C E E D . __

THE CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Comment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency On Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze Rule to Incorporate Sultir Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes Within That Geographic Region

June 19,2002 CEED THE CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT June 19,2002

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND HAND DELIVERY

Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5426 Ariel Rios Federal Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N, W. Washington, D.C. 20004

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: EPA Notice of “Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze Rule to Incorporate Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes Within That Geographic Region” -- 67 Federal Register 304 18 (May 6,2002)

Dear Administrator Whitman and Assistant Administrator Holmstead:

The Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) submits these comments in response to EPA’s Federal Register notification of the agency’s “Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze Rule to Incorporate Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes Within That Geographic Region” (hereafter “Annex NOPR”).

CEED is a non-profit organization formed by the nation’s coal-producing companies, railroads, a number of electric utilities, equipment manufacturers, and related organizations for the purpose of educating the public, including public-sector decision-makers, about the benefits of affordable, reliable and environmentally compatible coal-fueled electricity. Attached at Tab 1 is a list of CEED members to demonstrate the breadth of interests CEED represents. As an active participant in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) process and EPA’s subsequent efforts to develop the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), CEED has long advocated the development of visibility regulations based upon sound science so as to achieve state and federal goals in a rational and cost-effective manner.

80214:l P. 0. Box 288, Franktow, CO Telephone: (303) 814-8714 Fax: (303) 814-8716 , , Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator . Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator e* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 2

We are also writing as a party that took a leading role in the recently decided litigation concerning the RHR, American Corn Growers Association, et. al. v. EPA, No. 99-1348 (D.C. Cir. May 24,2002). We offer our comments on the Annex in a sincere desire to participate with EPA in addressing regional haze in western Class I areas as expeditiously and cost-effectively as possible and without becoming bogged down in further litigation.

I. INTRODUCTION

CEED submitted detailed comments to EPA in December 2000 following submission by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) of the original Annex on September 29,200O and the WRAP’s subsequent submission of “supplemental materials” on June 29,200l. CEED’s December 2000 comments are attached at Tab 2 for your further consideration.

In light of the U. S. Court of Appeals’ decision in the American Corn Growers case, CEED believes that EPA must fundamentally reconsider the approach proposed in the Annex NOPR. As demonstrated below, the proposed Annex is legally flawed under the Court’s decision. As such, CEED is concerned that EPA may be rushing into the view that the Court decision does not affect the Annex. Such a conclusion would be premature given that, so far as CEED is aware, EPA has not had the benefit of public input on the matter and the EPA- established deadline of July 5,2002 for commenting on the proposed Annex has not passed. CEED believes that the fair and proper approach would be for EPA to make sure it has considered all views in the matter and to take the time needed to make the correct decision.

A great deal of time and effort were spent on the proposed Annex, and a natural desire exists among many to conclude that the Annex process can proceed unaffected by the Court’s decision. But EPA must consider whether proceeding with the proposed Annex without changes will ultimately lead to a regulatory dead end and to a needless waste of time and resources. Everyone will be served if time is taken now to get the Annex right.

CEED is a proponent of regional planning and believes that the WRAP process and other regional planning processes now underway offer real benefit in addressing regional haze. The proposed Annex can be fixed and the WRAP process maintained under the Court’s decision, but changes must be made. Accordingly, EPA’s most effective course would be to return the proposed Annex to the WRAP for revision in light of the Court’s decision. Specifically, the degree to which stationary sources can be required to make emission reductions must be tied to a source-by-source review of the costs and benefits of such reductions.

80214:l , , Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator . Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator U. S . Environmental Protection Agency 6--* Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 3

There is no reason the WRAP cannot formulate an effective regional haze program for the West while incorporating the source-by-source BART approach required by the Court’s decision. It must be kept in mind that the large stationary source emission reductions proposed in the Annex could never serve as the sole or even primary vehicle for the West to improve visibility. Indeed, modeling done by the WRAP in connection with the submittal of the Annex concluded that visibility improvements expected from the proposed large stationary source emission reductions would be less than one-half of the amount that would be perceptible to the human eye. See, p. 11, herein. Further, as EPA has often recognized, sulfur dioxide emissions are not the same problem in the West as they are in the East.

Any solution to regional haze in the West must concentrate on multiple sources, including automobiles, forest fires, road dust, natural emissions, and emissions from Mexico, as both the GCVTC and the National Academy of Sciences concluded. Undoubtedly, this solution will include emissions reductions from large stationary sources, even under a revised Annex.

The waste of time and effort that would be caused by further litigation is, in CEED’s view, directly contrary to what President Bush and EPA are trying to accomplish in the Administration’s Clear Skies proposal. As indicated in the Administration’s present proposal, “[i]mplementation and enforcement [under current clean air programs] usually requires years of litigation, leaving the fate of America’s air to the uncertainties of the courtroom . . . . After 30 years of regulating air pollution, America has proved that there is a better way to accomplish our clean air goals.” It is in this precise context that CEED believes EPA should also consider that time spent reconsidering the Annex could allow time for Congress to consider the Clear Skies proposal. The Administration has stated that emissions caps under Clear Skies would separately address the different air quality needs of the West.

In sum, CEED stands ready to work with EPA on an effective western regional haze program that would pass muster under the Court’s decision.

II. THE COURT’S DECISION APPLIES TO THE “BART PROVISIONS” OF BOTH SECTION 309 AND SECTION 308 OF THE RHR.

The Court’s decision applies to all of the RHR’s BART provisions, not just the BART provisions of 9 308. According to the Court, “[i]n sum, we conclude that the Haze Rule’s BART provisions are contrary to the text, structure and history of 9 169A of the [Clean Air Act].” Slip Op. at 13. (Emphasis added). Nothing in this language excludes the BART provisions of 9 309.

80214:l , , Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency e-= Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 4

CEED believes that RHR § 309(f), under which the Annex was developed, is clearly one of the “BART provisions” referenced by the Court’s decision. Section 309(f) expressly provides an alternative means for states to comply with their obligations under the BART provisions of RHR $308 and under $169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In this regard, the BART requirements of RHR 8 308(e) apply to every state. RHR 6 309(f)( 1) provides that “[a] Transport Region State may choose to comply with the provisions of this section and by doing so shall satisfy the requirements of section 51.308(b)-(e) . . .” through the Annex process (emphasis added). RHR 0 309(f)(l)(i) provides that “[tlhe emission reductions milestones [included in the Annex] must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology (BART) pursuant to section 5 1.038 and would be approvable in lieu of BART.” (Emphasis added.) As a BART provision intended to implement the BART requirements of CAA 6 169A, RHR 6 309(f) comes within the Court’s decision.

The fact that the Court repeatedly cites Industry Petitioners’ brief in discussing the BART issues reinforces the conclusion that the Court’s decision applies to RHR Q 309(f) as well as the BART provisions of RHR 8 308. Slip op. at 9, 11, 12. As an example, the Court stated that

As the Industry Petitioners correctly note, there is no point during the Haze Rule’s BART determination “in which it could be demonstrated that the degree of improvement in visibility obtained from installing a particular set of emissions controls at a source with ‘exceedingly low’ or even merely theoretical visibility impacts is not justified by the cost of BART in light of those low or theoretical impacts.” Br. for Industry Pet’rs and Intervenor in Case Nos. 99-1348, et al. at 17-18.

Slip Op. at 8. (Emphasis added.) The pages of the Industry Petitioners’ brief that the Court cites address the Group BART provisions of both RHR $0 308 and 309. See Brief for Industry Petitioners and Intervenor in Case Nos. 99-l 348, etThus, al., at pp. 17, when18,8-12. the Court adopted Industry Petitioners’ arguments in vacating the BART provisions of the RHR, it was adopting arguments directed both at $0 308 and 309.

