N O R T H E R N R O C K I E S O F F I C E 3 1 3 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T B O Z E M A N , M T 5 9 7 1 5 

T : 4 0 6 . 5 8 6 . 9 6 9 9 F : 4 0 6 . 5 8 6 . 9 6 9 5 N R O F F I C E @ E A R T H J U S T I C E . O R G W W W . E A R T H J U S T I C E . O R G 

 

July 8, 2015 

Janet McCabe 

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 6101A 

Washington, DC 20460 

McCabe.Janet@epa.gov 

By Electronic Mail 

RE: Regional Haze Implementation for Utah Sources 

Dear Ms. McCabe: 

 We are writing to express our serious concerns with the State of Utah’s proposed regional 

haze plan that fails to require any emissions reductions from the state’s sizable sources of haze 

pollution. While the regional haze program in general offers an extraordinary opportunity to 

clear the skies, implementation in Utah stands out for its unparalleled potential to reasonably 

achieve cost-effective emissions reductions that promise substantial visibility benefits over some 

of our nation’s most treasured landscapes. Utah’s plan squanders that opportunity; EPA is 

obligated under the Clean Air Act to seize it. 

 In promulgating implementation plans that require Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(“BART”) on some of the oldest and dirtiest sources of haze pollution, EPA already has invested 

substantial resources to improve air quality in national parks, wilderness areas, and other 

magnificent public lands throughout the country. For example, EPA’s plans for Arizona, 

Oklahoma, and certain Wyoming sources promise to deliver significant clean-air benefits as does 

EPA’s draft plan for Texas, which, if finalized, will be a keystone of visibility improvement 

across the region. Yet EPA’s job is not complete. To secure congressionally directed visibility 

improvement at eight national parks in Utah and neighboring states, EPA must adopt adequate 

BART controls for large sources of haze-causing nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) pollution in Utah. 

 In 2012, EPA rightly rejected Utah’s prior proposal to forego any NOx emissions 

reductions from the BART-subject units of PacifiCorp’s Hunter and Huntington coal-fired power 

plants. Utah’s most recent proposal that exempts these same sources from any additional 

pollution controls—this time cloaked as an “alternative program” under 40 C.F.R. § 

51.308(e)(2)—also must be dismissed. As discussed below, there is no legitimate justification for 
2 

not requiring Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”), the most effective NOx-pollution control for 

Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, where SCR on this units would offer greater 

visibility benefits at lower costs than every single EPA BART determination requiring this 

technology that we are aware of. Utah’s request that EPA nonetheless endorse a BARTalternative that would yield no future emissions reductions from any source in the state is 

prohibited by the Agency’s regulations and must be rejected. 

I. EPA MUST REDUCE NOX EMISSIONS FROM THE HUNTER AND HUNTINGTON PLANTS 

TO SATISFY ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND ENSURE 

CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE REGIONAL HAZE PROGRAM. 

 Requiring SCR as BART to reduce NOx emissions from Hunter Units 1 and 2 and 

Huntington Units 1 and 2 is necessary to improve visibility over some of the crown jewels of the 

national park system. The Hunter and Huntington plants are less than 100 miles from three 

Class I areas—Arches, Canyonlands, and Capitol Reef national parks—each of which were 

specifically established to preserve their superb scenic vistas that are now too often marred by 

regional haze. NOx emissions from the plants contribute significantly to visibility impairment at 

these national parks in Utah as well as Utah’s Bryce Canyon and Zion National Parks; 

Colorado’s Mesa Verde and Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Parks and Flat Tops 

Wilderness Area; and the Grand Canyon. Unless EPA significantly reduces NOx emissions from 

Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 in acting on Utah’s SIP, BART and 

reasonable progress directives will be forsaken. Utah’s proposal advances a plan that fails to 

credibly improve visibility at impacted Class I areas and is therefore irreconcilable with EPA’s 

obligation to eliminate human-caused visibility impairment over these lands. 

