1

 1 EPA PUBLIC HEARING 

 2 PROPOSED ACTION TO IMPLEMENT BEST AVAILABLE

 3 RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) AT 

 4 Coronado Generating Station, Cholla Power Plant, 

 5 and Apache Generating Station

 6

 7

 8 Tuesday, July 31, 2012 

6 p.m. 

 9

10

11 Location

12 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 

401 West Washington Street

13 Phoenix, Arizona 85003

14

15 Attending

16 Gerardo Rios, Presiding Officer 

Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, EPA Region 9

17 Thomas Webb, Region 9 Planning Office 

Francisco Donez, Region 9 Planning Office 

18 Roberto Gutierrez, Permitting Office 

Margot Perez-Sullivan, EPA Office of Public Affairs

19

20

21

22 PREPARED BY:

23 AZ Litigation Support, LLC

 Michelle D. Elam, CR

24 Certified Reporter 

 CR No. 50637

25

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 2

 1 Phoenix, Arizona

 July 31, 2012

 2 6 p.m.

 3

 4 GERARDO RIOS: Welcome and good evening.

 5 This public hearing is now in session.

 6 My name is Gerardo Rios. I am an acting

 7 public hearing officer for the U.S. Environmental

 8 Protection Agency, Region 9, in San Francisco,

 9 California. I am the presiding officer for today's

10 hearing. 

11 With me today are several individuals

12 from EPA Region 9: Colleen McKaughan, Associate

13 Director of the EPA Region 9 Air Division; Thomas

14 Webb from the Planning Office; Francisco Donez from

15 the Region 9 Planning Office; Roberto Gutierrez from

16 the Permits Office, and he's outside; Margot

17 Perez-Sullivan from the Office of Public Affairs.

18 We also have Michelle Elam serving as our

19 court reporter for the hearing. And we have

20 Spanish/English interpreters to our left. And

21 Nanishka Albaladejo as our timekeeper.

22 The purpose of today's hearing is to

23 accept public comment as part of the official record

24 on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed

25 action to implement best available retrofit

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 3

 1 technology, or BART, at the three power plants in

 2 Arizona: The Coronado Generating Station, the

 3 Cholla Power Plant, and the Apache Generating

 4 Station. As part of this action, EPA is proposing

 5 to require installation of new controls for nitrogen

 6 oxide emissions at all three facilities.

 7 On July 2nd, 2012, EPA signed a proposed

 8 partial approval and partial disapproval of

 9 Arizona's regional haze SIP, which can be summarized

10 in the following manner: A proposal to approve the

11 State's BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide and

12 particulate matter at the three facilities. 

13 A proposal to disapprove the BART

14 emission limits for nitrogen oxides at most of the

15 units at the three facilities.

16 And, as a remedy to the disapproval, a

17 proposed federal implementation plan, or FIP,

18 containing new emission limits for nitrogen oxides

19 as well as compliance requirements for nitrogen

20 oxides, particular matter and sulfur dioxide.

21 You can find details about EPA's proposed

22 actions in handouts at the back of the room and on

23 EPA's website.

24 My role as the presiding public hearing

25 officer is to ensure that the Environmental

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 4

 1 Protection Agency receives your oral public comments

 2 in an orderly fashion. I will not be involved in

 3 assessing or responding to your comments. Likewise,

 4 I will not be involved in EPA's final

 5 decision-making process for the three power plants.

 6 Instead, I am solely facilitating this proceeding to

 7 make sure all community members have an equal

 8 opportunity to submit oral comments on this issue as

 9 part of the official administrative record.

10 Before we begin accepting your comments,

11 I would like to describe the ground rules for

12 today's hearing.

13 First, this hearing is a formal, legal

14 proceeding and the testimony offered will become

15 part the administrative record on which EPA will

16 base its decision.

17 Public notice of this hearing was

18 published in the Federal Register on July 9th, 2012,

19 for today's hearing and July 31st, or today, for the

20 hearings in Holbrook and Benson.

21 The hearing in Holbrook will be held on

22 August 14th, 2012, and the one in Benson will be

23 held on August 15th, of 2012.

24 This hearing is being recorded by a court

25 reporter who will be preparing a verbatim record of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 5

 1 the hearing. If you present oral comments at

 2 today's hearing, please speak clearly and slowly so

 3 that the court reporter can understand you and

 4 record your comments accurately.

 5 I also ask that the audience refrain from

 6 interrupting other speakers or asking questions

 7 during any presentations. This courtesy will also

 8 help the court reporter to record comments

 9 accurately.

10 Shouting, noisemaking, or any disruptive

11 conduct will prevent speakers or hearing official

12 from being heard or any other failure to be -- to

13 follow the rules of the hearings are not permitted.

14 Also please silence your cell phones.

15 And if you need to speak to take a call, either step

16 outside or to the back of the room so that there

17 won't be any disruptions in here.

18 Please note that you will have the

19 opportunity to make comments shortly once we begin

20 the public comment period of this hearing.

21 Banners and posters will be allowed to be

22 placed in the rear of the room; however, banners and

23 posters that are attached to a stick are not allowed

24 in the hearing room. If you wish to carry a banner

25 or poster with you to your seat, you will be asked

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 6

 1 to sit in the rear of the hearing room so that you

 2 do not obstruct the view of individuals seated

 3 behind you.

 4 Any sign or banner may be excluded from

 5 the hearing room if it is determined to be

 6 disruptive to the conduct of the hearing.

 7 There is a registration table at the

 8 entrance to the room. If you would like to make an

 9 oral comment at today's hearing, please fill out the

10 speaker request form which is located at the

11 registration table. We will receive oral public

12 comments in the order in which the speaker request

13 forms are received.

14 Please write your name legibly since the

15 court reporter will be relying on your card for the

16 correct spelling of your name. Before giving us

17 your comment, please state your name for the record.

18 And I ask that also please spell your name, as

19 requested by the court reporter.

20 If you do not wish to speak today, you

21 can also submit written comments for the official

22 record. Written comments must be received by the

23 close of the extended public comment period, which

24 is September 18th, 2012.

25 You may also submit written comments

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 7

 1 today on a comment card or other paper. There is a

 2 comment box at the registration table where you can

 3 leave your written comments.

 4 If you submit comments, it is not

 5 necessary for you to give the same oral comment as

 6 well, though you may wish to submit them to the --

 7 through a speaker request form. 

 8 Written comments and oral comments will

 9 receive equal consideration by EPA in making the

10 final decision.

11 The oral comments received at this

12 hearing and all written comments received today will

13 be reviewed and considered by EPA preparing its

14 final rulemaking decision.

15 It is important for you to know that we

16 are here only to take comments on EPA's proposed

17 Best Available Retrofit Technology determination for

18 the Coronado, Cholla, and Apache power plants. 

19 EPA will only consider comments related

20 to EPA's proposed actions at these facilities in

21 making its final decision. And so I ask that you

22 refrain from making comments that are not related to

23 this specific action.

24 EPA's decision on Clean Air Act rules are

25 typically made with the participation of a number of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 8

 1 people within the organization. EPA staff cannot

 2 commit to any specific decision to the proposed SIP

 3 and FIP today.

 4 The purpose of this hearing is for EPA to

 5 listen to your comments. Therefore, EPA will not be

 6 providing responses during the hearing. Rather, EPA

 7 will prepare a written summary of the comments it

 8 receives and EPA's responses to those comments.

 9 The response to comments will be

10 available at the time EPA issues the final BART

11 decision for the three power plants.

12 EPA will not make a final decision on NOx

13 BART for the three power plants until all comments

14 submitted during the public comment period have been

15 considered.

16 A copy of the -- today's transcript --

17 excuse me. A copy of the transcript of today's

18 hearing will be placed in the docket for this action

19 and available for inspection at EPA's office in San

20 Francisco as well as on regulations.gov. 

21 If you wish to purchase an official copy

22 of the transcript, please make arrangements directly

23 with the court reporter following the hearing.

24 In a few minutes I will begin calling on

25 speakers who have filled out and submitted a speaker

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 9

 1 request form. Speakers will be called in groups of

 2 five in the order in which the forms were received.

 3 However, I've been made aware that a

 4 number of elected officials have requested to go

 5 first, so we've moved them to the top so that they

 6 can make their presentations first, since they may

 7 have to leave early.

 8 When you hear your name, please come

 9 forward and wait until it is your turn to speak.

10 When I announce that it is your turn to speak,

11 please come up to the microphone, state your name.

12 And if you are appearing on behalf of someone or an

13 organizations, please tell us who you are

14 representing.

15 If you are not in the room when I

16 announce your turn to speak, I will recall you after

17 all other speakers have made their oral comments.

18 If you would like to hear tonight's

19 proceedings in Spanish or if you would like to make

20 comments in Spanish, we have the services of a

21 Spanish/English interpreter.

22 If you will be making your comments in

23 Spanish, the interpreter will be asked to stand next

24 to you at the microphone. Please say one sentence

25 and then wait for her to translate your statement

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 10

 1 into English for everyone to hear before your next

 2 statement.

 3 We want to make sure that everyone has an

 4 opportunity to speak here tonight. To that end, I

 5 ask everyone who speaks to please make your oral

 6 comments brief.

 7 To assist in this effort, I am asking

 8 speakers to limit their comments to three minutes.

 9 If you have lengthier comments, you may submit them

10 in writing.

11 Each speaker will be given a one-minute

12 warning and then notified when their time is up.

13 After all speakers have had a chance to comment and

14 time permits, people can submit additional speaker

15 request cards for additional testimony if there was

16 not enough time to do so when they first spoke.

17 The reason we're having three minutes

18 instead of five is because we have a time limit in

19 this room. We have to leave by 9:00 and there are

20 too many speakers for us to have a five-minute

21 period of time for everybody to be able to fit

22 within that period of time.

23 Finally, restrooms are located on that

24 side of the building to my left and there's a

25 vending machine in case anybody wants refreshments

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 11

 1 in the back of the room near the magazine rack.

 2 In case of an emergency, there's an exit

 3 to the back and, of course, through the front.

 4 Now let's begin the comment period.

 5 The fist speakers are going to be John

 6 Nelson, Steve Pierce, Gail Griffin, Kevin Dahl, and

 7 House Majority Rep and State Representative Debbie

 8 Lesko.

 9 Mr. John Nelson.

10 JOHN NELSON: Are you ready?

11 Thank you. 

12 Good evening and thank you for allowing

13 me to speak tonight. 

14 My name is John Nelson. That's capital

15 J, o-h-n, N-e-l-s-o-n.

16 I am a State senator representing West

17 Phoenix valleys and cities on the West side as an

18 engineer and chairman of the Senate and Natural

19 Resource and Transportation company -- Committee. 

20 You're making me rush a little faster

21 than I had planned on. So -- 

22 I am familiar with the SIP process and

23 relationship that is supposed to exist between the

24 State and the federal agencies, like EPA.

25 I have to tell you in all candor, that in

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 12

 1 my nearly three decades of public service, I have

 2 never seen anything as arbitrary, unfair, and

 3 illogical as this proposal -- proposed Federal

 4 Implementation Plan has demanded that Arizona

 5 utilities install SCR technology on their plants,

 6 particularly since this has a '64 deadline to

 7 complete.

 8 First, the process the EPA has used has

 9 been totally and completely flawed. We just learned

10 about this rule, what, 11 days ago and here we are

11 as state policy member -- makers supposed to provide

12 substantive feedback. 

13 This truncated timeline is contrary to

14 the Clean Air Act's requirement that EPA give ample

15 opportunity for public feedback.

16 Also contrary to the Clean Air Act is the

17 EPA's rejection of the Arizona's S-I- -- SIP and its

18 imposition of the Federal Implementation Plan.

19 Pardon me for asking, but I don't see in

20 the Clean Air Act where it's written that EPA is

21 given such broad power and authority. The Clean Air

22 Act requires that EPA work with states, not against

23 them.

24 Second, the proposed FIP is totally

25 unnecessary. Arizona's SIP was adequate and would

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 13

 1 have required these plants to install low NOx

 2 burners, which you utilities have agreed to do, at

 3 great cost.

 4 SCR technology is far too expensive to

 5 justify the insignificant improvement in air quality

 6 that would result from it. This is not a health

 7 issue; this is a haze issue. We're trying to do it

 8 now instead of waiting for '64.

 9 The EPA's FIP would have less to do with

10 regional haze than it does with EPA effort to

11 eliminate coal.

12 Finally, the proposed FIP totally

13 disregards the economic and social consequences of

14 the rule on Arizona's -- of the rule on Arizona's

15 economy. You just can't ignore that.

16 We have power plants that have already

17 spent hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades in

18 the last five years, costs that will be passed on to

19 Arizona consumers.

20 Requiring SCR technology may lead those

21 utilities to decide that it is more cost-effective

22 to shut down units or plants rather than to spend

23 the millions of dollars necessary to comply with

24 regulations.

25 Folks, that money doesn't come from

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 14

 1 nowhere; it comes out of the wallets and pocketbooks

 2 of our constituents. Taking $500 million out of the

 3 pockets of Arizona's consumers just as our state is

 4 beginning to recover is not a good idea.

 5 Don't do this. It's unnecessary,

 6 damaging our economy, and contrary to the Clean Air

 7 Act, which you are supposed to operate under. 

 8 Thank you.

 9 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

10 STEVE PIERCE: I apologize. I thought

11 this was American Idol interviews, but I was misled

12 until I met you.