It is true that the introductory part of the Court’s discussion of the BART issues references RHR 0 308 but does not explicitly reference RHR 8 309(f). As discussed in section III below, however, the RHR $ 308 Group BART analysis that the Court explicitly condemned is the foundation upon which RHR 0 309(f) and the Annex’s proposal for large stationary source emissions reductions are based. Indeed, the RHR expressly states that the acceptability of these emissions reductions will be judged according to the Group BART standards set forth in 8

80214:l , . Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator . Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator *n* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 5

308(e). See, RHR 6 309(f)(l)(i). e-S ee also RHR Regulatory Preamble, 64 Fed. Reg. 357 14, 35752 (1999) (“The emissions reductions provided for by the milestones and trading program must address the BART provisions in section 308(e)“). See also 64 Fed. Reg. at 35750 (whether the Annex would fulfill a state’s obligations as to BART would “depend[] on” the milestones developed.) Given the tie between the two provisions, the validity of RHR 9 309(f) cannot survive the demise of RHR 8 308(e).

The BART provisions of RHR 9 309 are not saved by the Court’s statement at the end of its BART discussion in which it declines to accept Industry Petitioners’ argument that “no concept” of Group BART could be valid. Slip op. at 14. While declining to address this theoretical argument, the Court plainly stated that “the BART provisions of the rule [are] impermissible.” As such, RHR 6 309 is one of the several “BART provisions” in the RHR. &l. Therefore, EPA cannot proceed with the Annex NOPR because RHR 6 309(f) under which the Annex was developed is a BART provision to which the Court’s decision applies.

III. EPA CANNOT APPROVE THE ANNEX BECAUSE THE ANNEX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEVELOPED USING THE GROUP BART APPROACH THAT THE COURT FOUND IMPERMISSIBLE.

A clear reading of the Annex submitted to EPA on or about September 29,200O demonstrates that it was developed based upon the Group BART provisions of the RHR. Specifically, the WRAP stated that, as required by the RHR, it had followed the same RHR Group BART approach that the Court of Appeals has now found to be unlawful. For example, the Annex states that “[tlhis process was developed through the best efforts of the WRAP through a stakeholder based process and is based on the WRAP’s reading of the regional haze rule language and preamble.” See, WRAP ANNEX ATTACHMENT C entitled “Demonstration that the SO2 Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART.” P C-2 (Emphasis added).

Additionally, the Annex clearly indicates that the WRAP applied four of the CAA’s BART factors to sources in the entire western United States on a group basis, as a result of the regulatory framework required by EPA’s RHR:

“A. Appropriate Retrofit Technology Estimates

The WRAP therefore approached the analysis at the regional level, using a more simplified analysis, as provided for in the regional haze rule.

80214:l . . Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency c 1 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 6

The WRAP used the following assumptions to estimate the regional emission reductions due to appropriate retrofit controls on the BART-eligible sources in the region. It should be noted that the WRAP methodology was only used to obtain a regional estimate for BART-level emission reductions to calculate the 2018 milestone. It was not intended to be a source-by- source BART analysis.”

See, WRAP ANNEX ATTACHMENT C, p. 10 (emphasis added).

Further, in applying the critical fifth CAA BART factor - “the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology,” the WRAP used the group approach. Specifically:

“B. Visibility Improvement

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act lists a number of factors that must be considered as part of the BART determination. These factors are addressed in the regional haze rule in a two-step process. First, an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available is performed, considering the statutory factors of cost of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life of the source. Second, an analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved in each mandatory Class I federal area as a result of the emission reductions achievable from all sources subject to BART located within the region. The preamble to the regional haze rule indicates that the visibility analysis should be conducted using the cumulative emission reductions from all BART-eligible sources in the transport region, not the impact of individual sources.

&, WRAP ANNEX ATTACHMENT C. pp. C-l l-12. (emphasis added).

Lastly, EPA’s May 62002 proposal to approve the Annex confirms that EPA required that the Annex be developed using the Group BART approach. Specifically, EPA’s May 6 notice states that:

80214:l , . Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator . Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator #J-+* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 7

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) of the regional haze regulations requires that the analysis of whether “greater reasonable progress” would be achieved must include the following:

- A list of all BART-eligible sources, - A source-specific or category-wide analysis of possible BART controls, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use, and the remaining useful life, and - An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved from application of BART-level controls.

The EPA believes that the WRAP’s analysis, described above, meets these requirements. The WRAP has provided a list of BART-eligible sources, and a sufficient category-wide analysis of the possible BART controls. The WRAP also provided an analysis of the visibility improvement from the SO;! emissions reduction program, in addition to a number of possible scenarios for BART-level controls.

67 Federal (emphasisRegister 30424 (May 6,2002) added).

The WRAP analysis is thus precisely the type of group approach that the Court condemned. No interpretational legerdemain can avoid the express ruling of the Court that the BART factors in CAA 8 169A(g)(2) -- and in particular the degree of improvement factor -- must be applied on a source-by-source basis. The Court explicitly stated that “[w]e hold . . . that the Haze Rule’s treatment of 8 169A(g)(2)‘s benefit calculation . . . render the BART provisions of the rule impermissible.” Slip op. at 14. Lacking a source-by-source analysis, the Annex cannot survive the Court’s decision.

Most importantly from a policy perspective, because it is founded on a group analysis, the Annex achieves the result the Court forbade, where an individual source could be made to invest millions of dollars in retrofits without a demonstration that visibility benefits would accrue from such retrofits. Slip op. at 10. A source would be subject to the Annex program, including milestones, ceilings and potential cap and trade requirements, without any determination that such source, &self, causes or contributes to downwind visibility impairment at a Class I area or that the degree of visibility improvement achieved from subjecting that source to the cap and

80214:l . . Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator . Jefl?ey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator m* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U . S . Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 8

trade program would be justified by the cost. Such requirements contradict both the Court’s express holding and sound public policy.

IV. SECTION 309(F) IS NOT SAVED BY BEING CHARACTERIZED AS “VOLUNTARY”

CEED is aware that some parties are contending that the Annex remains legally valid because the WRAP process is initiated by states and adoption of the Annex is voluntary for them. Apparently, this argument builds upon the fact that the Court adopted Industry Petitioners’ contention that EPA’s Group BART regulations violated CAA 6 169A, in part, because such regulations intrude on state authority. It also apparently builds upon the fact that the Court declined to address whether any possible permutation of Group BART could be valid. According to those maintaining that the Annex is unaffected by the Court’s decision, at least as CEED understands their argument, the Court’s ruling leaves room for states to voluntarily adopt Group BART requirements.

It would be a serious misreading of the Court’s decision to conclude that the proposed Annex remains viable because it is voluntary for the states. The Court had two separate and independent reasons to invalidate EPA’s regulations, one of which was intrusion on state authority and the other of which was failure to apply all of the 0 169A(g)(2) BART factors on a source-by-source basis. Slip op. at 14, 1 l-l 2. While the Court declined to address whether every single permutation of a group- or area-wide process for addressing BART would be invalid, it did plainly strike down EPA’s BART regulations because they applied the degree of improvement factor on a group basis. Given this ruling, whatever state-initiated options may still be open under the Court’s decision for addressing BART on a group basis, such options do not include applying the degree of improvement factor on a group basis. Since the Annex does so, it cannot survive the Court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals was clear that CAA 0 169A imposes a mandatory duty as to how the states must apply the statutory degree of visibility improvement factor:

How is a state to determine what is too costly (and what is not) for a particular source? The statute answers that the state must consider the degree of improvement in visibility in national parks and wilderness areas that would result from the source’s installing and operating the retrofit technology.

Slip Opinion at 11 (emphasis added).

80214:l . . Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator . ,-* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 9

States, therefore, do not have the discretion to apply the degree of visibility improvement factor on a group basis, as was done in the Annex. Rather, as noted by the Court, states must apply that factor on an individual source basis. This is clearly demonstrated by the Court’s use of a singular noun - “the source’s” rather than a plural noun - “the sources”.

In addition, the Annex was not developed as a voluntary measure by the states. Rather, as recognized by the WRAP’s assessment of what the RHR required (See Section III, herein), EPA required that the Annex be built upon a group-BART foundation. EPA cannot defend the Annex’s Group BART approach as “state-initiated” when that approach was mandated in the RHR.