 Proper five-factor BART analyses demonstrate that SCR, installed together with low- NOx

burners and separated overfire air (“SOFA”), is the only technology justified as BART for these 

units.1

 Indeed, SCR on Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 would yield the most 

significant visibility benefits at the lowest costs identified across the regional haze program. As 

demonstrated by the table below, any decision not to require SCR on Hunter Units 1 and 2 and 

Huntington Units 1 and 2 would appear to depart from EPA’s past practice and would fail to 

make the required progress toward achieving natural visibility goals. 

 

 

1

 Although Utah omitted five-factor BART analyses from its latest SIP proposal, National Parks 

Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and HEAL Utah have provided EPA Region 8 with 

extensive analyses by independent technical consultants Vicki Stamper and Andrew Gray. 
3 

Visibility benefits and costs of SCR + low-NOx burners and SOFA at BART-subject units in 

Arizona, Wyoming, and Utah2

Unit Modeled dv improvement from 

baseline 

Average cost effectiveness 

(cost per ton of NOx removed)

Cholla Unit 2, 

Arizona 

Petrified Forest - 1.34 dv 

(all three units modeled together) 

$2,979/ton

Cholla Unit 3,

Arizona 

$2,838/ton

Cholla Unit 4,

Arizona 

$3,083/ton

Laramie River 1

Wyoming Badlands – 0.57 dv $4,461/ton

Laramie River 2

Wyoming Badlands – 0.53 dv $4,424/ton

Laramie River 3

Wyoming Badlands – 0.52 dv $4,375/ton

Wyodak 1

Wyoming Wind Cave – 0.61 dv $4,036/ton

Dave Johnston 3

Wyoming Wind Cave – 0.51 dv $2,635/ton

Naughton 3 

Wyoming 

Bridger – 0.49-0.60 dv

(depending on ammonia 

background) 

$3,469/ton

Hunter 1 

Utah 

Canyonlands- 1.86 dv $2,263/ton 

Hunter 2 

Utah Canyonlands- 1.5 dv $2,276/ton 

Huntington 1 

Utah Canyonlands-2.06 dv $2,273/ton 

Huntington 2 

Utah Canyonlands-1.83 dv $2,222/ton 

 As shown, the visibility benefits of installing SCR on any one of the Hunter and 

Huntington units are 3 to 4 times greater at the most-impacted Class I area (Canyonlands 

National Park) than the modeled benefits from EPA’s previous BART determinations requiring 

SCR at coal-fired power plants in Arizona and Wyoming. And the costs of SCR for Hunter and 

Huntington are well below costs EPA previously deemed reasonable. In highlighting EPA’s 

actions in other western states, we hope to encourage the Agency to adopt a consistent and 

principled approach as it considers appropriate BART determinations for Utah’s coal units. 

 

2

 EPA’s BART determinations requiring SCR on Arizona and Wyoming are identified here as 

examples, and are representative of SCR BART determinations in other states. 
4 

 Furthermore, the significant benefits of operating SCR on Utah’s BART units for 

Canyonlands National Park are only part of the story. Even at less-impacted Class I areas, the 

visibility improvements due to SCR far exceed benefits EPA has found to justify BART based on 

only the most impacted area. For example, operating SCR on Hunter Unit 1 yields 1.66 dv 

benefit over baseline conditions at Arches; 1.62 dv benefit at Capitol Reef; and 0.67 dv benefit at 

Grand Canyon National Park. Most importantly, because of the concentration of national parks 

in close proximity to the facilities, the cumulative benefit to all affected Class I areas is 

extraordinary. Considering the visibility benefits from BART controls on both BART-subject 

units at Hunter or Huntington, as the BART Guidelines require, demonstrates the unmistakable 

significance of these improvements. 

 While EPA’s source-specific BART determinations necessarily differ from one another 

depending on how the relevant statutory factors apply at a given facility and within a given 

state, EPA must at a minimum provide a rational explanation before departing from its wellconsidered BART determinations in other states. For Hunter and Huntington, there appears to 

be no legitimate justification for the state’s alternative and rejecting SCR controls as BART. 