13 Thank you.

14 Thank you for allowing me to speak this

15 evening. 

16 My name is Steve Pierce. I'm a

17 third-generation rancher from Prescott, Arizona. My

18 family has been ranching for almost a hundred years

19 in Arizona.

20 For the last three years I've been

21 honored to serve in the Arizona State Legislature.

22 For the last year I've been the president of the

23 Arizona State Legislature -- I'm sorry, of the

24 Arizona State Senate.

25 I'm here tonight to express my vehement

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 15

 1 opposition to the EPA's plans to require three

 2 Arizona power plants to install selective catalytic

 3 reduction technology to reduce regional haze.

 4 Before I address the substance of the

 5 proposed regulations, I would like to go on record

 6 to express my disgust for the process used by the

 7 EPA to develop this proposal. I find it outrageous

 8 that the EPA would hold a public hearing on this

 9 highly complex and technical rule only 11 days after

10 making it available to the public.

11 This abbreviated public comment period

12 reflects lack of respect for the people of Arizona.

13 Likewise, by proposing a FIP, the EPA has directly

14 contradicted the Clean Air Act, which is supposed to

15 require the EPA to defer to the states.

16 This is federal overreach and arrogance,

17 at its worst. What's clear to me, and I think to

18 everyone in this room, is that these regulations

19 have nothing to do with visibility and everything to

20 do with EPA's relentless and reckless push to

21 eliminate coal as the source of cheap and reliable

22 energy.

23 Furthermore, it gives the appearance of

24 one more chance for the Obama administration to slap

25 Arizona. 

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 16

 1 This becomes crystal clear when one

 2 considers the following: SCR technology makes no

 3 visible improvement in regional haze compared to the

 4 technology our utilities have already agreed to

 5 implement under the Arizona plan. Let me repeat

 6 that. SCR technology makes no visible improvement

 7 in regional haze.

 8 Second, reducing NOx, mono-nitrogen oxide

 9 emissions, has no impact on public health.

10 Third, the EPA's claims that this plan

11 will improve air quality is based on a bogus

12 measurement that combines the reductions in haze

13 that might occur in the state at various locations.

14 Using the EPA's logic, I give each -- if

15 I were to give each of my 30 senators a 1 percent

16 pay raise, then claiming I increased the senators'

17 pay by 30 percent. It's no different.

18 While the EPA outrageously claims that

19 this plan will benefit Arizona's economy by

20 improving visibility at our national park, the truth

21 is that these regulations will be devastating to

22 Arizona's economy.

23 The bottom line is that the EPA's

24 proposed regulations will take a billion dollars out

25 of this state's economy, leading it to higher costs

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 17

 1 for electricity, for food, and the basic services.

 2 Is this really what the EPA wants to do?

 3 With these facts in mind, I strongly urge

 4 the EPA to withdraw the proposed FIP, open a dialog

 5 with the State of Arizona, again, to constructively

 6 move forward with the approval of the State's

 7 regional haze implementation plan. Failure to do so

 8 sends a clear message to the rest of the country

 9 that the Obama administration is more concerned

10 about eliminating coal than it is about creating

11 jobs and improving our economy.

12 Thank you.

13 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you, Mr. Pierce.

14 Gail Griffin.

15 GAIL GRIFFIN: Thank you very much.

16 My name is Gail Griffin. G-a-i-l,

17 G-r-i-f-f-i-n.

18 I am a State senator representing

19 District 25, also Cochise County that's included in

20 that 25, where the Apache Generation -- Generating

21 Station is located.

22 I'm going to take a unique approach to

23 this issue. Let's do a very simple cost benefit

24 analysis of EPA's proposed plan.

25 First, cost. As much as $500 million to

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 18

 1 install the SCR technology at three power plants. A

 2 dramatic increase in the cost of electricity for

 3 Arizona's working families and employers.

 4 A loss of jobs if any of these power

 5 plants are shut down. A significantly weakened

 6 state economy as a result of job losses and higher

 7 electricity costs.

 8 Let's look at the cost in my district in

 9 Cochise County if EPA succeeds in implementing this

10 plan.

11 The Arizona Electric Power Cooperative,

12 which owns the Apache Generation -- Generating

13 Station would have to install SCR technology at a

14 cost of $80 million to $120 million -- some estimate

15 higher costs -- and a one-time capital cost of

16 $12 million to $24 million in annual ongoing costs.

17 AEPCO's net profits or margins in 2011

18 were only $1.5 million. There is no way AEPCO can

19 absorb these costs. 

20 If you demand that AEPCO install this

21 technology, you'll endanger the viability and

22 sustainability of this plant, which employees 250

23 Cochise County residents.

24 The EPA may not know or may not care that

25 the town of Benson, where the Apache Generation

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 19

 1 Station is located has an unemployment rate of

 2 almost 14 percent.

 3 Does the EPA really think it's a good

 4 idea to shut this plant down?

 5 If the Apache Generating plant shuts

 6 down, hundreds of local jobs and over $2 million in

 7 tax revenue for schools and public safety would be

 8 lost.

 9 As a small electric cooperative that

10 sells 3 million megawatt hours of electricity, I

11 believe that AEPCO could be treated as a small

12 entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which

13 requires EPA to prepare a regulatory flexibility

14 analysis of this proposed rule.

15 Meanwhile, while the EPA is threatening

16 to shut down Arizona power plants, it's doing

17 nothing about the pollution coming into Arizona from

18 landfills in Mexico that burn trash, debris, and

19 tires.

20 I would also like to point out that some

21 of the largest sources of pollution in Arizona in

22 the last two years has been from wildfires,

23 including the Monument fire in Cochise County that

24 had burned over a million acres statewide in 2011

25 and dumped an unknown quantity of pollution into the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 20

 1 air.

 2 I think it's worth pointing out that

 3 those wildfires were the result of poor federal land

 4 management policies on federal lands.

 5 Now let's look at the benefits for the

 6 EPA plan. What are the benefits?

 7 The answer is none, and my time is up.

 8 Thank you.

 9 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you, Ms. Griffin.

10 Kevin Dahl.

11 KEVIN DAHL: Good evening. I'm Kevin

12 Dahl, D-a-h-l, Arizona program manager for National

13 Parks Conservation Association, which for more than

14 90 years has been the leading advocate for the

15 national park system in America. Some people call

16 that America's greatest idea.

17 The desert skies in Arizona's national

18 parks require the highest level of air quality

19 protection.

20 Congress in 1977 determined a number of

21 Class I areas, including national parks and

22 wilderness across the country, would achieve that.

23 That's why we're here today so many decades later.

24 Unfortunately, the air at these parks are

25 far from clean on many days of the year. On such

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 21

 1 hazy days, our kids can't see across the canyons.

 2 On those same days, the air is hard for some of us

 3 to breathe. 

 4 So now, EPA is, after decades of delay,

 5 requiring cleanup of some of the greatest sources of

 6 pollution contributing to dirty air in Arizona. 

 7 This pollution is preventable and EPA is

 8 simply proposing the controls used nationwide also

 9 be used here.

10 Because of this proposed plan, Cholla,

11 Coronado, and Apache coal-fired power plants will

12 lead to much-needed and much-improved air quality at

13 our country's most iconic national parks. NPCA,

14 National Parks Conservation Association supports

15 these plans.

16 EPA has demonstrated that Arizona's plan

17 was technically inadequate with flawed calculations

18 and reasoning and that it doesn't live up to the

19 letter of the law.

20 EPA proposes to replace that flawed plan

21 by requiring common, cost-effective, modern

22 pollution controls at these plants.

23 We favor this -- EPA's approach because

24 it adheres to legal requirements for cleaning up

25 park skies that will have dramatic effects for our

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 22

 1 air quality in our deserts and all of us who live in

 2 them.

 3 Clearer park skies from this plan's

 4 enforcement will be demonstratable. But not only --

 5 but that will not only be the result. Human health,

 6 health of the plants, the animals, the water and the

 7 land itself will also realize great and invaluable

 8 benefits. Benefits that have not been taken into

 9 account in the other cost-benefit assessments, but

10 rightly should be.

11 Our parks are a great resource for us.

12 Economically, many businesses depend on tourists

13 that would never set foot here without these parks.

14 Spiritually, we all need a place to

15 refresh and reconnect with the natural world.

16 Places that tell our stories, our cultural heritage.

17 But we have an obligation to protect

18 these places so that our grand- -- our children and

19 grandchildren can enjoy them just as we do today.

20 EPA's plan isn't perfect and it's only

21 one step on the road to restoring air quality to

22 full health, which we want to do in a few decades

23 from now. But it's a good strong start.

24 NPCA wants future generations to have

25 clean, healthy air and we support the proposed plan

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 23

 1 because it gets us one step closer. 

 2 Thank you.

 3 GERARDO RIOS: Debbie Lesko.

 4 DEBBIE LESKO: Good evening. My name is

 5 Debbie Lesko, D-e-b-b-i-e, L-e-s-k-o.

 6 I am Arizona's State Representative and

 7 House Majority Whip, Debbie Lesko. I represent over

 8 100,000 Arizonans in my legislative district alone

 9 and over 6 million people throughout the state of

10 Arizona.

11 I am here to oppose the EPA's proposed

12 Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan on behalf

13 of my constituents and the residents of Arizona.

14 Because after all, they are the people that will be

15 forced to pay the higher utility bills because of

16 the actions of the EPA.

17 I oppose the EPA's federal plan because

18 it will unnecessarily increase utility costs to the

19 Arizona people, something our citizens just cannot

20 afford. In fact, I have senior citizens that live

21 in my district in the city of Sun City, a retirement

22 community. They already e-mail me and tell me that

23 they can't afford their utility costs now.

24 I oppose the EPA's plan because it

25 doesn't make sense. At the Coronado Generating

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 24

 1 Station, for example, SRP and EPA already entered

 2 into a consent agreement for the Coronado Generating

 3 Station in 2008. SRP has already spent over

 4 $500 million to satisfy that decree and now the EPA

 5 wants to change the rules in the middle of the game.

 6 Have SRP throw out the new equipment they already

 7 bought. Spend over $110 million more. Why?

 8 SRP is already proposing a rate increase

 9 to my constituents, and me, to help cover the

10 $500 million expense. Their proposed rate raise of

11 4.8 percent will raise $120 million.

12 So what will this extra cost of 120

13 million do to our utility bills?

14 ADEQ has worked for years with the EPA to

15 develop a state plan. Then all of a sudden in the

16 course of eight months, the EPA developed and

17 proposed their own federal plan, ignoring the many

18 years of work spent by the State to develop its own

19 plan. Why?

20 The EPA is also proposing an emission

21 rate limit that is the most stringent NOx emissions

22 rate ever proposed by the Agency for a coal plant

23 retrofit project. Why? Are you trying to punish

24 Arizona citizens over politics?

25 I oppose the EPA's proposed federal plan

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 25

 1 because it doesn't even help the citizens of

 2 Arizona.

 3 First of all, none of the emission

 4 reductions we are talking about here tonight even

 5 deal with human health. An ASU study says that the

 6 EPA's plan is inconclusive as to whether there would

 7 be any perceptible improvement in visibility. So

 8 why are we doing this?

 9 And finally, I oppose the EPA's federal

10 plan because it will hurt the Arizona economy and

11 will put Arizonans out of work.

12 The EPA's mandates are too costly and

13 burdensome. The cost may very well shut down our

14 plants and Arizonans will lose jobs. 

15 Thank you.

16 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

17 Our next five speakers are Frank Pratt;

18 Amanda Reeve; Mark Ourada, I believe; Gary Pierce;

19 Micheal Dunn.

20 Mr. Pratt, whenever you're ready.

21 FRANK PRATT: Good evening. For the

22 record my name is Frank Pratt, P-r-a-t-t.

23 I'm Representative Frank Pratt, member of

24 the House of Representatives. I'm also the chair of

25 the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 26

 1 House.

 2 As chair of that committee, I've had an

 3 opportunity to see the good work that the Arizona

 4 Department of Environmental Quality, ADEQ, is doing

 5 to properly administer state programs and to

 6 implement federal and State environmental protection

 7 laws and regulations.

 8 As an elected official, I believe that

 9 ADEQ has done a very admirable job preparing

10 Arizona's regional haze implementation plan, SIP.

11 Specifically, ADEQ has met the goals of the regional

12 haze program while ensuring that the needs of

13 Arizona are met.

14 However, EPA has chosen to ignore ADEQ's

15 good work and replace their reasonable

16 determinations with EPA's own preference of what

17 they would like to see in Arizona's SIP.

18 Arizona's -- the EPA's disapproval of

19 Arizona's regional health -- regional haze SIP is

20 wrong.

21 I am opposed to EPA's plan because it --

22 one, it ignores the proper implementation of the

23 federal/State partnership under the Clean Air Act.

24 It mandates costly emission controls, the cost of

25 which Arizona citizens will pay for in the form of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 27

 1 higher energy costs and it fails to result in

 2 humanly perceptible improvement in visibility at

 3 Arizona's Class I areas.

 4 It is the improvement and visibility at

 5 our nation's Class I areas that is the sole purpose

 6 of the regional haze program to begin with.