V. EPA SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE ANNEX WITHOUT FIRST RESPONDING TO THE COURT’S REMAND OF THE RHR

While the Court of Appeals ruled to “vacate the rule in part and sustain it in part,” the effect of the Court’s remand is that EPA has been asked by the Court to review the entire rule. This intent is signaled by the fact that the Court said it would not address the merits of the challenges to the RHR brought by Sierra Club, because of the uncertainties created by the Court’s decision to vacate and remand fi of the BART provisions contained in the RHR. Specifically, the three-judge panel unanimously ruled:

But in any event, our decision to invalidate the group-BART provisions renders this entire cluster of [Sierra Club] challenges unripe for disposition. Because those provisions were intimately related to EPA’s assessment of what was necessary to achieve the goal of natural visibility, we cannot be sure whether on remand EPA will retain its current criteria for evaluating reasonable progress or adopt others. If the invalidation of the group- BART provisions causes EPA to doubt the efficacy of the remaining elements of the Haze Rule, perhaps EPA will see wisdom in some of Sierra Club’s complaints and, for example, increase the percentage of days during which there must be improvement in visibility, or increase the specificity of its criteria for reasonable progress. In light of the uncertainty that our decision creates with respect to the form of the rule that may emerge upon remand, the only prudent course is for us to decline to address Sierra Club’s challenges at this juncture.

80214:l Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 10

Sierra Club’s second major attack on the Haze Rule challenges EPA’s determination to give states 3 years to file haze SIPS for areas designated “attainment” or “unclassifiable.” We are troubled by EPA’s action, which appears to contravene express statutory language but in light of our decision regarding group-BART we leave this to EPA to reconsider on remand as well.

Slip Opinion at 15. (emphasis added).

In light of the Court’s view that the remand on Group BART could have ripple effects throughout the rule, EPA should not act on the Annex at least until it is ready to act on the remand. Surely if the provisions of the RHR attacked by the Sierra Club are related to the provisions struck down by the Court, the Annex provisions are even more related. Given the direct links between # 308 and 309 described above, it is not tenable to say that EPA’s reconsideration of $ 308 will not affect $ 309. For example, the requirement in $ 309(f)(i) that the Annex contain emission reduction milestones that provide for greater reasonable progress than would be obtained through application of BART to BART-eligible sources is directly affected by the way in which EPA redrafts 9 308(e) on remand.

In addition, states would be placed in an untenable position if they were required to decide whether to submit a SIP under the Annex and $309 before EPA. has finalized new 5 308 rules on remand. States would have no basis to decide whether it is in the state’s interest to submit a $309 SIP if they do not know what the BART requirements of Q 308 will be. EPA must therefore defer finalizing § 309 until it is ready to promulgate new 8 308 regulations.

VI. EPA CANNOT APPROVE THE ANNEX BECAUSE THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RHR HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.

CEED believes that EPA has not followed the agency’s own regulatory timeline set forth in RHR 5 309(f)(3), which states:

The EPA will publish the annex upon receipt. If EPA finds that the annex meets the requirements of paragraph (f)( 1) of this section and assures reasonable progress, then EPA after public notice and comment, will amend the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) of this section to incorporate the provisions of the annex within 1 year after EPA receives the annex. If EPA finds that the annex does not meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(l) of this section, or does not assure reasonable progress, or if EPA finds that the annex is

80214:l Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 11

not received, then each Transport Region State must submit an implementation plan for regional haze meeting all of the requirements of 8 5 1.308.

Specifically, EPA has not met the requirements of RHR 5 309(f) because EPA did not publish the annex upon receipt, nor has it “incorporate(d) the provisions of the annex [into the RHR] within 1 year after EPA receives the annex.” Further, as evidenced by the fact (Tab 3, page 2) that EPA requested (and received) substantial information from the WRAP several months after the October 1,200O submittal deadline specified in RHR. 5 309(f)(l), the Annex “does not meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(l).” As such, under RHR 5 309(f)(3) EPA must publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating that “each Transport State must submit an implementation plan for regional haze meeting all the requirements of [RHR] $ 5 1.308.”

VII. NOTHWITHSTANDING THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EPA SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE ANNEX BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS A FLAWED APPROACH FOR ACHIEVING ANY PERCEPTIBLE IMPROVEMENT IN VISUAL AIR QUALITY.

It has not been shown that the Annex will achieve a humanly-perceptible improvement in visual air quality in western states’ Class I areas. This fact is critical to any state interested in making an informed judgment of whether the benefits from the cap and trade program justify such a plan should be implemented in its SIP. The Annex, itself, recognizes the lack of any humanly-perceptible visibility improvement as a result of its limited regulatory approach:

Visibility modeling estimates that visibility improvement from all emission reduction scenarios, even the most aggressive, would not be noticeable. Sonoma Technologies, the contractor that performed the modeling, examined the average visibility improvement on an annual basis and for the 20% best and worst days, for all 16 of the GCVTC Class I areas, and found that the most aggressive emissions reductions for the protected area with the best improvement would be about half of what would be perceptible to the average person.

CEED is also aware of other adverse comments concerning the flawed Annex. Attached (see Tab 4) is a September 282000 letter to former EPA Administrator Browner from Senator Inhofe, wherein he points out errors made and key issues inadequately addressed by the Annex. For example, Senator Inhofe noted that the Annex did not consider the changing energy picture; that no perceptible visibility improvement is shown in spite of large costs; and that actual

80214:l . = Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator . . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 US. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 12

emissions were not accounted for in the 2003 milestone. As a result of these serious defects, Senator Inhofe asked EPA to grant the WRAP more time in which to work, since EPA was late in promulgating the RHR.

In September 2000, the State of Colorado also declined to endorse the WRAP’s Annex, because of 1) the lack of a humanly perceptible visibility improvement, 2) development of the Annex in a piecemeal manner, making it too hard to understand the totality of the program, and 3) the lack of adequate economic analysis, thus precluding the state Tom assessing the Annex program’s impacts. The Colorado letter is attached for your information. (See Tab 5.)

Following submittal of the Annex to EPA, Colorado also called for immediate action to better determine whether the Annex unrealistically and unnecessarily conflicts with any present or future demands for electrical power development. (See Tab 6.)

VIII. CONCLUSION.

As CEED analyzes it, the Group-BART approach contained in the RHR has been found to unlawfully constrain a state’s ability to make cost-effective visibility protection-based decisions. The Annex similarly dilutes the several western states’ role in accomplishing those aims because the Annex was required by EPA to be developed using the Group BART approach. As such, CEED requests that EPA should immediately announce in the Federal Register that the agency will not go forward with the proposed Annex rulemaking. Instead, EPA should reconsider Section 309 and the Annex in light of the source-by-source requirements of the Court’s decision. CEED believes EPA should construct a visibility program which recognizes that states, consistent with the Clean Air Act, are best served by being permitted to balance all the competing air quality interests and by being given considerable room to construct well designed and reasoned regional haze programs.

