through the company’s On-site Testing and Monitoring, Environmental Compliance, and Laboratory Testing and Analysis offerings. Driven by innovation, committed to service, and focused on client success, Alliance delivers on the promise of responsiveness, reliability, and results. Learn more about how Alliance helps clients maximize their environmental opportunities: www.alliancetg.com

Facilities with commercial, industrial, or institutional refrigeration systems face a January 2026 compliance deadline. Under 40 CFR Part 84, the EPA has established two regulations that may apply to stationary sources: the Technology Transitions Rule (Subpart B) and new monitoring/recordkeeping/reporting requirements (Subpart C).   With proposed changes to compliance deadlines and a January 2026 deadline coming up, facility stakeholders should know how these regulatory provisions affect their facilities.   This article breaks down both regulations and gives you actionable steps to meet EPA requirements.  Common EPA Refrigerant Compliance Challenges  Contractor Management Gaps  Most facilities rely on contractors for refrigeration maintenance, creating a compliance risk. Your facility remains responsible for EPA refrigerant compliance even when contractors perform the work. Unless you have explicit agreements, verification processes, and oversight mechanisms, you may have compliance gaps.  Integrating New Chemicals into Existing Programs  Facilities with existing refrigerant management programs must expand them to include HFC substitutes that were exempt under old rules. This means identifying newly regulated refrigerants, updating inventory systems, revising recordkeeping procedures, training staff, and modifying reporting protocols.  Understanding Which Rules Apply  Both Subpart B and Subpart C can apply to the same facility with different triggering criteria. A cold storage warehouse, for example, may be subject to equipment replacement timelines under Subpart B while simultaneously facing monitoring requirements under Subpart C.  How Alliance Offers Specialized Consulting   Most air quality consultants don't actively track 40 CFR Part 84. At Alliance, we're one of the few air consulting firms that actively follow these refrigerant regulations, tracking proposed changes and monitoring compliance deadlines.  Tracking EPA Regulation Updates  The EPA's proposed revisions highlight that refrigerant regulations continue to evolve. Our value is helping you comply with current requirements while keeping you informed about what's coming next, enabling proactive rather than reactive approaches.  Ready to ensure your facility's EPA refrigerant compliance? Schedule a consultation with our air quality specialists today.  Kristine Davies Project Director, Air Quality Christoff Orr Project Manager, Air Quality

When a stack operates at very low flow rates, differential pressure often falls below the readable range of standard EPA instruments. Emissions still need to be measured, but conventional methods lose accuracy under these conditions, creating risk for both data integrity and regulatory compliance.  This scenario is increasingly common as facilities optimize processes, reduce throughput, or cycle equipment. Low-flow conditions challenge even experienced emissions professionals and demand advanced technical evaluation.  This article outlines the key issues that arise during low flow emissions testing and the alternative methods available to address them.  What Happens When the Stack or Duct Flow Falls Below EPA Thresholds   Under EPA reference methods, most flow measurements require a minimum differential pressure of 0.05 inches of water column . When the flow is too low to meet this threshold:  A standard inclined manometer becomes unstable or unreadable .  Small pressure fluctuations appear as noise rather than measurable signal.  Temperature and gas composition variations increase uncertainty.  Some flow devices lose calibration accuracy in low-velocity conditions  Compounding this, low-flow sources can present additional complications such as:  Elevated or fluctuating temperatures  Gas streams with non-air composition  Particulate loading that interferes with sensors  Restrictions that can cause unacceptable back-pressure to the process  In these environments, conventional measurement techniques are insufficient , and a more tailored engineering approach is required.  Alternative Measurement Methods for Low Flow Emissions Testing   When low flow prevents the use of standard EPA methodology, technical teams must evaluate alternative strategies. A structured solution framework typically includes:  1. Instrument Sensitivity Adjustment   Upgrading to a lower-range or digital manometer with higher resolution can resolve many borderline low-flow scenarios.  2. Technology Assessment for Alternative Flow Devices  Depending on gas characteristics and source configuration, several devices may be considered:  Vane anemometers  for moderate-temperature, clean gas streams  Hot-wire anemometers  for low-velocity, low-particulate environments  Critical orifice systems  where predictable flow control is possible  Direct plumbing to dry gas meters  when stable volumetric measurement is feasible  Tracer gas injection techniques  for complex or i naccessible stacks  3. Engineering Calculations Using Plant Data  If reliable fuel flow, fuel composition, and combustion efficiency data are available, EPA methodologies allow deriving stack flow via calculation rather than direct measurement.  4. Mechanical or System Modifications (When Necessary)  Some cases require temporary or permanent adjustments, such as:  Installation of an in-line dry gas meter  Construction of a temporary test stack  Additional sampling personnel and instrumentation for tracer-based methods  Each option must be evaluated for compatibility, safety, impact on the process, and regulatory acceptance. Quick Answer: How do you accurately measure emissions when a source operates at extremely low flow rates? Our teams address low-flow conditions through four approaches: upgrading to digital manometers with higher resolution, deploying alternative devices like vane anemometers or tracer gas systems, using engineering calculations based on fuel data, or modifying the sampling system. Method selection depends on gas temperature, particulate loading, and regulatory requirements. Proper planning avoids the $10,000-$40,000+ costs associated with failed testing and remobilization.  Before the Test: Validation and Verification Steps Implementing the selected strategy requires detailed technical planning:  Instrument compatibility checks  (temperature ranges, gas composition, particulate resistance)  Sensitivity and accuracy verification  against the required test method  Assessment of system back-pressure implications  before deploying any device that restricts flow  Calibration traceability  to ensure EPA compliance  Field validation  under actual operating conditions before beginning regulated testing  Experienced emissions professionals must balance measurement feasibility, cost, and regulatory requirements to avoid invalidating test results.       What Proper Low-Flow Measurement Delivers  A properly engineered low-flow measurement strategy yields:  Accurate and defensible flow data  suitable for EPA reference methods- avoiding the 2-4 week retesting delays and $10,000-$40,000+ remobilization costs that result from invalid data.  Reduced uncertainty  in emission rate calculations - preventing significant errors like the 20%+ velocity increase that results from misreading 0.02 delta P as 0.03, which invalidates test results and requires costly retesting.  Minimized operational impact  to the facility -   solutions beyond stack modifications or fabricating spool pieces can be evaluated with your technical team, avoiding facility shutdowns or process modifications that can cost $10,000 - $50,000+ per day in lost production.  Compliance confidence  during audits, reviews, and regulatory submissions – eliminating the risk of failed demonstrations that trigger enforcement actions, penalty assessments, or permit delays    By selecting the right combination of instrumentation and methodology, even difficult low-flow sources can be measured reliably.    Alliance TA Team: Expertise for Complex Emissions Testing  Low-flow conditions present some of the most technically challenging scenarios in emissions testing. They require specialized knowledge, careful technology selection, and a deep understanding of both equipment limitations and EPA methodology.  Alliance’s Technical Advisory (TA) Team , led by Glen Capra , has the expertise to analyze these situations, recommend the most effective measurement techniques, and guide field teams and clients through implementation. Our specialists evaluate each source on a case-by-case basis to ensure accurate, compliant, and cost-effective results.  If you are facing low-flow measurement challenges—or want to proactively plan for them—reach out to Alliance’s TA Team for expert guidance and customized technical solutions.  Glen Capra Technical Advisor Manager glen.capra@alliancetg.com