 7 The EPA's plan ignores the critical role

 8 of the state's and regional haze program. Since

 9 1977, the Clean Air Act has been based upon healthy

10 functioning State/federal partnership. What this

11 means is that the states are partners with the

12 federal government in addressing air pollution.

13 States are not given a plan by EPA and

14 told to enforce it. Rather, the states are to

15 design their own plans and come up with solutions to

16 air pollution in their communities and work with the

17 EPA to ensure that that plan is implemented and that

18 the results are achieved.

19 The regional haze program -- Congress

20 made State/federal partnership very clear. In fact,

21 the federal courts have said that the Clean Air Act

22 calls for, I quote, states -- calls for states to

23 play the lead role in designing and implementing --

24 implementing regional haze programs. 

25 There can be no mistake that Arizona, not

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 28

 1 EPA, has to lead in the designing of the regional

 2 haze program.

 3 In conclusion, EPA cannot trample on

 4 Arizona's sovereignty and force it to implement a

 5 plan that is not right for us.

 6 ADEQ has prepared the right plan for

 7 Arizona, one that complies with federal and State

 8 law. The EPA should not now second-guess Arizona's

 9 reasonable and well-supported regional haze

10 decisions. 

11 For these reasons, I am asking EPA

12 director -- EPA Administrator Jackson and Regional

13 Administrator Blumenfeld to withdraw the EPA's

14 proposed regional haze plan for Arizona and instead

15 adopt a regional haze plan prepared and submitted by

16 the State of Arizona.

17 Thank you.

18 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you. 

19 Amanda Reeve.

20 AMANDA REEVE: Hi. Thank you. 

21 For the record, my name is Amanda Reeve,

22 R-e-e-v, as in Victor, e.

23 I'm a State -- Arizona State

24 Representative and I'm the House Environment

25 chair -- or I'm the House Environment Committee

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 29

 1 Chair.

 2 Arizona has made great strides to work

 3 cooperatively with the EPA for the last several

 4 years, especially in the area where our air quality

 5 is concerned.

 6 It is unfortunate that a lawsuit filed by

 7 several environmental organizations against the EPA

 8 were not more expeditiously addressing regional

 9 haze. It's jeopardizing our efforts of working

10 together as intended in the Clean Air Act.

11 The Clean Air Act definitively states

12 that EPA shall encourage cooperative activities by

13 states and local governments. Promote reasonable

14 federal, State, and local government actions and

15 that air pollution control and prevention is the

16 primary responsibility of the states and local

17 government.

18 However, Arizona has not found the manner

19 in which the EPA has proceeded in regards to the

20 regional haze lawsuit settlement and proposed

21 rulemaking to be encouraging, cooperative, or

22 reasonable.

23 Several environmental organizations filed

24 a lawsuit against the EPA in August 2011. And

25 shortly thereafter, the EPA began having summit

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 30

 1 meetings with these organizations.

 2 At no time during the negotiations were

 3 the impacted states, including Arizona, invited to

 4 join the meetings or were they consulted. Even

 5 after final consent decree establishing dates for

 6 the EPA's action on State SIPs was entered into on

 7 March 12, 2012, the EPA and the environmental

 8 organizations continued to make changes to these

 9 dates, including taking the extraordinary action of

10 bifurcating the revelatory procedures governing

11 three specific facilities.

12 On July 9th, 2012, the EPA announced that

13 a public hearing would be held today, July 31st, to

14 discuss the proposed FIP. However, it was not until

15 July 18th that the EPA provided affected parties the

16 technical support document that forms the basis for

17 this rulemaking to be -- being addressed in today's

18 public hearing.

19 We do applaud the EPA for listening to

20 the concerns brought forth by numerous parties

21 regarding the comment period and the number and

22 location of public hearings.

23 We appreciate the EPA responding to these

24 concerns by providing a two-week extension for the

25 written comment period as well as expanding the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 31

 1 public hearing so that one will occur in Benson,

 2 Arizona, and another in Holbrook.

 3 However, the Arizona Department of

 4 Environmental Quality and the impacted utilities

 5 must have sufficient time to review the complex,

 6 technical information and provide meaningful

 7 comments on the analysis that the EPA proposes. 

 8 While the two-week extension is

 9 beneficial, it still does not afford ADEQ and the

10 utilities adequate opportunity to review, analyze,

11 and comment on the proposed rule.

12 The EPA's immediate imposition of a

13 proposed FIP without providing the State with the

14 opportunity to understand and correct any perceived

15 deficiencies in the state's plan is contrary to the

16 Clean Air Act. It is also shown that the EPA has

17 not provided ample opportunity for proper analysis

18 and comment of the proposed FIP.

19 Clearly states are best suited to

20 understand and balance the benefits associated with

21 these plans and are in the best position to work

22 cohesively and productively with the EPA in

23 addressing regional haze issues.

24 Therefore, we respectfully request that

25 the EPA further extend the deadline for comments on

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 32

 1 the proposed rule from 90 days from July 20th, 2012.

 2 This extension will allow the necessary technical

 3 review and analysis of the proposed FIP and afford

 4 ADEQ the opportunity to use the results of this

 5 review and analysis to collaborate with EPA in

 6 development of a path where the EPA may withdraw the

 7 FIP and proceed with Arizona's revised SIP submittal

 8 as a whole, thereby adhering to the intent of the

 9 Clean Air Act.

10 Thank you for this opportunity.

11 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

12 Mark Ourada.

13 MARK OURADA: Well that's close.

14 GERARDO RIOS: My apologies.

15 MARK OURADA: That's okay.

16 Good evening. I am Mark Ourada,

17 O-u-r-a-d-a.

18 I'm the central region vice president for

19 an organization known as ACCCE, the American

20 Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

21 I'm here today to share with you our

22 great concern that the proposed EPA rule to

23 disapprove portions of Arizona's Regional Haze SIP,

24 that penalizes Arizona, its citizens, and all power

25 users that rely on affordable energy.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 33

 1 Not only is the EPA's proposal the wrong

 2 plan for Arizona and energy consumers, EPA's

 3 proposal charts a path that takes over the State's

 4 regulatory authority.

 5 EPA's plan would require the installation

 6 of technology, known as SCR, that are extremely

 7 expensive. It would unnecessarily harm electricity

 8 consumers in Arizona, the utilities that provide

 9 power to these consumers and Arizona's entire

10 economy all for very little appreciable

11 environmental benefit.

12 The well-advised path is a clear one.

13 EPA should approve the regional haze plan prepared

14 and submitted by the State of Arizona.

15 As long recognized by the Supreme Court

16 of the United States, the Clean Air Act establishes

17 a comprehensive national program that makes the

18 State and federal government partners in their

19 struggle against air pollution.

20 Further, the Clean Air Act states air

21 pollution prevention and air pollution control and

22 its source is the primary responsibility of states

23 and local governments.

24 Even more specifically to the topic

25 today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 34

 1 Columbia Circuit has held that the Clean Air Act

 2 calls for states to play the lead role in designing

 3 and implementing regional haze programs.

 4 While states are required to develop

 5 plans to ensure reasonable progress is made towards

 6 achieving visibility protection goals, the Clean Air

 7 Act vests Arizona with primary authority in

 8 determining what is best.

 9 The proposed EPA rule for Arizona fails

10 to promote and implement the State/federal

11 partnership enshrined in the Clean Air Act.

12 The State of Arizona has diligently

13 complied with visibility program requirements to

14 meet the program's regional haze goals, and its

15 determination should be respected and supported by

16 EPA. 

17 Simply put, EPA should not infringe on

18 Arizona's sovereignty.

19 EPA's proposed rule for Arizona calls for

20 the installation of costly emission controls. The

21 cost of the controls proposed by EPA for these

22 stations is hundreds of millions of dollars and the

23 cost will ultimately be paid for by energy consumers

24 in the form of higher rates.

25 And what do consumers get for the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 35

 1 significant increase in the electricity bills that

 2 will come with the EPA proposal? Respectfully,

 3 nothing. There is no human health standard that EPA

 4 is seeking to meeting under the regional haze

 5 program. Meaning that any decrease in NOx emissions

 6 that may result from EPA's proposal to install SCR

 7 are not necessary or required to comply with the

 8 human health standard. The installation of SCR will

 9 result in no humanly perceptible improvement in

10 visibility.

11 When EPA and Arizona plans are compared

12 side by side, there is little to no humanly

13 perceptible difference between the two plans. EPA's

14 plan makes no sense to the consumers of the State of

15 Arizona.

16 Arizona's ability to regulate to protect

17 its citizens and the environment must include the

18 ability to meaningfully take into account real and

19 distinct Arizona circumstances.

20 This is not just common sense, but it

21 happens to be federal law.

22 Thank you.

23 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

24 Gary Pierce.

25 GARY PIERCE: My name is Gary Pierce, and

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 36

 1 I am chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission,

 2 which regulates Arizona's investor-owned and

 3 cooperative utilities and sets the rates paid by

 4 their customers.

 5 On July 23rd, 2012, I sent a letter along

 6 with two other commissions in opposition to the

 7 Federal Implementation Plan that the EPA has

 8 proposed for three coal-burning plans in Arizona.

 9 In my role as commissioner, I strive to

10 keep utility rates to the companies and cooperatives

11 that I regulate as stable and low as -- as

12 reasonably possible for the benefit of Arizona's

13 citizens and businesses.

14 I know that economic development in

15 Arizona greatly depends upon our ability to provide

16 safe, reliable, and inexpensive energy to new and

17 existing businesses. For this reason I am greatly

18 concerned about EPA's proposed FIP.

19 To provide a sense of economic impact,

20 EPA's FIP would have on Arizonans, let me describe

21 the impact to AEPCO and its customers.

22 AEPCO is a generation cooperative that

23 owns the Apache Generating Station which is located

24 in Cochise County, about 30 miles east of Benson.

25 AEPCO provides most, if not all of the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 37

 1 electricity consumed by members of five electric

 2 distribution cooperatives in Arizona.

 3 Under the FIP proposed by the EPA, AEPCO

 4 would be required to invest a minimum of

 5 $88 million, according to the optimistic estimates

 6 developed by the EPA. AEPCO thinks the cost will be

 7 closer to 180 million.

 8 To replace this in perspective, AEPCO --

 9 to place this in perspective, AEPCO recently filed a

10 rate case with our commission. And I can tell you

11 that AEPCO currently reports having a total of

12 232 million in net utility plants in service. 

13 In other words, under EPA's optimistic

14 88 million estimate, EPA's FIP would require AEPCO

15 to increase its existing rate base by approximately

16 one-third.

17 In contrast, AEPCO estimates an increase

18 in its existing rate base of approximately

19 75 percent.

20 For the benefit of those who may not

21 understand how rate making works, if the utility

22 increases its rate base by one-third and everything

23 else by interest rates and operating expenses

24 remains the same, the utility would need a one-third

25 increase in its revenues during its next rate case. 

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 38

 1 Adding insult to injury, EPA's FIP will

 2 also increase AEPCO's operating and maintenance

 3 expenses by as much 3.5 million per year. 

 4 Thus, it is fair to conclude EPA's FIP

 5 would necessarily result in skyrocketing rates for

 6 AEPCO's customers, increasing utility bills for

 7 Arizona residents and businesses between 33 and

 8 75 percent.

 9 The financial impact of EPA's FIP to

10 Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project's

11 customers are not quite as drastic but are still

12 significant.

13 Now that I have addressed the cost of

14 EPA's FIP, let me address its benefit because we can

15 all recognize and appreciate that the environmental

16 benefits of clean air are certainly worthy of

17 expense, sometimes even significant expense.

18 However, in this case, EPA's FIP is not

19 even close to surviving a good-faith cost benefit

20 analysis.

21 First, we should recognize that the

22 Regional Haze Rule and FIP proposed by EPA does not

23 protect human health; only human vistas.

24 Secondly, the incremental improvement of

25 EPA's FIP over ADEQ's SIP will be less than one

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 39

 1 deciview. Or in other words, there will be no

 2 visibility improvement. 

 3 Even if we were to accept EPA's

 4 cumulative deciview model, which we believe is

 5 legally flawed, EPA's FIP would provide negligible

 6 human -- negligible benefit to human vistas.

 7 In sum, EPA's FIP proposal will impose

 8 significant costs upon Arizona utilities necessarily

 9 cause of electric rates in Arizona to skyrocket and

10 result in no perceptible improvement over ADEQ's SIP

11 proposal.

12 I'm concerned about EPA's public process

13 for the proposed FIP. I've included those comments

14 in my written statement. I won't go into those. My

15 time is up. 

16 I urge EPA to withdraw the FIP from the

17 three plants in question and work with the ADEQ to

18 remedy any deficiencies in the SIP it has proposed.

19 Thank you.

20 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

21 Micheal Dunn.

22 MICHEAL DUNN: Good evening. 

23 My name is Micheal Dunn. M-i-c-h-e-a-l,

24 D-u-n-n. 

25 I am president and chief executive

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 40

 1 officer of PacifiCorp Energy. This is the division

 2 of PacifiCorp that orders our electric generation

 3 facilities.

 4 Cholla unit 4 is operated by Arizona

 5 Public Service but it is actually owned one hundred

 6 percent by PacifiCorp and we are responsible for

 7 100 percent of the costs for this facility.