Sincerely,

Center for Energy and Economic Development

80214:l , . Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator , . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency June 19,2002 Page 13

cc: Tony Knowles, Governor of Alaska Jane Dee Hull, Governor of Arizona Gray Davis, Governor of California Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado Benjamin Cayetano, Governor of Hawaii Dirk Kempthome, Governor of Idaho Judy Martz, Governor of Montana Mike Johanns, Governor of Nebraska Kenny Guinn, Governor of Nevada Gary E. Johnson, Governor of New Mexico John Hoeven, Governor of North Dakota John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon .- William J. Jar&low, Governor of South Dakota Michael 0. Leavitt, Governor of Utah Gary Locke, Governor of Washington Jim Geringer, Governor of Wyoming

80214:l The Center For Energy && Economic Development

Associate Members

Ailphatrac, Incorporated National Energy Education Development Alabama Coal Association National Energy Foundation Alabama State Energy Office Nebraska Railroad Association Alaska Miners Association, Incorporated Odyssey Strategies, Incorporated American Commercial Barge Line Company Ohio Coal Development Office - Ohio Department of Development Anker Group, Incorporated Ohio Mining & Reclamation Association Arkansas Railroad Association Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc. Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce Oklahoma Railroad Association, Incorporated Bullock & Associates Oklahoma State ChamberlAssoc. of Bus. & Ind. Chiswell D. Langhorne, Jr. Oregon Railroad Association ,-----_ __ Coal Operators & Associates, Incorporated Penn, Stuart & Eskridge . I-“-‘- > Coal Sales Consulting, Incorporated 1 Pennsylvania Coal Association / / P&N 2 (1 2&j/ f t Colorado Mining Association i / People for the USA i I-.. ; Ei’ , ;;-I‘\i ? -’ 1 Dean K. Hunt I-.-.- . ._ ,A Pocahontas Coal Association’ ---- - .- . Elkhorn-Hazard Coal Land Corporation Quintain Development, LLC Energy Resources International, Inc. Retread Resources LTD Florida Electric Cooperatives Association Roberts & Schaefer Company Hawaiian Electric Company Silver City Consolidated Schools Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce Specific Surface Corporation Hunton & Wiliams Strategic America Illinois Coal Association Sullivan and Associates Indiana Coal Council, Incorporated The Coal Association of Canada Jack D. Lovely The Elk River Railroad, Incorporated JML, Incorporated The Mining Record John Van Gieson Media Relations Unions for Jobs & Environment Kentucky Association of Electric Cooperatives United Mine Workers of America Kentucky Coal Association United Transportation Union Kentucky Coal Marketing & Export Council Utah Mining Association Louisiana Association of Business & Industry Venable, Baetjer, Howard and Civiletti, LLP Maryland Coal Association Virginia Coal Association Maxie. Davie, Consultant Virginia Coal Council \ Michigan Railroads Association Virginia Mining Association, Incorporated Missouri Basin Systems Group West Virginia Coal Association Montana Coal Council West Virginia Mining & Reclamation Mt. Poso Cogeneration Company

June 19, 2002 Associate Members: Page 2 *The Center For Energy && Economic Development t- Associate Members

Western Coal Council Western Kentucky Coal Association Western States Coalition Women in Mining - Battle Mountain Chapter Women in Mining - Denver Chapter Women in Mining - National Organization Women in Mining - Ohio Chapter World Coal Institute Wyoming Mining Association Young Law Offices

Jurre 19, 2002 Associate Members: Page 2 THE CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

December 14,200O

VI-4 FACSIMILE, FEDERAL EXPRESS AND U.S. MAIL

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Tim Smith Rich Danberg Mail Drop 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: EPA Notice of Availability of Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission -- Federal Register 68999 (November 15,200O)

Gentlemen:

The Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) submits these comments in response to EPA’s Federal Register notification of receipt of the Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission for the year 2018 emission milestone for stationary sources of sulfur dioxide (“Annex”). CEED is a non-profit organization formed by the nation’s coal producing companies, railroads, a number of electric utilities, equipment manufacturers and related organizations for the purpose of educating the public, including public-sector decision-makers, about the benefits of affordable, reliable and environmentally compatible coal-fueled electricity.

CEED and its members are adversely impacted by the Annex. CEED submits these comments to express its serious concern regarding the “Annex” submitted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR $ 5 1.309 of EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR). CEED submits these comments for the agency’s consideration during its upcoming review of the Annex. Specifically, CEED has identified issues that it believes must be addressed

57887.WPD:2

P. 0. Box 288, Franktown, CO Telephone: (303) 814-8714 Fax: (303) 814-8716 1 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 2

if $309 is to be a viable and lawful option for western states to consider for RHR implementation.

At present and given the state of the Annex, CEED believes that RHR 5308 provides western states with the most favorable and cost-effective opportunities for providing visibility protection to western national parks and wilderness areas. At great potential cost to the coal industry in western states like Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, the Annex provides very little opportunity to effectively address visibility impairment in the west. The Annex also does not resolve the threat of a state having to do two SIP’s - one for the 16 Class I areas covered by the limited emissions trading program and one for all other Class I areas within their borders or source exposure to assertions of “reasonably attributable “visibility impairment.” CEED believes that the Annex, if adopted as it stands today, will seriously raise the costs of visibility planning for states and their stakeholders by doubling the work. These significant costs will not be borne in a vacuum-they will instead be felt as costs on every sector of the western economy. The Annex scheme is simply not a rational or coordinated approach to addressing EPA’s stated regulatory objective of improving visibility in Class I areas.

I. NEITHER THE EPA NOR THE WRAP HAS FOLLOWED ADMINISTR4TIVE PROCEDURE ACT OR CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS.

Given that the Annex contains what are intended to become federally-enforceable state- implementation plan (SIP) requirements, CEED is also seriously concerned with the lack of due process being followed by EPA and the WRAP. AS EPA is aware, the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and federal Clean Air Act (CAA) require the agency to publish a notice of proposed rules in the Federal Register and to provide the public with reasonable opportunity to comment thereon. See, 5 U.S.C. $553 and 42 U.S.C. 5 7607(d)(3)-(5). The notice and comment requirements of the APA serve three distinct purposes:

[Flirst, notice improves the quality of agency rulemaking by ensuring that agency regulations will be “tested by exposure to diverse public comments.” Second, notice and the opportunity to be heard are an essential components of “fairness to affected parties.” Third, by giving affected parties an opportunity to

57887.WPD:2 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 3

develop evidence in the record to support their objections to a rule, notice enhances the quality of judicial review.

Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted). (Emphasis added).

Importantly, the courts have held that the agency’s notice must “provide sufficient detail and rationale for the rule to permit interested parties to participate meaningfully.” Horsehead Resources Dev. Co. v. Administrator, EPA, 16 F.3d 1246, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 72 (1994). Furthermore, an agency:

[M]ust describe the range of alternatives being considered with reasonable specificity. Otherwise, interested parties will not know what to comment on, and notice will not lead to better-informed agency decision-making.

Horsehead Resource Development, 16 F.3d at 1268.

It is difficult to understand how one can possibly provide meaningful comment on a piecemeal and unconnected proposal when the majority of the critical elements of the regional emissions trading program are missing or are not offered with any supporting rationale or data. CEED is familiar with how the federal Clean Air Act imposes requirements for reasonable notice and an adequate proposal prior to any state developing a state implementation plan provision. This raises a question as to how the EPA/WRAP process, which is so lacking in that regard, can be consistent with that congressional mandate ? Such a fatally defective notice makes a mockery of the public participation process and raises serious due process and Administrative Procedure Act concerns.

57887.WPD:I Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 4

II. EPA’S RECENTLY ANNOUNCED REGIONAL HAZE BART RULEMAKING FRUSTRATES THE WRAP’S ABILITY TO DEVELOP AN EMISSION’S TRADING PROGRAM UNDER RHR 5309.

EPA’s RHR $309 requires that the Annex document a market trading program for SO, that identifies enforceable emissions milestones that achieve greater emissions reductions than those required under RHR §308(e)(i)‘s provisions for BART. Unfortunately, the WRAP has abandoned the GCVTC process and its intentions for a market trading program and has instead sought to constrain its efforts to the narrow focus of REIR $309. Despite the WRAP’s announcement of this significant change in direction over a year ago, EPA has again frustrated the WMP’s ability to complete an optional emissions trading program because it has recently announced that the agency intends to soon publish in the Federal Register notice of a separate, future rulemaking to develop regulations for BART - indicating such things as how states are to evaluate and comply with the BART provisions of RHR $308. While CEED believes the agency is taking a more appropriate and lawful direction with respect to defining BART factors, this otherwise creates a “chicken and egg” problem for the WRAP and EPA and calls into question the legal validity of the entire Annex. Simply put-how can the WRAP, which includes state and federal governmental agencies, pursue a regulatory program that has no basis in a yet-to-be- conducted EPA rulemaking? Further, how can an EPA rule require the Annex to contain elements that are “better than” requirements it has still yet to define?

III. THE ANNEX IS BASED UPON A FLAWED COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

CEED is deeply concerned with the cost and benefit analyses submitted by the WRAP in support of the Annex, entitled: 2018 Milestone Reductions Benefits Assessment by U.S. EPA and National Park Service, August 11,200O; and Economic Impacts of Implementing a Regional SO, Emissions Cap, Executive Summary, Prepared by ICF Consulting, August 11,200O.