II. EPA MUST REJECT UTAH’S PROPOSED BART ALTERNATIVE. 

 In proposing (many years late) a regional haze plan for NOx applicable to Hunter Units 1 

and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, Utah eschewed the cost-effective benefits of SCR in favor of 

a BART “alternative” under 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2) that would require no new emissions 

reductions on any source in the state. Utah’s plan would allow Hunter and Huntington to 

continue to emit NOx at current high levels while taking credit for emissions reductions at nonBART facilities that already have occurred. Primarily, the emissions reductions claimed under 

Utah’s alternative program come from avoided NOx, sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), and particulate 

matter emissions from the Carbon Plant, which was permanently retired in April 2015 (prior to 

Utah’s adoption of its latest regional haze SIP) in lieu of complying with new emissions limits 

under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (“MATS”) and currently is being dismantled. 

 While EPA has approved alternative programs it found to satisfy the regulatory criteria, 

including the requirement to achieve “greater reasonable progress” than BART, it has never used 

an alternative program to exempt all of the state’s BART units from controls in exchange for 

wholly past emissions reductions at non-BART units. If Utah’s program were approved, there 

would be nothing to stop states from attempting to satisfy Regional Haze Rule obligations 

through historical emissions reductions achieved from past implementation of motor vehicle 

standards or any other federal or state pollution-reduction measure already affecting any source. 

EPA must reject this approach because it would gut the Regional Haze Program’s requirements 

of “eliminating or reducing” visibility impairment from BART sources and making reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of restoring visibility at each Class I area. 
5 

 Further, even if Utah’s proposed reliance on entirely past emission reductions at nonBART units were allowed, the alternative program is not approvable because it fails to satisfy the 

“greater reasonable progress” requirement. 

• First, in comparing the alternative program to BART, Utah wrongly assumed that if the Carbon 

Plant did not retire, it would continue polluting at historical levels without complying with 

mandatory MATS emissions limits. Independent modeling performed for National Parks 

Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and HEAL Utah and submitted to Region 8 confirmed 

that when MATS-based emissions reductions from the Carbon plant are properly accounted for 

in the BART scenario, BART achieves substantially greater visibility improvement at all affected 

Class I areas than Utah’s proposed alternative. 

• Second, Utah improperly seeks to double-count avoided SO2 emissions due to the Carbon plant 

retirement. Because Utah participates in the Western Backstop Trading Program to satisfy its 

regional haze obligations for SO2, any reductions in SO2 attributed to the Carbon plant closure 

would be proper to consider solely in the context of Utah’s obligations under that program. 

Thus, not only will there be greater overall emissions than Utah assumed in the BART scenario 

(assuming proper MATS compliance at the Carbon plant), there will also be lesser emissions 

reductions that may arguably be attributed to the Carbon plant closure in the Alternative 

scenario (properly excluding consideration of SO2 emissions). Correcting either of these errors 

demonstrates the unmistakable superiority of an SCR BART determination for Hunter Units 1 

and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 over Utah’s proposed alternative. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 We remain hopeful that EPA will disapprove Utah’s BART alternative and instead 

advance a Federal Implementation Plan that secures necessary visibility gains for impacted Class 

I areas by imposing SCR as BART at these sources. We look forward to discussing this issue with 

you by telephone in the near future. 

Sincerely, 

 

Abigail Dillen 

Vice President of Litigation for Climate & Energy 

Earthjustice 

(212) 791-1881, Ext. 8221 

adillen@earthjustice.org 

Bruce Nilles 
6 

Senior Director, Beyond Coal Campaign 

Sierra Club 

(415) 977-5640 

bruce.nilles@sierraclub.org 

Mark Wenzler 

Senior Vice President of Conservation Programs 

National Parks Conservation Association 

(202) 454-3335 

mwenzler@npca.org 

CC: 

Shaun McGrath 

Administrator 

USEPA REGION 8 

1595 Wynkoop St. 

Mail Code: 8RA 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

r8eisc@epa.gov