 8 We also operate 19 coal-fueled units in

 9 Wyoming and Utah as well as an additional six units

10 that we own a portion of in other states. Fourteen

11 of these units that we have in Utah and Wyoming are

12 BART eligible. We have a very significant BART

13 footprint, if you will, when it comes to coal-fired

14 generation.

15 These requirements for regional haze have

16 a significant impact on PacifiCorp's customers. We

17 have 1.7 million customers that we serve in six

18 Western states. 

19 My comments will be brief, focusing on

20 three key areas.

21 Regional haze is primarily a State issue.

22 The Clean Air Act and EPA's own rules require

23 regional haze requirements to be determined and

24 implemented at the state level.

25 In Arizona, however, EPA has elected to

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 41

 1 reject part of Arizona's carefully crafted SIP and

 2 replace it with its own.

 3 PacifiCorp believes that EPA's proposal

 4 fails to give proper deference to the State of

 5 Arizona's regional haze determinations as required

 6 by the Clean Air Act.

 7 The Arizona Department of Environmental

 8 Quality conducted a robust BART analysis. In doing

 9 so, it exercised the very discretion contemplated by

10 the Clean Air Act in applying the relevant factors

11 to its BART determinations.

12 However, rather than accepting the

13 State's thoughtful determinations, EPA has proposed

14 to reject certain portions of the Arizona SIP and

15 ignore its own rules in an effort to justify its

16 proposal to force the installation of even more

17 controls and in an immediate time frame, including

18 controls that the State has not deemed necessary.

19 Such an attempt by EPA nullifies the

20 deference afforded the State of Arizona by the Clean

21 Air Act. EPA is clearly and impermissibly

22 substituting its judgment for that of the State of

23 Arizona's.

24 My second point is EPA's proposal fails

25 to properly consider emissions reductions already

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 42

 1 achieved.

 2 Of the $1.4 billion spent by PacifiCorp

 3 between 2005 and 2011 to reduce emissions of SO2,

 4 NOx and particulate matter at its Arizona, Utah, and

 5 Wyoming generation facilities, approximately

 6 160 million was spent to install a new scrubber

 7 baghouse, and low NOx burners on Cholla unit 4.

 8 However, these costs in emissions

 9 reductions have been disregarded and ignored by the

10 EPA. And EPA has proposed to require additional

11 controls on PacifiCorp's Cholla unit 4.

12 This results in understated costs per ton

13 removed and overstated benefits from the

14 installation of an SCR. The installation of yet

15 another SCR within five years to achieve a

16 visibility goal established for the year 2064 should

17 be rejected. 

18 Not even in the Eastern United States

19 where health-based standards drive emissions

20 reductions are such significant emissions control

21 projects required in so short a period of time. 

22 And as you have already heard, regional

23 haze regulations that we are talking about tonight

24 are not health-based standards.

25 This brings me to my third point.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 43

 1 EPA's proposed action imposes cost and

 2 expenses prematurely with no perceptible benefit in

 3 visibility. The visibility modeling completed

 4 indicates that the proposed visibility improvements

 5 will be imperceptible. Modeled visibility

 6 improvement from adding an SCR to all three

 7 BART-eligible units at the Cholla plant is predicted

 8 to be 0.65 deciviews, an improvement that is

 9 imperceptible to the human eye.

10 When updated and accurate models are

11 used, the visibility improvement is predicted to be

12 a mere 0.04 deciviews.

13 To conclude, EPA's proposal to reject the

14 key portion of Arizona's Regional Haze SIP is

15 improper because it unlawfully rejects Arizona's

16 carefully crafted discretion and improperly

17 substitutes EPA's own decisions. 

18 It fails to account for the emission

19 reduction and modeled visibility improvements

20 associated with the emissions controls already

21 installed and it would require large expenditures in

22 the near term for no perceptible visibility

23 improvement.

24 We urge you to adopt Arizona's Regional

25 Haze SIP as submitted.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 44

 1 Thank you.

 2 GERARDO RIOS: The next five speakers are

 3 Ted Cromwell, Sandy Bahr, Tiffany Sprague, Ed Fox,

 4 and John Sullivan. 

 5 Mr. Cromwell, when you're ready.

 6 TED CROMWELL: Hello. My name is Ted

 7 Cromwell, T-e-d, C-r-o-m-w-e-l-l.

 8 I'm the senior principal for

 9 environmental policy at the National Rural Electric

10 Cooperative Association, and I'm here tonight in

11 support of the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative's

12 Apache Generating Station and the approximately

13 150,000 customers that are directly impacted by

14 EPA's rejection of portions of the Arizona State

15 Implementation Plan.

16 NRECA is a not-for-profit national

17 service organization representing nearly 930

18 not-for-profit, member-owned rural electric

19 cooperative systems which serve 42 million consumers

20 in 47 states.

21 Cooperatives serve approximately

22 18 million businesses, homes, farms, and other

23 establishments.

24 In addition to providing electric

25 service, electric cooperatives are involved in

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 45

 1 community development and revitalization projects

 2 such as small business development, job creation,

 3 improvement of water and sewer systems, and

 4 assistance in the delivery of health care and

 5 educational services.

 6 Low population density together with the

 7 issues of traversing vast expanses of remote and

 8 often rugged topography present unique economic and

 9 engineering challenges for the co-ops. 

10 These factors make affordable rates even

11 more critical for Arizona Electric Power and their

12 customers.

13 Nationally, the service territory average

14 household income for electric co-ops falls almost

15 11 percent below the U.S. average household income.

16 For Arizona's cooperative consumers,

17 these economic conditions are more acute.

18 Cooperative customers average 16.4 percent lower

19 household income than the rest of the state of

20 Arizona and 18 percent lower than the U.S. average.

21 The per capita income of Arizona Electric Power

22 consumers is $29,183, which is a staggering

23 39 percent lower than the national average.

24 Over four in ten of Arizona Electric

25 Power customers are minority, and Native Americans

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 46

 1 make up over two of the ten in the customer base.

 2 As part of the Executive Order on

 3 environmental justice, federal agencies, including

 4 EPA, are required to consider all potential impacts

 5 on minority populations and low-income populations.

 6 This includes both the economic and the

 7 environmental impacts of decisions such as how the

 8 selection of BART will affect Arizona Electric Power

 9 and their customers.

10 Cooperatives, not-for-profit,

11 member-owned entities, must pass increased costs

12 directly to their customers. So increased costs

13 created by EPA's oversight activities will have a

14 direct impact on these consumers.

15 Apache's total generating capacity is

16 under the 750-megawatt limit, which is the point

17 where EPA requires states to follow the BART

18 guidelines. 

19 According to EPA's guidelines, states are

20 provided with additional latitude when making their

21 BART determinations for smaller units.

22 This relatively small facility is the

23 only generating station owned by Arizona Electric

24 Power and they have no options available to spread

25 the cost of compliance. And transmission grid

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 47

 1 capacity in this region means they can't make up the

 2 difference by importing the power. 

 3 Lastly, the NOx controls recommended by

 4 EPA have would a significant impact on Arizona Power

 5 consumers that they foot the bill for the upgrades.

 6 While the State and EPA came up with

 7 substantive -- substantially different cost

 8 estimates for controls, there is no doubt the cost

 9 of adopting SCR is dramatically higher than the

10 State's recommendation.

11 And this process, I would also note, that

12 Arizona Electric Power is developing control and

13 compliance options to meet the 2017 deadline for

14 implementing EPA's utility mercury air toxic

15 standard.

16 In conclusion, NRECA and our members

17 support the requirements to preserve and enhance

18 visibility at the nation's Class I areas, but the

19 co-ops also have a responsibility to their consumers

20 who bear the cost of meeting the various regulatory

21 obligations. EPA should revisit the proposal with

22 these considerations in mind. 

23 Thank you.

24 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

25 Sandy Bahr.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 48

 1 SANDY BAHR: Thank you for the

 2 opportunity to speak.

 3 My name is Sandy Bahr, S-a-n-d-y,

 4 B-a-h-r.

 5 I'm here this evening on behalf of myself

 6 but I do work for the Sierra Club for my day job.

 7 Before I give you my comments, I wanted

 8 to read a brief statement by Dr. Barbara Warren,

 9 M.D., who could not be here this evening.

10 She states, for far too long, Arizona

11 communities have faced enumerable health risks from

12 coal-plant pollution, such as the thousands of tons

13 of nitrogen oxides that are released into our skies

14 every year. 

15 The current EPA plan to reduce nitrogen

16 oxide in our state is a common-sense strategy that

17 will protect children with asthma and adults with

18 chronic lung disease and heart disease.

19 And Dr. Warren represents Physicians for

20 Social Responsibility in Arizona.

21 So for my comments, I want to say as a

22 frequent visitor to Arizona's national parks and

23 wilderness areas and as someone who cares deeply

24 about public health, including my own, my family's,

25 and that of my friends, I'm here to support the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 49

 1 Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of

 2 protections that will clean up three of Arizona's

 3 dirtiest coal plants: Apache Generating Station,

 4 Cholla Power Plant, and Coronado Generating Station.

 5 Doing so will help limit dangerous

 6 emissions that pollute the skies over many of

 7 Arizona's pristine national parks and wilderness

 8 areas, including Petrified Forest National Park, the

 9 Gila Wilderness, and Chiricahua National Monument,

10 all of which are places I have enjoyed with family

11 and friends. 

12 When I go there, I expect clean air and a

13 clear view. I get plenty of pollution here in

14 Phoenix, where I live. These pollution levels

15 should not be acceptable here or there and that's

16 why I continue to work for clean air in both urban

17 and rural landscapes alike.

18 We have waited far too long for this

19 cleanup already. More than 35 years. EPA and the

20 utilities that operate these plants, APS, SRP, and

21 AEPCO should move forward expeditiously with

22 cleaning them up. There's been far too much

23 foot-dragging already. 

24 It's unfortunate that Arizona's own

25 Department of Environmental Quality is acting more

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 50

 1 like a branch of the utilities rather than an agency

 2 with a mandate to protect public health and the

 3 environment. 

 4 That is why, however, it is critical that

 5 EPA be strong and steadfast in requiring a cleanup

 6 that does both.

 7 Together, these three coal plants spew

 8 23,000 tons of sulfur pollution and 26,000 tons of

 9 nitrogen oxide pollution every year. That's a lot

10 of pollution. That is a significant impact on our

11 parks and other public lands as well as our health.

12 I support the EPA proposal to require

13 selective catalytic reduction and thus limit

14 nitrogen oxide emissions by nearly 90 percent.

15 We are already saddling the next

16 generation of Arizonans with plenty of environmental

17 problems. Let's take at least one of those off

18 their plates. 

19 And I also wanted to submit this poster

20 for the record that has been signed by a number of

21 Arizonans. And especially relative to the next

22 generation, I wanted to say our comments are on

23 behalf of Haley, nine and Jessica, nine.

24 Please don't leave this to them.

25 Thank you.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 51

 1 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

 2 SANDY BAHR: Should I give this to you?

 3 GERARDO RIOS: We'll take it.

 4 Tiffany Sprague.

 5 TIFFANY SPRAGUE: Thank you.

 6 My name is Tiffany Sprague,

 7 T-i-f-f-a-n-y, S-p-r-a-g-u-e.

 8 I am a Phoenix resident and here on

 9 behalf of myself.

10 I am fully in support of what EPA has

11 proposed. As a native Arizonan, I have seen air

12 quality improve in some parts of our state through

13 the years but it has worsened significantly in other

14 areas.

15 Some of my favorite places, including

16 Grand Canyon, the Sierra Ancha Mountains, and

17 Chiricahua National Monument. My childhood

18 playground and places that I continue to visit.

19 They've been very negatively affected by worsening

20 air quality conditions. 

21 In addition, public health has been

22 affected and serious illnesses and deaths have

23 increased in areas afflicted by poor air quality.

24 Considering the incredible advancements

25 we have made in technologies and our understanding

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 52

 1 of the implications of poor air quality, it's

 2 incredibly disappointing, and frankly, it's

 3 downright embarrassing that we have done so little

 4 to address pollution emitted by our power plants,

 5 including the three addressed in this proposal. 

 6 We have the technologies; we should be

 7 using them. We cannot and we should not waste

 8 anymore time on this.

 9 Earlier some of our elected officials

10 spoke of the costs that are associated with

11 implementing these measures and how those costs will

12 be placed on Arizona consumers.

13 As an Arizona consumer, I can assure you

14 that my health and the health of my environment is

15 much more important to me than my wallet. I would

16 much rather pay the relatively small cost to clean

17 up our air than to deal with the incredible cost,

18 monetary and the physical and the emotional costs

19 caused by continuing to breathe the pollutants

20 emitted by these power plants.

21 So thank you EPA for stepping in and

22 taking care of Arizona.

23 Thank you.

24 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

25 Ed Fox.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 53

 1 EDWARD FOX: Good evening.

 2 My name is Edward Fox, E-d-w-a-r-d,

 3 F-o-x.

 4 I am vice president and chief

 5 sustainability officer at Arizona Public Service

 6 company.

 7 APS is Arizona's largest electric

 8 provider with over 1.1 million customers in 11 of

 9 Arizona's 15 counties.

10 Today I want to comment on the proposed

11 rule's impacts on the Cholla Power Plant. 

12 Cholla is located in Northern Arizona.

13 It consists of four units. Three wholly owned by

14 APS, one owned by PacifiCorp. APS operates all

15 four. The four units make up 1,027 megawatts. APS

16 employs 264 employees at Cholla with an annual

17 payroll of $29 million.

