'1l:1nitrd ~Wtrs ;:5cnatc 1 WASHINGTON, DC 20510

February 17,2012

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

WashinSlon, District of Columbia 20460-000 I

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We arc writing with respect to EPA's plans to propose a regional haze fedcrdl

implementlltion plan (FIP) for the SIDte afMontan... We understand that EPA has gathered 41nd

is considering relevant environmental and economic information from the State ofMontana ;.and

regulated facilities. We commend that effort and encourage you to continue your dialogue with

Ihe Slate Ilnd affected facilities.

Visibility is important to our outdoor heritage in the West. Montanans arc lucky lhallhc

Big Sky \'I,re so cherish is also by llnd large a clear sky. But there is more to clarity than just luck.

The Clean Air Act has underpinned the environmental progress made by this nation l"Or decades.

We lend healthier lives because ofthe Act.

In cralling the statute, Congress wisely differentiated the relative importance ofthe Act's

emission reduction programs. For example, Congress tied the requirements for best available

retront technology under the regional haze program to a cost-effectiveness and reasonable

progress analysis. Provisions or the Act that eslnblish public health-based standards lack such

tempering criteria,

Given these relative priorities, we arc concerned about the economic impact of requiring

expensive conlrol technologies under a program that measures progress over decades. Our

concern is deepcned by the fact thal potential requirements in the FIP, such as the inSlaUation of

Selective Catalytic Reduction at the Colstrip Steam Electric Generation Station, might result in

imperceptible visibility benefits-the SUIlU[ory objective oflhe regional haze program. fn

addition, we arc keenly aware ofthe recent and upcoming financially material investments made

by Montana lbcilities in clean air lechnology. in particular to comply with final air toxics rules

promulgated by this Administration. We note thaI those rules will likely result in significant

reductions in surrogate pollutants (sulfur dioxide and particulate mailer) thut overlap with the

regional haze program. Finally, we respecrfully point OUI the painful realities of a depressed

economy: the Inrger downturn has already rorced two oflhe Montana facililies initially identified

by EPA as eligible for best available retrofit technology to shut down,
In evaluating the cast effectiveness afthe FIP, the legislative history afthe regional haze

pragram is illuminating. One of us participated in the debates in the 95th Congress thnt resulted

in amending the Act to avoid pushing industrial pollution inlo areas lhal were already clean. In

seeking to prevent the flight of industry from metropolitan areas, Congress enacted several

importnnt provisions, including the regional haze program. Congress simultaneously recognized

the threat that impaired visibility could pose 10 economies that rely on tourism. In 1977, the

House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce contemplated the prospect that national

parks and wilderness areas would be '"despoiled or heavily shrouded in dense industrinl

pollution." It would have been a perverse outcome indeed if industrial migration caused by the

Clean Air Act meant that tourists could no longer sec across the chasm ofthc Grand Canyon of

the Colorado or down the chutes ofthe Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.

Thankfully, we have avoided that outcome. It poses no immincnt threat in or around

Montana.

In light ofthcse considerations, we note that EPA appears to lack a consistent national

policy with respect to an appropriate cost threshold for best available rctrofillechnology. We

submit that, at the very least, the costs imposed by the regional haze program should not be

higher than those required to achieve health·based emission standards.

For example, EPA is considering allowing eastern states to meet their regional haze

obligalions by complying with a distinct rulc, the Cross·Statc Air Pollution Rulc (CSAPR). EPA

estimates that the marginal abatement cost for complying with CSAPR ranges from $500 per ton

in 2012 to $[,800 per Ion in 2014. We don'llhink Montanans should pay more to achieve the

same fractional improvement in dcciviews. An aesthetic-based standard in Montana should nOI

cost multiple times a health-based standard in the East, especially when Montana starts with

clearer air. This result would Oy in the face of the cost-effectiveness evaluation mandated by

Congress.

We urgc you to take into account these points as you prepare a regional haze FIP for

Montana, and we look forward to remaining informed by EPA as the rulemaking proceeds.

Sincerely,

Jon Tester

U.S. Senator

ax Bnucus

U.S. Senator