After a detailed review and analysis, CEED believes that together, these reports suggest results illustrating benefits much higher than costs under any set of assumptions. “Savings” from the Annex’s narrow emissions trading program are asserted to be nearly 50% of what costs would be under the WRAP’s view of what “command and control” requirements would cost. CEED’s concerns are as follows:

57887.WPD:2 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 5

l It is unclear how the Annex can be based upon an ascribed “value” for health benefits below the NAAQS when EPA has already supposedly set the NAAQS at a level of “benefit” to protect human health without regard to costs. Further, EPA sets NAAQS with an adequate margin of safety. If one reads the Science Advisory Board debates and EPA’s past NAAQS rulemakings, you will see a lot of discussion over whether there are identifiable health issues. To even suggest that one would now introduce that entire debate anew in the WRAP is astonishing. In the realm “below” (i.e., cleaner than the NAAQS) who is qualified to decide what “health benefits” to value, how much and on what basis? As such, it seems wholly inappropriate for EPA/NPS to introduce those unsubstantiated issues that failed to make the cut as justifiable health concerns when EPA set the standards and now attempt to bootstrap them in to serve as justification for a preselected outcome in the visibility arena. Should not a “visibility program” have ascertainable visibility benefits without being artificially subsidized?

As indicated, the Annex’s assumed “command and control” scenario is based upon a regulatory requirement that does not yet exist! EPA has announced that it intends to implement a BART for Regional Haze rulemaking late this year or early next year. How can the Annex contain such nonexistent program cost comparisons?

None of the purported economic analyses relied upon in the Annex are explained at a level of detail that allows an informed understanding of what was done or assumed. As such, more information must be provided before any policy deliberations should proceed based on these studies.

The Annex contains and is based upon several comparison assessments of natural gas use costs vs. coal usage that are significantly inconsistent with current market price and raises several data credibility questions. For example, natural gas prices have recently been as high as $54 per mmBtu at the Southern California border, yet the WRAP’s analysis relies upon a cost input that is less than a fraction of the current market price. This results in a grossly unrealistic cost assessment and similarly creates a distorted bias against coal and in favor of natural gas. CEED strongly requests that EPA require that such arbitrary and clearly erroneous

57887. WPD2 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 6

assessments be publicly retracted along with any related information relying upon this flawed analysis. CEED also suggests EPA expressly require accurate cost input data. To do otherwise given present knowledge, would be to perpetuate an arbitrary assessment and is directly injurious to CEED’s members’ interests.

The Annex will impede the construction of future clean coal fueled generation. Combined with already high and rising natural gas prices, this significantly jeopardizes the western states ability to meet growing energy demand so vital to economic prosperity. CEED believes that the Annex is simply a de facto energy policy.

l The Annex should, but does not presently, contain direct comparisons to earlier analyses conducted by the GCVTC. Any substantive differences also need to be clearly explained and stated in the Annex.

As monetized benefits estimates were never developed in the GCVTC’s original Integrated Assessment (IA), there is no direct point of comparison to earlier IA findings. However, there are underlying air quality improvements driving these benefits estimates that could be compared to original IAS analyses (e.g., changes in deciviews and changes in air concentrations), and even these assumptions have not been provided.

l It is not possible to understand what changes have been made to the costs estimates from the initial IAS results.

. Important local, state and regional economic impact results are not provided. Aggregate regional impacts will always be minimal when the total costs are small relative to the economy as a whole. For example, study results data concerning differential impacts to economic and social sectors and consumer groups is completely lacking.

The benefits analyses need to be prepared for a range of control measures such as the four trading cases in the Annex’s Cost Analysis.

57587. WPD:Z Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 7

V. THE ANNEX WILL NOT LIKELY RESULT IN ANY PERCEPTIBLE IMPROVEMENT IN VISUAL AIR QUALITY.

The WRAP acknowledges the insignificant degree of visibility improvement anticipated to result from the narrow trading program outlined in the Annex. This information is critical to any state interested in making an informed judgment of whether the benefits from the cap and trade program mandate that such a plan should be implemented in its SIP. To the WRAP’s credit, it has stated:

“Visibility modeling estimates that visibility improvement from all emission reduction scenarios, even the most aggressive, would not be noticeable. Sonoma Technologies, the contractor that performed the modeling, examined the average visibility improvement on an annual basis and for the 20% best and worst days, for all 16 of the GCVTC Class I areas, and found that the most aggressive emissions reductions for the protected area with the best improvement would be about half of what would be perceptible to the average person.”

While the above-acknowledgment is noteworthy, it is subsequently then diluted by what appear to be arbitrary efforts to enhance an unattractive result. The conclusion of the analysis underlying the Annex is that the alternative emission management scenarios produce, at most, a small improvement in the average visibility on the 20% of the days of the year with the poorest visibility, which are the days of the year targeted for improvement under EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. The largest visibility improvement calculated by the contractor used to assemble the Annex over the haziest 20% of the days was 0.47 deciviews (dV)‘, a value predicted to occur at Mesa Verde National Park under a regional SO, emissions cap level of 448,000 tons@, as proposed by environmental groups. Although not shown in the Annex-related documents and presentations,

I CEED wishes to note that the definition of “deciview” given by the Annex contractor in its 13’” PowerPoint image is in error. The variables CL and EC should represent the light extinction under the described conditions (in units of l/Mm, as indicated), and not the visibility (as stated in the text).

57887.WPD:Z . Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 US. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 8

anticipated visibility “improvement” at the other 15 Colorado Plateau Class I areas and were less under other emission caps scenarios.

CEED wishes to point out, as was acknowledged by the WGA representative at the public meeting before the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on August 17, 2000, that the WinHaze computer visualization program used by the Annex contractor is not capable of a comparison of views with less than 1 dV difference, because the accuracy of the visual representation of the appearance of the view is not good enough to assure a reliable indication of such a small change. To respond to this limitation, the Annex’s relied upon contractor arbitrarily used a change of 1.4 dV, three times the maximum calculated difference of 0.47 dV. Furthermore, lacking an image of a view at Mesa Verde National Park, the location of the calculated difference, the Annex contractor used a view at Canyonlands National Park instead, under extinction conditions that approximate the average extinction on the 20% worst days at both Canyonlands and Mesa Verde.

CEED believes that the above-noted Annex approach is fundamentally flawed in the following respects. First, the perception of visibility differences of changes is very sensitive to the details of the view, including the availability of targets at various distances. The number of deciviews required to just detect a change in the appearance of a scenic element varies inversely with the distance to that element2. This means that a change in the appearance of an object that is located at a distance equal to the visual range can be detected when the extinction changes by a given number of deciviews, then a perceptible change in the appearance of a comparable object at a distance of half the visual range will require an extinction change of twice as many deciviews. As a result, the number of deciviews required to detect a change in a scene will depend on the availability of targets at remote distances. Further, the lack of distant targets will increase the number of deciviews difference that is required to distinguish a change in that

? L. Willard Richards. Use of the Deciview Haze Index as an Indicator for Regional Haze. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 49, pp. 1230-l 237, October 1999. [Attached as Appendix A]

57887.WPD:2 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 9

scene.3 Consequently, the Annex’s representation of a scene at Canyonlands may not provide a fair representation of the visual effect of an air quality change that is calculated to take place at Mesa Verde.

Second, the portrayal of a change that is arbitrarily three times the calculated one is misleading. No technical justification supports this action, only the inference that such an action was necessary to claim visibility improvement greater than one deciview. As such, the misleading visibility approach represented in the Annex will place a disproportionate burden on “receptor” states like Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming. The economic analysis offered in support of the Annex, coupled with the lack of humanly perceptible visibility improvement, shows a significant disincentive would be created for new coal-fired generation while the visibility analysis shows imperceptible improvement.

V. THE ANNEX DOES NOT TAKE A “COMPREHENSIVE” APPROACH IN ADDRESSING REGIONAL HAZE AND IGNORES THE ROLE OF FIRE AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF VISIBILITY WIPAIRMENT.