Stack testing isn’t just about capturing emissions; it’s about interpreting them correctly. Understanding how detection limits affect results can help your facility avoid costly surprises. When planning a stack test, one of the most common concerns from both new and existing source owners/operators is: What if the emission levels of a regulated pollutant are extremely low—possibly even below detectable limits? How will a “non-detect” (ND) result impact the emission unit’s compliance status with the permitted emission limits? These are valid questions. They underscore why understanding and evaluating non-detects (NDs), Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and In-Stack Detection Limits (ISDLs) before scheduling a stack test is critical. What is a Method Detection Limit? A Method Detection Limit (MDL) is defined as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. It is determined through a specific analytical procedure using a sample matrix containing the target analyte. Per EPA guidance, if a pollutant is not detected during testing, the result should be reported as the method’s MDL. To accurately report an MDL for a given pollutant or test method, the testing team or analytical laboratory must conduct an MDL study as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Learn more about EPA testing procedures. MDL vs. ISDL – What’s the Difference? It’s important to distinguish between the analytical MDL and the in-stack detection limit (ISDL): The analytical MDL is determined by the laboratory analyzing the collected samples. It reflects the sensitivity of the lab’s instrumentation and methodology. The ISDL, on the other hand, is tied to the actual sampling process in the field. It can be influenced and adjusted by modifying stack sampling parameters—such as increasing the sample volume by extending the sampling duration. For wet chemistry methods that rely on laboratory analysis, both MDL and ISDL are critical to ensure a test result is meaningful and valid. The Impact on Emissions Compliance Failing to account for MDLs and ISDLs can result in: Invalid test results: Making your test data unusable for permit demonstrations. Compliance uncertainty: When non-detect results are reported above your permitted limits, regulatory agencies may assume worst-case scenarios. For example, if your permit limit is 0.001 ppm but the lab reports "< 0.003 ppm ND," you may be considered out of compliance even if actual emissions are negligible. Costly retests: A failed stack test due to incorrect detection limits can cost $10,000-$50,000+ to repeat, not including production downtime and expedited lab fees. Proper planning prevents these expensive do-overs. Regulatory scrutiny: This can result in issued violations and required corrective action plans. How Alliance Technical Group Can Help At Alliance Technical Group, our Technical Advisors are subject matter experts who carefully evaluate all critical elements before any test program is scheduled. Some of the key considerations we focus on include: Evaluating permitted emission limits Selecting the appropriate stack test method Assessing how ND, MDL, and ISDL values will affect the integrity and outcome of your test program If you’re unsure how a non-detect result might impact your compliance status or stack test results, reach out to our experts directly. Our team is here to guide you through the process and ensure you’re making informed, compliant decisions. Understanding Detection Limits in Depth Detection limits play a crucial role in environmental compliance. They help determine whether emissions are within acceptable levels. Understanding these limits can prevent regulatory issues and financial losses. The Importance of Accurate Testing Accurate testing is essential for compliance. It ensures that emissions are monitored correctly. This helps facilities avoid penalties and maintain their operational licenses. Common Misconceptions About Detection Limits Many people misunderstand detection limits. They may think that a non-detect result means no emissions. However, this is not always the case. It is vital to interpret these results correctly. Best Practices for Stack Testing To ensure accurate results, follow best practices for stack testing. This includes: Properly calibrating equipment Following standardized testing procedures Training personnel on testing methods Conclusion In conclusion, understanding detection limits is vital for compliance. It helps facilities avoid costly mistakes. By working with experts, you can ensure that your stack testing is accurate and reliable.