18 APS takes its environmental stewardship

19 seriously. Since 2006, we've worked with various

20 environmental groups and have spent voluntarily over

21 $300 million to enhance emission controls of SO2,

22 NOx and particulates at the power plant resulting in

23 significant emission reductions at the plant and

24 achieving the reasonable progress necessary under

25 the BART -- under the Regional Haze Rule and the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 54

 1 BART criteria.

 2 During my remaining time I want to

 3 outline three of the many reasons we oppose the

 4 proposed FIP.

 5 First, the Clean Air Act and the Regional

 6 Haze Rule require that BART determinations be made

 7 on a case-by-case site specific analysis following

 8 the five factor BART factors.

 9 Utilizing these five factors, the Arizona

10 Department of Environmental Quality analyzed various

11 NOx technologies and determined that the combustion

12 controls already on -- put on in the last five years

13 at Cholla were cost-effective and ensured that

14 reasonable progress.

15 ADEQ determined that the SCR was not

16 cost-effective and was not necessary to improve

17 visibility, and, indeed, would not improve

18 perceptible visibility.

19 Arizona's State Implementation Plan meets

20 the requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act and

21 the rule and EPA should respect Arizona's duly

22 exercised discretion and approve the Arizona BART.

23 Second, EPA used flawed math and a broken

24 model to reach its conclusion. EPA's math conjures

25 improved visibility where it doesn't exist by adding

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 55

 1 improvement at 13 different locations.

 2 It's like saying that 1 inch of rain at

 3 13 separate locations is equal to 13 inches of rain

 4 at each location. Clearly and simply this is not

 5 reality and EPA's math cannot make it real.

 6 Moreover, the visibility model used by

 7 EPA is flawed. In the 2005 rule published by EPA,

 8 they stated, quote, the simplified chemistry in the

 9 model tends to magnify the actual visibility effect

10 of that source, unquote. And further, quote,

11 results in less advanced -- 

12 GERARDO RIOS: The lights went out. 

13 EDWARD FOX: Give me two extra seconds.

14 -- less advanced -- the model being used

15 by EPA is less advanced than some of the more recent

16 atmospheric chemistry models being developed.

17 Now seven years later, EPA continues to

18 use that flawed model. And it's unconscionable that

19 they do so, especially given the economic disruption

20 that it may cause.

21 Third, if EPA's proposal is finally

22 approved, it will jeopardize unit 2 at Cholla and

23 potentially make it uneconomic, resulting in its

24 closure. 

25 Clearly Congress never intended this

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 56

 1 program to close coal units and kill jobs.

 2 In conclusion, it's wrong for EPA to put

 3 jobs and the economy at risk. Such an outcome was

 4 never intended by Congress.

 5 EPA should respect Arizona's duly

 6 approved and submitted SIP. And before adopting any

 7 regional haze plan, EPA must update its model and

 8 use the best-available science.

 9 Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

10 We will be submitting detailed comments later.

11 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

12 My apologies for the lights. I guess

13 we'll try to find the light switch.

14 John Sullivan.

15 JOHN SULLIVAN: Thank you for the

16 opportunity to testify this evening.

17 My name is John Sullivan, J-o-h-n,

18 S-u-l-l-i-v-a-n.

19 I am the associate general manager for

20 resource management for the Salt River Project.

21 SRP serves retail electric in the Phoenix

22 area, totaling over 950,000 and we operate the

23 Coronado Generating Station, which is one of the

24 subjects of tonight's hearing.

25 SRP is committed to clean air and

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 57

 1 improved visibility. Indeed, SRP is in the final

 2 stages of installing extensive new pollution control

 3 equipment at the Coronado Generating Station at a

 4 cost of over $500 million.

 5 EPA's proposed FIP is particularly

 6 troubling as it calls for additional controls even

 7 before the current equipment installation process is

 8 complete.

 9 In addition, EPA should consider and act

10 on all of the measures proposed by the State of

11 Arizona in its proposed SIP rather than singling out

12 three power plants, especially considering that NOx

13 emissions from power plants are responsible for less

14 than 5 percent of the haze in this region.

15 EPA's approach inappropriately overrides

16 the court-approved agreement executed by EPA and SRP

17 to upgrade Coronado's emissions control.

18 The controls SRP is installing provide

19 better than BART compliance, and EPA is not

20 justified in imposing additional controls at the

21 Coronado Generating Station through a regional haze

22 FIP.

23 There is no basis for SRP to dismiss

24 site-specific costs developed by engineering firms

25 in favor of cost estimates based on generic

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 58

 1 assumptions.

 2 For example, the EPA estimated that the

 3 cost of the SCR that is being installed currently at

 4 Coronado at $66 million. The actual costs will

 5 approach a hundred million.

 6 EPA in its most recent technical analysis

 7 estimated the cost of the second SCR at Coronado to

 8 be $57 million. We believe it will be a

 9 $110 million.

10 Although SRP has significant concerns

11 with EPA's modeling, as you have heard other

12 speakers talk about tonight, we note that the

13 modeling they used, which is flawed, found that none

14 of the proposed control scenarios would improve

15 visibility by one deciview at any of the Class I

16 areas near Coronado.

17 This finding alone is enough to conclude

18 that SRP should not be required to spend more than

19 $110 million on additional control equipment.

20 As EPA is aware, the deciview metric is a

21 measure of an individual's ability to perceive haze

22 from a single viewpoint. And it is improper to

23 imply otherwise by summing the modeled amounts. 

24 In conclusion, EPA's proposed action is

25 misguided and unsupported. SRP's installation of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 59

 1 new state-of-the-art pollution control equipment at

 2 the Coronado Generating Station coupled with legal

 3 and technical infirmities of the EPA's proposed rule

 4 warrant withdrawal of the FIP at this time in favor

 5 of the State's comprehensive plan. 

 6 And we will be submitting additional

 7 comments.

 8 Thank you.

 9 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

10 Our next group of speakers are Rob Smith.

11 I apologize for -- if I mispronounce this. Glen

12 Manygoats. Okay. Sorry I didn't -- wasn't able to

13 read the handwriting. Andy Bessler, Howard Dennis,

14 Jr., and Rudy Dankwort.

15 Mr. Rob Smith.

16 ROB SMITH: I'm Rob Smith, R-o-b,

17 S-m-i-t-h.

18 I have a written statement here. I just

19 wanted to summarize it.

20 I am the senior organizing manager for

21 the Sierra Club Arizona, so I'm speaking for the

22 organization tonight.

23 Just a couple of points.

24 It's against the law to pollute national

25 parks and wilderness areas and it has been,

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 60

 1 according to federal Clean Air Act, since 1977.

 2 And these are places we know. Places

 3 like the Grand Canyon, Petrified Forest, Saguaro

 4 National Park, the Superstition wilderness just east

 5 of town, Chiricahua National Monument. And the fact

 6 is that all three of these power plants we're

 7 talking about tonight are as close as 40 miles to at

 8 least one of the national parks or monuments

 9 mentioned here and in the pollution airshed of a

10 total of 17 in three states.

11 Now, there's some people that might say

12 that burning 9 million tons of coal a year at these

13 power plants would have no visible impact on

14 visibility. But I don't think so.

15 If you drive across Arizona and try to

16 find a clear day, sometimes you'll find it; often

17 you won't. The picture at the back of the room

18 shows you what it can be. It's time that everyone

19 did their share to clean up the regional haze.

20 And the air pollution that you see is

21 also the stuff that ultimately we breathe, and this

22 is toxic. More than a million pounds of toxins a

23 year come out of these three plants and tens of

24 thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen

25 oxide pollution into the Arizona skies. 

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 61

 1 That leads to breathing problems,

 2 hospital and doctor visits, heart attacks, even

 3 death, according to the Clean Air Task Force. And

 4 what's especially tragic is it doesn't have to be

 5 this way.

 6 The pollution control being recommended

 7 by EPA for the three plants, selective catalytic

 8 reduction, is what our own Arizona utilities are

 9 installing and have installed on some of their power

10 plants already.

11 APS is committing to SCR on their units

12 at four corners. SRP is running SCR on their unit

13 at Springerville. It's already installing SCR in

14 one of the units at Coronado right next to the other

15 one, which doesn't have it.

16 And the Arizona Electric Power

17 Cooperative could do either on the -- or the --

18 could do that or they could switch their two

19 existing coal units to less polluting gas to match

20 their other gas unit, something they've been able to

21 do since the 1990s. And it's affordable.

22 If you break down the annual cost of SCR

23 controls by the customer base for each utility, each

24 SRP customer would pay about $1.60 a month. That's

25 less than the cost of this pack of french fries.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 62

 1 APS customers would pay an extra $1.93

 2 (sic) a month to clean up Cholla. That's less than

 3 the cost of this batch french fries. And it's

 4 actually -- I'm an APS customer. They cost me more

 5 -- they charge more than that to read my meter. Two

 6 bucks and four cents. They cost -- they charge me

 7 more than that to bill me, $2.31. Those are not

 8 seen as crisis, although that it's something I have

 9 to pay.

10 Co-op customers, obviously, would pay

11 more but they have an easy alternative. They would

12 have to pay the equivalent of a milk shake, french

13 fries, another set of fries. There you have it and

14 they get change back -- or they could choose to

15 switch immediately to less polluting gas, if that

16 was cheaper. 

17 And in summary, the Clean Air Act

18 requires the best available pollution technology be

19 used, not the cheaper second-rate stuff that won't

20 do the job nearly as well. It calls for the best. 

21 And I want to say thank you to the EPA

22 for insisting on cleaning up the air for all

23 Arizonans when our own State Department of

24 Environmental Quality won't do it.

25 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 63

 1 Glen Manygoats.

 2 GLEN MANYGOATS: First name again Glen,

 3 G-l-e-n, last name Manygoats, M-a-n-y-g-o-a-t-s. 

 4 I'm with the Navajo tribe, and I'm here

 5 representing myself. 

 6 And my main issue with this new ruling is

 7 it doesn't say enough about public health. To me

 8 it's more about public health than visibility.

 9 And I would like to see the ruling to

10 reflect that. I don't see enough emphasis on public

11 health and environmental health around these plants.

12 You know, I'm talking about proximity.

13 Like 50, a hundred-mile radius of these plants and

14 how coal emissions affect life and the resources

15 that are there.

16 I've lived close to Cholla. A portion of

17 my life I've lived close to the Navajo Generating

18 Station during my youth and I know the changes, the

19 changes that have taken place by use of coal and

20 burning coal in those areas, in the high desert

21 areas.

22 There's a lot of people here that

23 represent Arizona. They say we represent X amount

24 of people and they talk about the urban areas. They

25 never talk about the communities out there that are

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 64

 1 really underneath these plants.

 2 Okay. They don't live, see, and

 3 experience what these changes through the decades

 4 have brought. It is -- you know, they need to know

 5 what changes have taken place.

 6 I have another local Native that I --

 7 that's going to talk about the impacts to the land.

 8 But to me, it is about public health. Although

 9 these standards that are within the ruling is not

10 health-based. I think it should be. I think it

11 should be in there. It needs to be in there because

12 I do see a lot of people in close proximity to these

13 power plants.

14 My -- those -- there's about seven power

15 plants that ring the reservation -- the Navajo

16 reservation. Okay? So we're only talking about

17 three here. One is outside, but two of them are

18 there and they are -- and there are various reasons

19 why they are located where they are. It's out of

20 sight and out of mind.

21 As long as it's being viewed as that,

22 we're going to have problems. We need to focus

23 on -- more on human health and the local

24 environment. 

25 So I do support this ruling. I do like

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 65

 1 it and it needs to be implemented.

 2 Thank you.

 3 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

 4 Andy Bessler.

 5 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

 6 My name is Andy Bessler, A-n-d-y,

 7 B-e-s-s-l-e-r.

 8 I live in Flagstaff, Arizona, and I'm a

 9 member of the Sierra Club.

10 I support EPA safeguards to reduce

11 pollution utilizing selective catalytic reduction. 

12 I feel this action by EPA is supported by

13 the public and impacts not only human health but

14 also all of those of who live in Arizona and

15 breathe, including animals and plants.

16 I feel this is important for improving

17 visibility of critical Class I airsheds like

18 national parks and wilderness areas that contribute

19 significantly to our regional economies.

20 More importantly, this FIP will improve

21 human health. These pollution controls will help

22 save lives.

23 According to the Clean Air Task Force,

24 every year pollution from the Apache, Coronado, and

25 Cholla coal plants cause nearly 41 death, 63 heart

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 66

 1 attacks, 747 asthma attacks, 30 hospital admissions,

 2 38 emergency room visits, and 26 cases of chronic

 3 bronchitis.

 4 All told, these three coal plants cause

 5 Arizonans almost $314 million in health care

 6 expenses every year.

 7 As a nation, we must face the impacts

 8 from dirty coal plants, including air pollution,

 9 climate change, excessive water use, toxic coal ash,

10 and neurotoxins like mercury. We must clean up

11 these dirty coal plants and start to transition to a

12 clean energy future.

13 I really see selective catalytic

14 reduction as preventative medicine that will prevent

15 kids and future generations from getting asthma and

16 preventing premature deaths.