Visibility impairment is a regional issue, the solutions to which are best pursued regionally. Both the GCVTC’s and the National Academy of Sciences reports concluded that regional haze is caused by several sources (such as automobiles, forest fires, road dust, stationary sources, and natural emissions) which contribute to visibility-impairing emissions in varying degrees and, therefore, any regulatory program intended to rationally address visibility improvement should focus on all such sources in order to obtain a perceptible benefit. An earlier WGA proposal, as submitted by Governor Leavitt, also endorsed this approach.4 What has changed and why does not the Annex reflect enforceable elements of this critical sentiment?

As such, CEED urges EPA to require the WRAP to pursue all sources and efforts for addressing regional haze in an effective fashion, utilizing the GCVTC’s and National Academy of Science’s specific findings regarding the several multi-specie and multi-source contributors to

31d. [Attached as Appendix A]

4”Px-oposed Changes to the Regional Haze Rule to Facilitate Implementation of the GCVTC Recommendations,” June 25, 1998, pp. 1-3, 1 l-12.

57887.WPD:2 Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 10

visibility impairment. The manner in which the Annex proposes to address regional haze disregards the approach embraced by the GCVTC and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the statutory framework established by Congress.

The Annex does not contain any enforceable emission limitations or standard applicable to natural or prescribed fires. It strains credulity, especially aRer the disastrous fire season suffered by the western states, that the Annex would fail to include any enforceable emission limitations or standards. This stands in marked contrast to, and is a major departure from, one of the foundational findings of both the GCVTC and NAS visibility studies.

The federal government must accept responsibility for the significant amounts of regional visibility impairing emissions emanating from federal property. The GCVTC studied the role of fire in western visibility impairment and inventoried fire-related emissions from federal lands. CEED believes that the time has come for the EPA to include in any federal effort concerning regional haze to address all root causes. Congress agrees.

At the same time the GCVTC was added into law with the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress also added language to CAA 3 118 which made it abundantly clear that federal facilities and the emissions therefrom are subject to state regulation under the CAA. Federal Courts have confirmed Congressional intent under CAA $118. See U.S. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 748 F. Supp. 732 (C.D. Cal. 1990) and U.S. v. Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board, 1999 U.S.App. LE,XIS 29804 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 1999). Given available legal authority, why doesn’t the EPA insist on accountability of future emissions impact from federal agencies?

The Annex is the initial product of a process utilizing a Charter, which established a “parallel track” analysis that was to define an expanded scope of the trading program beyond large stationary sources, consistent with the GCVTC’s recommendations. Program “enhancements” as to scope (sources and pollutants) were supposed to be actively explored. Markedly, the Annex is devoid of any of these efforts to include as many other sources and pollutants as possible in an enforceable program that recognizes all sources that contribute significantly to visibility impairment.

57887.WF'D:Z , Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 11

Regrettably, the Annex has completely de-emphasized the role and purpose of the GCVTC. For example, GCVTC already reached the conclusion that fires are a major source of visibility impairment and recommended that any next steps be aimed at control strategies. Unfortunately under RHR $309, other emissions sources are treated in a permissive manner.

Despite the GCVTC’s call for a “comprehensive program,” CEED believes that a real question exists as to whether any action will come out of such “secondary” programs and that instead - all efforts will be focused and left upon stationary sources - all without any improvement in visibility! Such a result would be unreasonable and result in an arbitrary program. This is so, given the findings referenced above (and now the analysis offered in support of the Annex) concerning the fact that such sole or primary focus on large stationary sources is unlikely to even show noticeable results.

VI. CONCLUSION.

States, consistent with the Clean Air Act, are best served to balance all the competing air quality interests in the state and to construct a well designed and reasoned regional haze programs. As CEED analyzes it, the Annex appears to dilute the several western states’ role in accomplishing those aims. To the extent that’s true, it’s a significant strike against RHR §309. In sharp contrast, RHR $308 allows states a significant role. Given the significant concerns detailed herein, CEED requests that EPA return the Annex to the WRAP with instructions that it be revised to consider, address, and incorporate the issues CEED has identified in these comments and only republish an Annex when a complete Annex proposal exists.

Sincerely,

ViceHesident-West Center for Energy and Economic Development

57887.WPD:2 . .

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6 102) Attn: Docket No. A-2000-5 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tim Smith Rich Danberg December 14,200O Page 12

cc: Carol Browner, U.S.Environrnental Protection Agency Bill Grantham, National Tribal Environmental Council Tony Knowles, Governor of Alaska Tauese P. Sunia, Governor of American Samoa Jane Dee Hull, Governor of Arizona Gray Davis, Governor Of California Bill Owens, Governor of Colorado Carl T. C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam Benjamin Cayetano, Governor of Hawaii Dirk Kempthome, Governor of Idaho Bill Graves, Governor of Kansas Marc Racicot, Governor of Montana Mike Johanns, Governor of Nebraska Kenny Guinn, Governor of Nevada Gary E. Johnson, Governor of New Mexico Ed Schafer, Governor of North Dakota Pedro T. Tenorio, Governor of Northern Mariana Islands John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon William J. Jar&low, Governor of South Dakota George W. Bush, Governor of Texas Michael 0. Leavitt, Governor of Utah Gary Locke, Governor of Washington Jim Geringer, Governor of Wyoming

57887.WPD2 Use of the Deciview Haze Index as an Indicator for Regional Haze

L. Willard Richards

The U.S. Zwlrznmcntal Protecticn Agency (EPA) Notice oiPropcszd Ruhmuklng wP!!l fclr regional haze uses he dedview haze index (dv) z the in&czar far vls:bLUcy Lmptiinrznt and proposes a c>z~ge of I dv as ‘a smL1 but mticcjb~c change in ha&m under mast cirwm- SCUMXS.” All previous visibility n&s have spmified hu- man Ferqkan as the indiuCOr for vFEfbFLity iqakment. This arti& ~ra,i?incs the technfcd bask cited iz the NT% fcr this new IndIclltnr for visibility inlDainncnt and fcr rhe pemprlon -chruhald of appmxfrmtdy I dv. Ikim tions based on the asumpdons and approximatronlr cited in the NPR show that the de&&w ha28 Index does not have the correcr functional form to relate clxqyz~ fn haze within kdenl Class I ares to the ti- sti perr,lpdaa of those changes. The just-noticeable changchlightextincticnhin~eytr.~ypm- porcloml to the sight path length lrrjrad of proptimal KCI tie Ughtm&mon codfkienr There derivations also iNfiCX8 iklt a I-& cbflge ‘in hzizi.ness Is q+plully too small to be pucctved in mcst Class E arcs.

R’RRODlXI?ON T& &~%Av .!zaze index (dv) ws hmduced by Firchford and Mah+ fcr use in ptesen~e data far tk l$$xetion caefflckx (b,! of ambient air. (T&nical terms are de Qnad ln a glosmry at tic end of th!s a~!&.) For cc;ur,pie. lh8k pqXrc~2nc~iZ a reap afche Unlred States wf:h tip- IethS indiudng the avcngevisibiIity CZr?ditfOtU. PiKchfcrd ar,d M&R’ ind!cawd rb.s the dcciview haze Ink b tSc @erred rnetrlc icr such pmntat!ons because it Ls more hcariy te!zced KI the hum percepdan of mgtanal hxe . (r he effect of the NFR ls to propose glvfng the decitiiew the defimion oftie declvfew haze h&x appks only cc haz,o inch rtgulacory s131us 3s an indicator for risibility tk JpFWVU conuxx of tetnin features viewed 3gz.ns : ez6. . impairmenr. Anocher effect is to propose establishing a the horhm sky The sxond assumption is t.he one mcsc 3 pexcpdon tireshold with the natement. ‘A one deciview edy quesrioned, as tidicared in the appendix change In haztnes is a small but notice;lble c.hange in hslhzs under mox circ~.~~.?lft;lrxes wher, viewing scerm in rmmiatory Clas 1 Fedenl anx~s.‘ Becue proposals in the NPR wculd give regulatory ZKUS CO tie d&view haze index as an indicator for re- glonaf haze, ir is appropriate at c!=~J time to review its da- wrlcn and examine some of its ptopeties. The purpose of rhfs review is zo inczezze tie underztx.dfng of atmc- spheric o+cz and timal percepdon rhiesholds r&xed