17 Would anyone here argue that medical

18 equipment that prevents deaths and asthma is too

19 expensive, hurts job growth, or impacts ratepayer

20 rates? 

21 If we are giving inhalers or respirators

22 to those who suffer from asthma, would we settle for

23 anything but the best?

24 EPA is simply giving Arizona residents

25 the best chance for clean air through a strong BART

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 67

 1 ruling.

 2 I support EPA doing what Governor Brewer

 3 and ADEQ cannot do.

 4 Thank you for your time.

 5 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

 6 Howard Dennis, Jr.

 7 My name is Howard Dennis, Junior.

 8 Capital H-o-w-a-r-d, capital D-e-n-n-i-s, capital

 9 J-r.

10 I'm a member of Black Mesa Trust located

11 within the Hopi reservation. I reside within the

12 village of Shungopovi. I'm also a religious leader

13 there within the village.

14 Today I come here to give testimony to

15 talk about -- talk about the EPA's ruling, which I

16 am fully in support of. 

17 Within my reservation, we are located

18 dead center within Cholla Power Plant and another

19 power plant to the north, which is known as the

20 Navajo Generating Station. 

21 Where I live, the concentration of haze

22 is very visible. Within the city limits, you cannot

23 see where I live. I invite you to come out and see

24 where I live. Come live with me for 20 years and

25 develop what I have developed, which is asthma.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 68

 1 I've recently been diagnosed with asthma.

 2 I know the effect of what's going on.

 3 It's not just a visibility issue here. It's a

 4 health issue.

 5 And today I'm going to talk for the

 6 plants and the animals. They can't talk for

 7 themselves, but I see the changes every day of what

 8 goes on out there.

 9 As a religious leader, I have to go out

10 there and search for certain plants to fulfill our

11 obligations to not just our mother earth but for all

12 living beings, all things that reside within the

13 earth.

14 Hopi are very dedicated people to the

15 environment. We have -- the American people --

16 other people out there within the world, they have

17 what they call a dream. We don't have a dream; we

18 have a responsibility to take care of the world, the

19 land, the people, the animals, the plants.

20 So come out there and live with me and

21 suck some of this pollutant and see how you like it.

22 You're not going to like it.

23 It's so sad here today, all of these

24 people giving testimony. People of power who have

25 -- who have the capability of making a change in

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 69

 1 life where everything here within Arizona state.

 2 Not just here but globally also.

 3 Nobody has talked over here about climate

 4 change. Arizona coal-powered fire plants are a

 5 great contributor to global warming.

 6 Maybe it's time that -- if they don't

 7 want to put these SCRs on, you know, maybe turn it

 8 off. Not very many people have talked about the

 9 transition into cleaner energy.

10 Of course I understand that the people

11 here within the cities need the electricity to

12 survive. But there's other technology out there

13 already available: Solar, wind. Technology is

14 already there for them. Transition these plants in

15 to clean energies.

16 You're producing jobs, you're saving

17 water, water that can be used for different things.

18 Money is not going to save you. Sure,

19 without the air you can't breathe. Without water,

20 you're not going to survive. Money, you can always

21 do without.

22 All of these power plants have produced

23 -- generated money year after year and they are

24 talking about so many millions this, millions that.

25 Do the right thing. You're still going

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 70

 1 to -- in the end, you're still going to make your

 2 profit.

 3 But there's also the transition. You

 4 create jobs. The economy gets the boost. Clean

 5 air. We have to think about our future generations

 6 to come.

 7 When I look at my grandkids, I want them

 8 to have the best things. Are they going to have to

 9 deal with the circumstances that I have to deal with

10 right now, dealing with my health?

11 I want you guys to think about that.

12 Don't be selfish. You guys are leaders. Be

13 leaders.

14 Thank you.

15 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

16 Rudy Dankwort.

17 RUDY DANKWORT: My name is Rudy Dankwort,

18 R-u-d-y, D, as in David, a-n-k-w-o-r-t.

19 I spent some time in the last 24 hours

20 looking at a couple of websites, and one of them

21 that interested me in particular was the American

22 Lung Association.

23 The American Lung Association has said

24 the following: Particle pollution, aka, soot, coal

25 emissions, is one of the most common and the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 71

 1 deadliest forms of air pollution. It can cause

 2 asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and

 3 premature death.

 4 And I guess I should mention that I'm

 5 departing a little bit from the intent here of this

 6 being strictly a haze issue. I don't know why that

 7 should be so. To me the health of -- health is a

 8 more important consideration.

 9 The American Lung Association website

10 then went on to warn that the big polluters are

11 trying to block tighter standards. So we need you

12 to speak up now and tell EPA that you support strong

13 standards that really protect our health.

14 And you have heard -- I've noticed --

15 listening to the speakers in the initial segment of

16 this presentation all telling you what a terrible

17 thing this ruling would be for Arizona.

18 I would like to point out that we're

19 dealing with more than Arizona here. We're dealing

20 with the United States. We're dealing with the

21 world.

22 And as a matter of fact, again, on the

23 website that I just cited, it said, for example, the

24 Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast states have more

25 sulfate particles than the West on average, largely

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 72

 1 due to the high levels of sulfur dioxide emitted by

 2 large coal-fired power plants.

 3 In other words, Arizonans may not care as

 4 much because all this crud goes to the -- goes off

 5 to the Southeast and the Northeast. Well, we're one

 6 country, folks, and let's behave accordingly.

 7 Just quickly, it's even more than that.

 8 Of course, it's a global issue. I think we are all

 9 more or less informed about global warming and the

10 catastrophe -- catastrophes that face us if we don't

11 pay attention to it. 

12 And I would also just quickly like to add

13 that these scrubbers, as important as they are, have

14 to be complemented by paying attention to the water

15 issue. As you know, these high technology scrubbers

16 require a lot of water that gets polluted.

17 So there is an issue here also, in my

18 opinion, as -- to the Clean Air Act be -- concern

19 when the scrubbers are cleaned. Scrubbers are

20 cleaned by the water, water gets polluted, you got

21 to take care of that. Okay? 

22 Thank you very much. Appreciate your

23 attention. Goodbye.

24 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

25 We're going to take a 10-minute recess to

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 73

 1 give our court reporter some rest time and also to

 2 see if we have any progress on getting the mechanic

 3 to turn the lights back on. My apologies, again.

 4 They were preprogrammed to turn off around 7:15.

 5 So we'll take a recess at this time and

 6 come back at 7:40.

 7 (A recess was taken from 7:30 p.m. to 

 8 7:41 p.m.) 

 9 GERARDO RIOS: We're going to resume the

10 hearing.

11 It is now 7:40. We'll start.

12 Would the following five speakers please

13 come up.

14 Mark Lewis, Eric Massey, Stephen Brittle,

15 Tim O'Brien, and Susan Bitter Smith.

16 Mr. Lewis, when you are ready.

17 MARK LEWIS: Thank you very much for

18 having this hearing here in Phoenix.

19 On behalf of -- oh, for the record my

20 name is Mark Lewis, M-a-r-k, L-e-w-i-s.

21 For the record, I am an elected director

22 of the Central Arizona Project. We -- on behalf of

23 the 4 million people that I represent here in the

24 Maricopa County, we welcome you to Phoenix and we

25 thank you for this hearing.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 74

 1 I'm hear representing myself in these

 2 comments tonight, and I just wanted to share a

 3 little bit about some of the things that I have

 4 heard tonight and wanted to make comments on it.

 5 You know, we all want clean air and good

 6 visibility around the parks and we all want to end

 7 up with an enjoyment of the natural beauty that we

 8 have in Arizona.

 9 And with that, we have trade-offs. And,

10 you know, we have to have the lights on and we have

11 to have safety systems in the hospitals, and that's

12 a trade-off that we have to make with our energy

13 needs.

14 And, you know, Arizona has no oil, no

15 gas, we have no choice. We have to burn coal. We

16 have nuclear and we have several energy sources that

17 are native to this area.

18 And ultimately, we would like to end up

19 with a solution that is a happy medium for everybody

20 where we can both protect the environment and still

21 enjoy reasonable power rates.

22 My job with the Central Arizona Project,

23 the buck stops with me when it comes to water and

24 power rates. Everybody wants things to be done, and

25 ultimately I'm the guy that has to go to the public

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 75

 1 and say, you know, they want to upgrade the systems

 2 on our power systems and our water systems and it's

 3 going to raise your power rates by 12 or 20 or

 4 30 percent.

 5 And when that happens, people are going

 6 to call me and I'm going to call you. And that's my

 7 job as an elected representative here in Maricopa

 8 County.

 9 And there's a balance to be sought here,

10 and I don't think we have found it yet. A lot of

11 people want a lot of things. And when you're an

12 elected official, you have to allocate the public's

13 resources in a responsible manner.

14 And so I don't think that we're going to

15 get where we need to go by mandating multihundreds

16 of millions of dollars of SCRs. And the state

17 implementation plan provides a methodology to use

18 low NOx burners and that will get us to where we

19 need to go now.

20 The question is, is what do we need to do

21 in the future? And we're sitting here arguing over

22 small things when the reality is finding new

23 technologies that are cheaper than a catalytic

24 process to put on our coal-fired power plants to

25 clean the air is the solution.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 76

 1 Finding another alternative to carbon

 2 sequestration that is reasonable cost that the

 3 ratepayers can enjoy.

 4 Those are the kind of benefits that we

 5 all need to get to to keep the air clean, keep the

 6 national parks clean, and keep reasonable costs for

 7 power. And we're not going to get there by

 8 mandating a solution on a very short notice that has

 9 questionable benefits.

10 And I would just urge you to reconsider

11 the timeline involved here and say, gosh, if we're

12 looking at the big picture, we can get there in 30

13 years or 20 years, not tomorrow.

14 Thank you very much for your time.

15 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

16 Eric Massey.

17 ERIC MASSEY: Good evening. My name is

18 Eric Massey. That's E-r-i-c, M-a-s-s-e-y.

19 I'm the director of the air quality

20 division for the Arizona Department of Environment

21 Quality.

22 I'd like to make it clear that from the

23 start, that when we talk about regional haze, we're

24 not talking about protecting public health or even

25 the environment. We're talking about our ability to

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 77

 1 see things. Albeit very beautiful things, but see

 2 those things better. 

 3 This is why the Clean Air Act allows the

 4 consideration of cost in determining what can and

 5 should be required. And why I'm here to say that

 6 what EPA is proposing is unreasonable and

 7 unnecessary right now, given these tough economic

 8 times.

 9 Arizona has been a long-time leader,

10 partner, and pioneer in helping to establish

11 regional haze objectives and goals in the West, and

12 it's working.

13 If you look at the utility industry

14 alone, SO2 and NOx emissions from

15 electricity-generating stations in the West are

16 already down 62 percent and 39 percent when looking

17 between 1995 and 2011.

18 In 2003 and 2004, Arizona worked with its

19 sister states, four other states and its

20 stakeholders and environmental groups to develop one

21 of the first modern regional haze SIPs, and actually

22 update that 7/04. 

23 They relied on voluntary emissions

24 reductions to achieve visibility improvements

25 throughout the area. Both SIPs became complete as a

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 78

 1 matter of law six months after EPA received them and

 2 required EPA's final action on June 30th, 2006.

 3 However, by 2009 EPA had not acted on

 4 either of Arizona's submissions. Instead of

 5 following its own perceived -- required procedures

 6 in making a decision on Arizona submissions, EPA

 7 made a finding that many states failed to actually

 8 submit their Regional Haze SIP at all. Arizona got

 9 shoe-horned into this finding, with EPA identifying

10 specific elements of Arizona's plans that were

11 missing.

12 Instead of challenging EPA's action,

13 Arizona worked with EPA and its partners to

14 supplement the 309 SIP that had been submitted,

15 making it -- in an effort to make it approvable.

16 But when it became clear that in late

17 2010 that EPA's regional offices could not agree on

18 a solution, Arizona began the immediate development

19 of a new 308 SIP to begin its development of

20 regional haze.

21 In February 2011, that SIP was submitted.

22 It became complete as a matter of law in August of

23 2011.

24 That same year a lawsuit was filed

25 against EPA for its failure to approve a SIP or to

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 79

 1 implement a FIP within two years of EPA's finding of

 2 failure to submit.

 3 Through the end of 2011 and early 2012,

 4 Arizona attempted to intervene in the lawsuit

 5 related to its regional haze SIP, asking only for a

 6 seat at the negotiating table as deadlines for

 7 action were discussed. 

 8 Well, the court granted Arizona

 9 intervenor status. Not once did EPA, our

10 codefendant, or the plaintiffs provide Arizona with

11 an opportunity for meaningful dialog. 

12 The court even ruled on a motion

13 submitted by EPA and the plaintiffs without

14 providing Arizona the opportunity to present its

15 side of the case and then had them retract its

16 decisions in order to give the State its opportunity

17 to (inaudible).

18 So our question is, what happened to

19 Arizona due process? Where is the coregulator that

20 Arizona is supposed to have and EPA has described in

21 the Clean Air Act. And why can EPA's inaction and

22 misuse of its administrative authority result in EPA

23 rethinking the decision that Arizona has legally

24 made? 

25 As Governor Brewer stated in her July

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 80

 1 25th, 2012, letter, EPA's current action usurps

 2 Arizona's authority under the Clean Air Act and

 3 interferes with the long-standing partnership

 4 between EPA and the State to address protection of

 5 visual air quality in Arizona's national parks and

 6 wilderness areas. 