APl%.lGUIONTOAwZST=E?~CSCES~~4 A I-yr inter-e vfsibtliry study L recendy completed for the ML Zf.k! Wderness Area 0 in nofihcenml Colcmdo.S The purpose cf the Mt. ZZcel MkibiUty Study CMzt’Zl VY;LS co determine the e,FTect~ of lccal and rqfonal sources on vlllblllcy tqairrr.ent in the WA. Tl;e data- base from ti study IS ccmplete enough CO .suppc~ an zxa1yA.s af the Lssues raised in this arrfck and res~!u for a wavelengh cl 550 mm are gresznteri in iable 1. Tr.e longsr stgix path length within the LMZWA is 35 !m (22 ml), and !r fs assumed chat cb nanitmbg da= from a ske x the southern boundary of tie l VZVi~ art applf- cabk cc &!s s!ght pati. Eq 2 was derfved durkg the .c?ZVS ke Appendh EL6 and Scion 04.3 in referewe 65 and gins a value of I!.7 Atari far the ab- for chc longest sight path within the MZLVA. The jbrc~ frcm et, 2 l.s nearly 10 times larger

wwio 43 oca& 1wY Akhards . tonal haze in a sight path wit! a lerlgth equal 10 VR (3) h-t mc= circumsrances In Clan I arms. a l-dv 8 With one exception. these assumptions 2n2 :ompletely change Ln regional hazt! on t.he 20?6 Ieazr lm- .- consisenc widr the ~SU@CIIU usti ES the r~~~lmi~al basis paired days is srmk t’lan 3 perceptible change. kr the MR. The sfngie cuccpdon is chat t%e calculations This mfcle presents an example in wMch 3 1 -dv .n Table 1 do nor SSSWIC thar siighz palhs equal in length change is nearly 10 &~XS smaller chart the per- to the VR were availabk WIT&~ the M.ZW4. copibie change (dekved fmm the assumptior~z One reqtimenr proposed fn the NPR fs chat the In *he h?R). ave-qe deciview ha72 Index not increzm Sy more ban (4 The requiramenr -Aat the avenge value of the 0.1 dv on the 20% of days char are leazc imptied. Such a d&view hate Ind=u ina~~z.e by no more than requirement could be used to deny a pert (of rquk 0.1 ch on zhe 20% Iewl kp;1ked days sxs a SXT‘.- cxxpensaring emlnlons reductions before O”ranting a Fe:- dard that cm be 100 r!~zs s,nuLler ckzn a per- mft) for a proposed prcjecr char is esrl.z-zcd to innceasa cepribie ch~ge k @onal ha.zo. haz on the 20% Ieasc Impaired days In th.e MZWA by an arncunt appromreiy 1 GO times srzalisr than zhc 3rzunt that would, accord&g to the an;llF of Pitchford er al..’ cause a perceptible change in haze. This requirement wouid alsc trigger the need for ernksfons reductions In the event tharr &hc= natural maria bury In haze or logionsl growth caused a O-I-dv ~ncrp.?cp in haz,o to be measured on the 20% least Imp&d days. The NPR doti nor pro- RECOM3amDArIONS tide *he technIca b&s for limiting changs in haze IC a IL i3 recsmmented that the :&.nkd basis for :he WS be value 100 krms xrtd&nhan a visualfy prcqmf!~Ie change. ~~zxied ant! kroadenzd so char It Is more robust. It wculd As a side issue, tie VK of 340 km ti Table 1 Is un.edhIy. be dekablc fur the additional analyses to consider more Thk mlue was calrulated fram the standard equatin (eq than the con- of faint titiges aqinx v& horizon sky. 1 I in the appendix]. However. for the very dean cor.& MOST vWms to Clan I 3~ zrz also interred ln the cIsr- itp of VlewS of features on cf IFS, rraunrsinsides. ar,d viewz unff'orrn oer a sfghz pd of this length !S a’ An in VaLlqcS. Sknple c3icuIalian me~bods exist for rdiE- My hcrkontal sfght path of this length would end x kg the clarity cf such views co I!ght e-tinction,’ ahd 3n batin of 9. I kru (29.700 ftl abc*:e rfrt ohsarvet’s el- they have the potenti to proside a sound !=hniul b&s watlon which iswdl above thr altitudes ypkd.ly afkted far cukmaking. by reg!oml haz There are no p4u on Eart!! wkh an tl- The reconL?ended approach for additional analyses wadon that gmc. x1 the awmptin of rhe pmcruof a resembles the apvh u9ed when serdr,g air quak,jscz~- dar!c tarrain f=cuz ar the visual range cannat be satScd. dwds CO protec; hurr+n he&h. Nelrher tib-Xty nor hc- man health are cioze!y Ilnked to air qualIT. It is ~OC co- possible to predict be heaIrS of an indivfdusl or tie vi- As .?Iz?*An,pc! abow*, ds review was nmow!y r,rric;2d suzd qalicy of a scene ,%om air quzliry ir9crrr~rIon alone. m analysa based on the same azsllfi,prlons as used by In bath css a tide nr,ge of 8etzs can k observed al 2 PiMfcrd and Malml Those aSSUr,FCiOr4 werr not am- pen lewd ol ati quaky Hcwever, rz!aric.-ship csn be pi!fled or modified. nnr were they compared with otl?er esmoiishd and used as the technical b-lc!t for the level or’ possible assur;lprioru. The mcsc s@ificanc .tlndQs of this be Indkator selected for the s:a+--da&. For visibility irn- review are: pairment, these relatlonsh@ GUI be established e.~;=erl- (1) The derivation of rhe d&view hyc index w.zs ~=uaLly or by cjlculac~on~. The State of CoIoradc used based on 3 specf31 case chat is not ry~1ca.fl-y en- an e?

The v;llue af b, for grtcn light snd pmk!e-free air at AC, = LC=C [hq(rhb-)J (8) I.8-icr?r elevaclon Is approximata!y 10 Mm-‘. T&More, cr &has a value of zero for par&zfe-k-eg air under&se csn- I-L*tup(r&-) (9 dfticm and increases by approximacety one unit for each 10% Lnclaje in 5,. eq 9 !s eq 4 in Pitchfoti and Mal.m’ and, except far Thcs~md assunpciankedinthebody afrhe ar- an 3fbkmy chcice of algebnfc sfgrs. eq 7 is eq 4 in tlcle Is mm wily quesxfcned: fcr a change irt contrast :o Pitchford et al.’ iq 1 in the :er, cf ti-;is article 3 a rear- be naticasble. L!!,P rra@rdde of the thzmge is prupcrrlonsl rzingemenc af eq 9. co the sppamx ccrxmt (Cj.

AC,, = L C (3

where L & CI cmsux thar deper,ds on rche spxial &equency but Ret the cor,ms. Ne!&er ?irc>Zard er al.’ nor k&ford md M&-n1 expIicitty uy so. hur it iz believed L!! cqua- uMM% t!cn is intended tc be apcLic3bIe far either pcsftivt or nepive vaices of dC,w for eicfier poslrlve cr neg3tix.e COZ%CS. Car!scn and Cc:leclL have shown rhat eq S is . A.2. Inruprecation by Firchford et al. The dcrkaticn of the dxiview haze L&X by Pizhford and .MElhni c!wziy follows a derivadon Ln an earher ar- dck by Pitchfard et. al.’ that foreshadows the genera! SZUC. lure of the regioml haze regulatlorls in t!x NPR. LI WS

eidier 3nfcle. a percent change Ln bll wits recammndcd as a bmxA~ far ~3gress tmrd the ~don.al gosl of no CEntade tisibillty !mpai.rmenz. Pitclsford et al.4 ta& tie deivarlon oryc s;~ep fmher by Introdting ‘he puancter X which is the ratio of the sight ps.5, ler& r to rhe vi- SWI mqp M

-&-VRb, (1 i1

where e fs the lfrnlnal (thr&oId) comrax. For ex;l,m~ic. if the UminaI cantzm is 256, Jfr4 is eqti X 3.9 ( , PitMard ec 3Lc obtarn tie ~&3tian

Abd, = rhqi - L)J/o( In&:) 1w

In their daimdan, tic sym&ci K was used for -lm ar?d l Y W.S wed for a&-. AU bcton mcczpr Xln the right. hand tide of eq 12 are cnmnts, su drls equation skew in rlrr?ple terms tk dqxmiesce of A&. OQ the ratio of tie s$ht path Length co the viswl nnge. Eq 12 was used by Pitchford er aL4 to calcula~ heir FQure 1. which is rqmducd 3s Slgwa I in chls ankle.