 7 Our next question. How can EPA make a

 8 finding that Arizona SIPs are not complete and then

 9 cure the deficiencies with anything less than a

10 complete decision? 

11 The governor also pointed out it's

12 important that actions regarding SIPs consider the

13 process as a whole, not as individual parts.

14 EPA's proposed action only addresses one

15 element of the SIP preventing the consideration of

16 the action as a whole. And the plan that this being

17 proposed is actually missing more of what they

18 claim -- than what they claimed was missing from

19 Arizona's plan.

20 How can EPA agree to, when the court

21 sanctioned a deadline for action on Arizona's 308

22 SIP that is longer than the Clean Air Act without

23 Arizona being a party to those negotiations?

24 I submit to you that EPA does not have

25 this authority. Arizona maintains that to the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 81

 1 extent any SIP is required may address only those

 2 issues which were identified in the 2009 finding of

 3 failure to submit related to Arizona's 309 SIP. 

 4 Any action on the 308 SIP can only be a

 5 proposed approval, partial approval, and

 6 disapproval, or disapproval providing the State with

 7 the opportunity to correct any perceived

 8 deficiencies or administratively challenge EPA's

 9 decision prior to the implementation of the FIP.

10 In conclusion, I can find no other

11 fitting thought than what that which the governor

12 has already expressed. 

13 It's incumbent upon EPA to provide

14 Arizona with an opportunity to discuss outstanding

15 issues related to regional haze SIP and not

16 undermine the cooperative approach that previously

17 typified the process to address regional haze in

18 Arizona and other states in the West.

19 Thank you for this opportunity.

20 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

21 Mr. Brittle.

22 STPEPHEN BRITTLE: My is Stephen Brittle,

23 S-t-e-p-h-e-n, B-r-i-t-t-l-e, like peanut brittle. 

24 I am the president of Don't Waste

25 Arizona. It's a nonprofit environmental

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 82

 1 organization dedicated to the protection and

 2 preservation of the environment in Arizona.

 3 We are particularly concerned about

 4 environmental justice and air pollution issues. 

 5 And I want to think back to the time that

 6 we sat in all of the meetings about this proposed

 7 plan to improve visibility, and I'm wondering why

 8 all of this hell is breaking out now.

 9 I also want to thank EPA for the proposed

10 FIP. Long overdue, because this agency, the ADEQ,

11 can't ever and will never get the job done.

12 I have had an eye on them for 22 years,

13 ever since they tried to get all of my friends

14 stun-gunned at a public hearing. So I've had my

15 chance to watch them.

16 I would also suggest that EPA should

17 remove the delegation agreement with the State of

18 Arizona and operate the air program entirely on its

19 own. At least then someone will protect the air

20 here and not the polluters.

21 I do want to point out that we have a

22 whole bunch of natural gas-fired plants that use

23 this SCR technology. I became very aware of that in

24 the permitting processes ten years ago. They act

25 like they are so surprised that they might have to

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 83

 1 do this.

 2 And I also want to ask, wouldn't it be

 3 unfair competition in business and trade for them to

 4 not have the same technology that everybody else is

 5 required to do to reduce their NOx emissions?

 6 Also trying to pretend that this is

 7 something about President Obama is just ingenious at

 8 best. Politicizing is actually a legal issue, while

 9 we're actually under court order to do this. 

10 Cost-benefit analysis should include the

11 two decades of operation of these coal plants

12 without these proper controls and the extra profits

13 that were made that way as well as the long-term

14 costs of this technology being used spread out over

15 the entire life of these power plants.

16 If these coal plants close, other cleaner

17 electrical generation facilities will replace them.

18 This system is called capitalism.

19 The other thing is we've done extensive

20 enforcement of federal environmental laws. The

21 noncompliance that these companies should have been

22 charged with in an enforcement action would have

23 ranged to about $90 million worth of penalties. So

24 in lieu of that, installing SCR equipment doesn't

25 seem like very much.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 84

 1 And if money is really such an issue,

 2 then the owners and operators of these power plants

 3 would be well-advised to stop their millions in

 4 financial support of ALEC, the American Legislative

 5 Exchange Council and put the money into emissions

 6 control devices that benefit us all. 

 7 We would also stop this spewing of ALEC

 8 NOx emissions also along with these coal plants.

 9 Thank you.

10 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

11 Tim O'Brien.

12 TIM O'BRIEN: My name is Tim O'Brien,

13 T-i-m, O-B-r-i-e-n.

14 I live here in Phoenix and I own a small

15 store in Glendale, Arizona.

16 I came down here tonight because I want

17 to breathe clean air and drink clean water. More

18 importantly, I want my children to breathe clean air

19 and their children to breathe clean air.

20 I can't see the difference between

21 hooking my home up to the city sewage system and

22 then paying to properly dispose of my waste and

23 requiring utility operators to properly dispose of

24 waste created while generating electricity.

25 We must pay the costs of using our

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 85

 1 country's natural resources, and that cost includes

 2 proper disposal of waste.

 3 Shortsightedness will rob our country of

 4 its charm. Theodore Roosevelt said that.

 5 Tonight I've heard repeated arguments

 6 referring to the State's sovereignty and referring

 7 to required partnerships with the federal

 8 government. These arguments are offered by the same

 9 officials who daily express their disdain for the

10 federal government.

11 In my opinion, their call for cooperation

12 is disingenuous and merely a tactic to avoid

13 operating within the law, in this case, the Clean

14 Air Act.

15 I urge all of us to refrain from wasting

16 our heritage by fouling our air and water.

17 I would like to thank you for listening

18 to my comments and thanks -- thank my fellow

19 citizens who have come down here also to give their

20 comments, for your time.

21 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

22 Susan Smith.

23 SUSAN BITTER SMITH: Good evening. I'm

24 Susan Bitter Smith, S-u-s-a-n, B-i-t-t-e-r, and a

25 new word S-m-i-t-h.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 86

 1 I am the past president of the Central

 2 Arizona Project board of directors but I'm here

 3 tonight as a private citizen. 

 4 From my leadership at CAP, I'm well aware

 5 of the impact of arbitrary EPA emission rules on

 6 Arizona power plants to the cost of water.

 7 We spent a lot of time in this state

 8 talking about the nexus of power and water rates.

 9 It's something I'm not sure the EPA has taken into

10 consideration.

11 If the cost of power goes up in the

12 state, so does the cost of water. And these

13 increases will dramatically impact our residents,

14 our businesses, and our agribusiness community.

15 So I urge the EPA, stand down, take time,

16 withdraw the FIP for these three plants and instead

17 work with ADEQ on a more realistic proposal that

18 truly takes into account the impacts on water rates

19 in our state. 

20 Thank you very much.

21 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

22 This public hearing is scheduled to end

23 at 8 p.m. Given the number of speakers who remain,

24 we will extend the hearing until 9:00 or until we

25 are done with the speakers, whichever is sooner.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 87

 1 The next five speakers are Gary Yaquinto.

 2 I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. Gretchen Conger,

 3 Michelle Bolton, Carletta Tilousi, and Patrick

 4 Ledger.

 5 Mr. Yaquinto. 

 6 I'm sorry, is that how you pronounce your

 7 name?

 8 GARY YAQUINTO: Not quite.

 9 GERARDO RIOS: I didn't think so. I'm

10 sorry.

11 GARY YAQUINTO: But not too far off.

12 I'm Gary Yaquinto, G-a-r-y,

13 Y-a-q-u-i-n-t-o.

14 I'm president of the Arizona Investment

15 Council. AIC an association with approximately

16 6,000 members who are debt and/or equity investors

17 in Arizona utility companies and other Arizona

18 businesses.

19 I'm here to express AIC's concerns about

20 EPA's overly aggressive proposal to require highly

21 expensive SCR technology on certain coal-fired power

22 plants in Arizona.

23 Let me start, though, by first stating

24 that AIC believes a fundamental and important

25 foundation of our quality of life in Arizona is the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 88

 1 state's unique natural beauty. We do not want to

 2 see it ruined for enjoyment today or for future

 3 generations.

 4 But my understanding from several utility

 5 company representatives is that studies conducted on

 6 implementing the expensive SCR technology being

 7 required by EPA will have virtually no perceptible

 8 affect on human visibility.

 9 The utility companies operating these

10 plants support Arizona's own less costly plan, have

11 already installed equipment to reduce NOx emissions

12 that cause haze, and have also proposed other less

13 costly technologies for reducing regional haze.

14 Mandating SCR technology coupled with the

15 emission standards proposed by EPA will not

16 noticeably improve regional visibility. They will

17 do nothing but heap exorbitant and unnecessary costs

18 on certain power plant operators.

19 Furthermore, simply by the nature of its

20 location and its unique natural environment, Arizona

21 has a preponderance of Class I visibility areas

22 compared with other states in other regions of the

23 country.

24 EPA's proposal to mandate costly

25 technology requirements and overly aggressive

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 89

 1 emission standards on power plant operators unfairly

 2 places Arizona's economy at a competitive

 3 disadvantage to other states and regions of the

 4 country. 

 5 Why? Because once these costly upgrades

 6 are installed, electricity rates will increase

 7 dramatically. These huge price increases will

 8 negatively impact household budgets of families and

 9 will drive up the costs of doing business in

10 Arizona.

11 This will stall job creation in Arizona

12 and drag down Arizona's economy, hurting investments

13 in other areas of the state's now struggling

14 economy.

15 And the benefits to regional visibility

16 from this manner of regulatory overkill are too

17 small to even notice by the human eye.

18 In conclusion, I urge EPA, its

19 Administrator and its staff, to give serious

20 consideration to the potential detrimental effects

21 that your rush to impose overly aggressive and

22 selective regulation of regional haze will have on

23 Arizona businesses and families.

24 EPA should give greater deference on this

25 issue to our state and local agencies that govern

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 90

 1 environmental matters here in Arizona and to the

 2 families and the businesses that will suffer the

 3 economic consequences from overreaching regulations.

 4 Very simply, an EPA cram-down on this

 5 issue in Arizona is unwarranted.

 6 Thank you.

 7 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

 8 Gretchen Conger.

 9 GRETCHEN CONGER: Good evening. 

10 For the record, Gretchen Conger.

11 G-r-e-t-c-h-e-n, Conger, C-o-n-g-e-r.

12 I'm the director of government relations

13 for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. 

14 On behalf of our members, employers both

15 large small from across the state, the Chamber

16 thanks you for holding this important hearing to

17 discuss the EPA's proposed action to institute a

18 Federal Implementation Plan for three coal-fired

19 electric generating facilities in Arizona.

20 The mission of the Arizona Chamber is to

21 advance Arizona's competitive position in the global

22 economy by advocating free market policies that

23 stimulate economic growth and prosperity for all

24 Arizonans. 

25 The Chamber is concerned that the FIP

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 91

 1 jeopardizes that economic growth and prosperity we

 2 are seeking to secure.

 3 In our analysis of the FIP, we believe

 4 that the EPA is unnecessarily injecting uncertainty

 5 into an especially precarious time, as the State is

 6 attempting to recover from an economic downturn that

 7 cost Arizona nearly 300,000 jobs.

 8 The EPA established a regional haze rule

 9 in order to meet a mandate in the Clean Air Act to

10 return our national parks to natural visibility

11 conditions.

12 The Regional Haze Rule was designed to

13 achieve reasonable progress towards improving

14 visibility in designated areas with your ultimate

15 goal of reaching natural visibility conditions by

16 2064. 

17 This FIP is inconsistent with the 2064

18 goal date, seemingly attempting to achieve 2064

19 results immediately.

20 The FIP is also inconsistent with the

21 intended spirit of partnership with the State and

22 their SIPs. 

23 This is a federal solution to a challenge

24 that requires good-faith partnership and dialog with

25 State partners, like the Arizona Department of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 92

 1 Environmental Quality. If there are shortcomings in

 2 Arizona's SIP, let's work together to reach a

 3 mutually agreeable solution.

 4 You can understand the sensitivity

 5 surrounding EPA actions regarding air quality in our

 6 state. In light of our recent history over the

 7 issue of PM10 and exceptional events here in

 8 Maricopa County. 

 9 Arizonans are left with the distinct

10 impression that the EPA is very much striving policy

11 and that our concerns and desires to work with the

12 EPA have been, at best, marginalized and at worst,

13 ignored. 

14 Requiring the installation of expensive

15 technology on power plants will result in higher

16 costs for Arizona ratepayers. In a worst-case

17 scenario, the FIP could lead to power plant

18 closures. In either case, it's Arizona businesses

19 that would absorb these higher costs. 

20 No state wants the reputation of having

21 expensive power supply. We are concerned that

22 Arizona is on the brink of being slapped with such a

23 reputation should the FIP go forward.

24 The equipment installation called for by

25 the FIP will not result in any perceptible

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 93

 1 visibility improvements in nearby national parks.

 2 The expense associated with FIP implementation

 3 estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of

 4 dollars cannot be justified in light of the lack of

 5 any identifiable benefit.

 6 Furthermore, the FIP does not seek to

 7 mitigate health risks to Arizonans or visitors to

 8 our national parks. Regional haze is not a health

 9 issue.