~-i.3.5xunsiall of the Daivntion of Pitchford and Maim Rc=xqement af q 9 gIve5

Abfndtc - (l/r) lrl(l - L) (13)

21 (1 . L] = 0.!0517 (-lnt) (15) , - cc&%ient ac the sampler Inler(s). If a case misled h which the acmosphcre and ia ihrnina Cion Were uni- . form aver the VII and beyond and tie atmospheric dx+RbI. comparsltion were the sa,=e as SL tie ampler Met(s). the W? wouid be the greatest dlscance a dark targr, could be perceived against the hor!zon sky.

The bask ldey ~mented in t5.s a&c!e were deveIaped during the ,MZW pefiorrr(ed for tie Colorado Depar,. mtzx of tiealch and Ewironrrsrx and funded by the owz- en af the Hayden and Cta!g Generating Stxiorx. The &ne!!can ktroieum hrituv~ ptided sq?porc for the ievim at 4thc flR and the pqaratin of &is mar,usc”,pt. New Page 1 Yage 1 ot 15

Annex to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport - ’ Commission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Webmaster Note: If you have difficulties viewing documents within your browser try this alternative method to download then view the file: the desired link with your mouse and select the “Save Target As” (or “Save Link As” in Netscape) option to download the file to your computer, then open the file on your computer after it is downloaded. -F=

September 29, 2000 Back to MTF Forum 1 Gp-.t_qS_uppl.~mt.a.~ Annex Submittal -3 Executive Summary The executive summary outlines the key provisions of the Annex, and is a good overview of the overall document. (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms The Glossary spells out acronyms that are used in the document, and also provides definitions for terms used in the document. (Acrobat, WordPerfect) i ..- I. Background Section I provides background information regarding the history of ! visibility protection in the Clean Air Act, as well as the Grand Canyon Visibility f Transport Commission Recommendations that are the basis of the Annex. (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

II. Explanation of Decisions Section II is the preamble to the Annex, and outlines the I - ---_ _ reasoning behind the key decisions in the Annex. (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

Ill. Annex Recommendations Section III contains the detailed provisions of the Annex. (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

A technical report concerning the recommended changes to 40CFR51.309 to incorporate the annex provisions is currently being compiled and will be available soon.

Supporting Documentation

There are a series of Attachments to the Annex that contain the technical support and other supporting documentation for the Annex provisions.

Attachment A. Draft Model Rule The model rule outlines the details of the backstop trading program that would be implemented if regional SO2 emissions exceed the milestones. This rule is intended to be used as a template for states and tribes to use in developing their SIPS and TIPS, but is not intended to establish required regulatory language. The States and Tribes will need to work closely together to ensure that the SIPS and TIPS will work together so that a regional trading program will operate smoothly. (PDF format, WordPerfect format)

Attachment B. Draft Memorandum of Understanding Between the States and Tribes for Implementing a Backstop Regional Trading Program The draft MOU establishes the agreements that will be necessary between the States and Tribes to implement a regional trading program. The WRAP does not have any regulatory authority, and each participating State and Tribe will need to develop SIPS or TIPS to implement the program. (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

Attachment C. Demonstration that the Proposed Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART for Regional Haze The regional haze rule requires that the milestones must achieve greater reasonable progress than regional haze BART over the long-range planning period. This document provides a demonstration of

2; 32002 New Page 1 Page 2 013

how the proposed milestones meet this requirement. (Acrobat, WordPerfect) . - Attachment D. Preliminary List of BART-Eligible Sources in the Region (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of State Area Allocations (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

Attachment F. Conceptual Proposal for Re-Allocation of Tribal Set-Aside (Acrobat, WordPerfect)

Annex Submittal the following Supplementary Annex Material to the EPA on June 29, 2001.

at the May 23-24,200l meetina reaarding the supplementary ’ Annex submittal. (PowerPoint, posted 5130101))

“Description of Opt In, Opt Out Provisions” (WPD, DOC) Recommended state and tribal budgets that will be used to adjust the regional milestones if individual states and tribes decide to opt in or opt : out 01 the regional backstop emission trading program. (Updated 5131101)

l “Opt In Opt Out Adiustments.xls” Spreadsheet that shows the calculation methodology for the state and tribal budgets for adjusting the regional milestones. (Excel, Posted 5130101) 0 “Opt in Opt Out Adjustments 2003-2018 showing 3-year average number.xls” Spreadsheet that shows how the state and tribal budgets will n**h affect the 3-year average that will be used to show that regional emissions are meeting the milestones. (Excel, Posted 5/30/01)

“tracking and triggering” (WPD, DOC) Description of the emission tracking process that will occur in the region prior to triggering the backstop emission trading program, including a description of the process that will be used to trigger the program if the milestones are exceeded. (Updated 5/31/01)

“banking in 2018” (WPD, DOC) Description of banking procedures in the year 2018 to ensure that the regional emission reduction goals are achieved by the end of the planning period, while still providing incentives for early reductions.

“2013 SIP Review” (WPD, DOC) Description of the process that will be followed in the year 2013 to evaluate expected emission reductions by the year 2018, and, if necessary, trigger the trading program early to ensure that the 2018 emission reduction goal is achieved.

“Yearlv Milestones, 2003 - 2018, showinu 3-year average number“ Spreadsheet that shows how a 3-year average of the milestones will be compared to a 3-year average emission inventory to determine if regional emissions are in compliance with the milestones.

Addendum to the trackina, triaaering, and audit paper to address milestone adjustments due to changing flow monitoring techniques for utilities. (WPD, Posted 5/30/01)

Technical Support Documentation

l Technical Supporting Documentation that was submitted to the EPA as part of the Annex -

2/3/2002 New Page 1 Page 3 of3

. The data and analyses supporting progress made thus far in the determination of appropriate emission reduction milestones.

l Technical Support Documentation that was submitted to the EPA as part of the Supplementary Submittal

Archived material concerning the development of the Annex

l Response to Comments on the Auoust 1 lth Draft Annex

l Link to archived materials on the main Market Trading Forum Page

Last Update: Sunday, 02/03/2002

2/3/2002 . 4. .

. . . . . ::

- LoLoRADo

The Westem Ugior~1 Air Parrnership I hls. Di;mnc Nielson, SCXC of lJ&h crtbr ‘rnor Lloyd Ton=rliczt. Puctblo of Acoma

As mure fully discussed in the Conlfrlission’s memorandum. the problems we pcrGeivg $ he imlude thr tbllwrrr~; r e * c;ll*llli&ed by Congress tbr states has beerr made avaihblt IO Coio~do, thus mistrating OUT ability to have a . ctlllt;tIece understanding of all sowccs of visibility impairment in our state. We once again nnew our - reqtlest to the WRAP uncl the EPA CO provide suficienr fimds so that we can csoblkh a monitoring nclbb ork that will sllow us (0 comply with the RXR.

Thank you for yw~r work un this issue and for your ~~riaus considcrarivn of our rqucst for morritorinp funds and of ollr other comments. We would like this lc~ter and &e memorandum from the Air Ou.rtiry Conaoi Commission LO be fonvardcd +~CI the EPA by the WRAP with rhe MCICX.

S inzc’rely.

Dir<