10 Because of these reasons, the FIP

11 conjection (sic) of uncertainty into our regulatory

12 environment that is inconsistent with the spirit of

13 federal/State cooperation, the likelihood of it

14 causing a spike in utility rates, and that it will

15 not result in perceptible improvements in visibility

16 in our wilderness areas, the Arizona Chamber of

17 Commerce opposes the FIP. 

18 We urge the EPA to withdraw the FIP and

19 instead partner with State level stakeholders like

20 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to

21 reach a mutually agreed-upon solution for how to

22 best reach the goals identified by the Regional Haze

23 Rule.

24 Thank you.

25 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 94

 1 Michelle Bolton.

 2 MICHELLE BOLTON: Good evening.

 3 For the record, my name is Michelle

 4 Bolton. M-i-c-h-l-l-e, B, as in boy, o-l-t, as in

 5 Tom, o-n.

 6 I'm the vice president of public affairs

 7 in economic development for the Greater Phoenix

 8 Chamber of Commerce. Our organization represents

 9 over 2600 business stakeholders in the Valley. And

10 this is small, medium, and large businesses.

11 Thank you for the opportunity to provide

12 comments regarding the EPA's proposed FIP.

13 As Arizona looks to recover from 300,000

14 jobs lost during the last recession, our

15 stakeholders are concerned with the EPA's proposed

16 FIP for Arizona.

17 Specifically, our stakeholders believe

18 the proposed plan would negatively impact our state.

19 The proposed plan would mandate the installation of

20 very costly controls at three of the state's power

21 generating stations, and that's Apache, Coronado,

22 and Cholla.

23 These power plants are major economic

24 drivers in our state. They are significant

25 employers, generating considerable tax revenues for

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 95

 1 both the State and the rural communities in which

 2 they are located. 

 3 In addition, these communities support

 4 numerous important charitable investments in these

 5 rural communities.

 6 As one can imagine, the installation of

 7 the new equipment as proposed by the EPA is not a

 8 bargain. It would cost millions of dollars that

 9 ultimately must be paid by those of us who are

10 everyday users of essential amenities like

11 air-conditioning units. 

12 Industry experts share the concern that

13 haze benefits associated with this new control

14 equipment will be minimal. In fact, it could even

15 be imperceptible. 

16 In the past, Arizona has rejected a plan

17 similar to the EPA's current proposal because it was

18 not cost-effective for the very few benefits

19 received.

20 More importantly, Arizona has made

21 efforts to control regional haze by investing large

22 sums of money and control equipment that has already

23 resulted in significant emission reduction. 

24 The new mandate, as proposed, would

25 require substantially more money and ultimately

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 96

 1 raise the rates for users.

 2 In addition, the proposed ruled proposes

 3 significant concerns related to the engineering and

 4 equipment design and redesign, potential impacts to

 5 electricity reliability, significant increases in

 6 the price of electricity, and the extraordinary

 7 requirement to implement a federally-mandated plan.

 8 The bottom line is that Arizona needs to

 9 have some control over its destiny. Currently, the

10 EPA is telling Arizona what the federal government

11 thinks is best.

12 The EPA continues to push a

13 one-size-fits-all approach to improving visibility

14 without regard to whether the costs outweigh the

15 benefits. 

16 Arizona has embattled many challenges as

17 of late and has repeatedly proven time and time

18 again the uniqueness of our region and the ability

19 of our business leaders, government officials, and

20 citizens to respond in good faith and rise to the

21 occasion.

22 We respectfully request the EPA continue

23 to collaborate with Arizona to find the best

24 possible outcomes that maintain a fair balance

25 between cost and improvements.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 97

 1 Thank you.

 2 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

 3 Carletta Tilousi.

 4 CARLETTA TILOUSI: Good evening. My name

 5 is Carletta Tilousi, C-a-r-l-e-t-t-a, T-i-l-o-u-s-i.

 6 Good evening.

 7 My name is Carletta Tilousi. I am here

 8 as a tribal member of the Havasupai tribe, born and

 9 raised in Supai Canyon. 

10 I am here speaking for my people of the

11 village of Supai and the Grand Canyon.

12 I was born in Supai, Arizona, and I have

13 breathed the air in Northern Arizona all of my life.

14 I was, at 16 years old, diagnosed with chronic

15 bronchitis. So I cannot be in areas that are highly

16 polluted.

17 You can feel my chest heavy, and for

18 those of you that have asthma and have chronic

19 bronchitis and respiratory diseases, you probably

20 understand how it is to suffer when there is

21 pollution in the air, even if it's very minimal.

22 In my village, we have -- we constantly

23 see haze covering the sunrise and the sunset. And

24 once the haze reaches Supai Village, there's no air.

25 If there's no wind, the haze hangs over our villages

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 98

 1 for more than a week.

 2 And that has caused, in my opinion, over

 3 the years I have witnessed many of our children

 4 suffer asthma. My nephew suffers asthma. When I am

 5 cooking in my house, he cannot be in my house in

 6 closed conditions. He has to leave the room and be

 7 outside and use his inhaler.

 8 Those are my first-hand experiences that

 9 I would like to share with you in this public

10 hearing.

11 I also do believe that it's about time

12 that the EPA has stepped in and enforced State

13 officials and ADEQ to take responsibility for

14 polluting the air.

15 It has been so long and they need to take

16 responsibility. And I commend Region 9, Jared

17 Blumenfeld, and all of his leadership and all of his

18 staff on taking this step to enforce the State of

19 Arizona to finally end the coal companies to finally

20 clean up their act. 

21 For people like us that continue to

22 suffer from respiratory disease, it's got to end

23 sometime. I have two children and I don't want to

24 see them suffer like that, living in my Supai Canyon

25 home.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 99

 1 I also believe that it's not about

 2 politics, it's not about money, it's about human

 3 life.

 4 I also want to say that I have served the

 5 Havasupai Tribal Council for the last ten years as a

 6 government official and I have made numerous trips

 7 to Region 9 and met with your staff in declaring and

 8 asking EPA Region 9 to protect the Grand Canyon.

 9 And I really commend you all being here and

10 providing us to share a voice in this process.

11 However, I would like to recommend that

12 more of the Native American communities that live in

13 Northern Arizona that are being affected by these

14 coal-powered plants be able to be provided a

15 testimony. They live next to the power plants.

16 They breathe, they smell, and they see what happens

17 in Northern Arizona.

18 I also want to say that this process that

19 EPA has undertaken is proper and legal and should

20 have been done a long time ago and it's a good

21 decision to honor the people who have suffered or

22 died from dirty air.

23 Thank you.

24 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

25 Patrick Ledger.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 100

 1 PATRICK LEDGER: Good evening.

 2 My name is Patrick Ledger, L-e-d-g-e-r.

 3 I'm the executive vice president and

 4 chief executive officer for Arizona Electric Power

 5 Cooperative, AEPCO.

 6 AEPCO is an electric generation

 7 cooperative which owns and operates Apache

 8 Generation Station -- Generating Station located in

 9 southeastern Arizona.

10 The generating facilities at the plant

11 currently consist of two coal-fired steam units, one

12 combined-cycle gas unit, and three simple-cycle gas

13 turbines.

14 AEPCO is a member-owned, not-for-profit

15 generation cooperative which provided wholesale

16 power to six rural electric distribution systems,

17 also not-for-profit, serving customers in Arizona,

18 California, and New Mexico.

19 If the Federal Implementation Plan

20 remains as proposed, AEPCO would be required to

21 install selective catalytic reduction, SCR, low NOx

22 burner, overfire air on Apache's units 2 and 3.

23 The EPA estimates the cost at

24 88.6 million and $12 million in annualized expense.

25 Preliminary estimates prepared by AEPCO

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 101

 1 and its consultants indicate that the cost would be

 2 significantly greater. At least double the EPA

 3 estimate.

 4 Several factors combined to make the

 5 projected cost of the proposed pollution controls

 6 unreasonable, unaffordable, and impracticable for

 7 AEPCO. And more importantly, for the customers

 8 relying on AEPCO for electricity.

 9 AEPCO very much appreciates that the EPA

10 has recognized that AEPCO fits the criteria of a,

11 quote, small entity due to its small size and

12 relatively disadvantaged population that it serves.

13 EPA has afforded AEPCO the opportunity to

14 provide it with information relating to its unique

15 issues and acknowledged in a proposed rule that

16 these issues would receive serious agency

17 consideration in the final selection of BART for

18 Apache Generating Station.

19 AEPCO lacks feasible alternatives for

20 avoiding costs of the controls.

21 First, AEPCO operates only a single

22 facility and cannot balance the burden over a number

23 of facilities, as large utilities often do. 

24 Second, the units that are affected,

25 steam 2 and 3, are AEPCO's low-volume units.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 102

 1 AEPCO's other generating units are less efficient

 2 and are used primarily for peaking and reserves.

 3 Especially during the summer peak period,

 4 AEPCO cannot import sufficient power from other

 5 generators to cover its loads due to limitations in

 6 grid capacity.

 7 From an operating perspective, units

 8 steam 2 and 3 are effectively RMR, reliability must

 9 run during key portions of the year. AEPCO cannot

10 abandon units and expect to serve its load adequate

11 or reliably.

12 In addition, the required investment

13 would swamp AEPCO's budget and limited financial

14 resources.

15 An $89 million investment in controls,

16 which our preliminary estimates indicates it's less

17 than half of the actual costs, would increase our

18 existing net plan investment by a third.

19 AEPCO's operating margin for 2011 was

20 less than $1.9 million. Accordingly, the minimum

21 $89 million investment would be over 42 times

22 AEPCO's 2011 margin. 

23 The magnitude of the debt that would

24 impact AEPCO's economic viability and security of

25 its mortgage, which is held by Rural Utility

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 103

 1 Services, a division of the U.S. Department of

 2 Agriculture.

 3 AEPCO appreciates the opportunity to work

 4 with EPA in addressing the issues unique to AEPCO.

 5 But requiring AEPCO to install SCR controls is not

 6 in the best economic interest of AEPCO, its member

 7 consumers, or the region as a whole.

 8 The adverse economic impacts of the

 9 controls on AEPCO and its customers would be

10 devastating.

11 Thank you for giving us the opportunity

12 to speak.

13 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

14 These are the last four speakers that I

15 have for speaker cards at this time.

16 Joe Mikitish, Bari Greenfeld, Joe Murphy,

17 and Marshal Johnson.

18 Mr. Mikitish, whenever you're ready.

19 JOE MIKITISH: Thank you, Mr. Rios.

20 My name is Joe Mikitish. I'm a unit

21 chief in the environmental enforcement section of

22 the Arizona Attorney General's Office.

23 Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne

24 supports the testimony of the Arizona Department of

25 Environmental Quality and joins their comments in

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 104

 1 requesting EPA to withdraw its proposed partial

 2 Federal Implementation Plan for regional haze.

 3 Arizona has taken serious action to

 4 address regional haze both within our state borders

 5 and throughout the West.

 6 Arizona recognizes that our natural state

 7 parks and monuments are among the crown jewels of

 8 the nation. And Arizona has served as a leader for

 9 more than 15 years to reduce regional haze and meet

10 Clean Air Act requirements.

11 Director Massey has detailed much of

12 those efforts in his comments.

13 Arizona now has a complete regional haze

14 implementation plan which is before EPA right now.

15 The State's plan demonstrates compliance with the

16 Clean Air Act for regional haze.

17 Arizona undertook an extensive

18 administrative process for making its BART and

19 reasonable progress determinations.

20 Arizona's BART and reasonable progress

21 determinations are based upon the Clean Air Act,

22 statutory criteria, and its extensive administrative

23 findings.

24 Yet, instead of acting on the full plan

25 before it, a plan submitted over 17 months ago by

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 105

 1 the State, EPA proposes action on only a few

 2 individual components of the State plan.

 3 EPA points to suggested deficiencies in

 4 the State plan concerning these individual

 5 components but does not allow the State to address

 6 these deficiencies or reweigh the factors for

 7 establishing the appropriate control technologies as

 8 set forth in the Clean Air Act.

 9 Instead, EPA's proposed action forces its

10 own federal plan on the State, with EPA's own

11 assessment of appropriate control technologies. And

12 in so doing, imposes radically higher costs on an

13 in-state industry and its citizens.

14 This proposed action is contrary to law.

15 Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to render a

16 decision on Arizona's current full plan before the

17 end of August. Instead of meeting this legal

18 obligation, EPA has actually delayed action on

19 regional haze.

20 The final decision on this partial plan

21 is scheduled before November 15th. And in a court

22 document recently filed, EPA is not required to

23 propose the remainder of its plan for Arizona until

24 well into next year.

25 By seeking to impose EPA's implementation

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 106

 1 plan in the state, EPA is ignoring Arizona rights

 2 under the Clean Air Act.

 3 Under 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(3), the

 4 states, not EPA, have the primary responsibility for

 5 air pollution control and prevention.

 6 Specifically under 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1),

 7 the states, not EPA, have the primary responsibility

 8 for determining implementation plans dealing with

 9 regional haze.

10 On behalf of the Attorney General, I

11 request the EPA withdraw its proposed action, act on

12 Arizona's full implementation plan, and uphold the

13 State's primacy for governing air quality and

14 establishing technology requirements in Arizona.

15 Thank you very much.

16 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

17 Bari Greenfeld.

18 BARI GREENFELD: Good evening.

19 My name is Bari Greenfeld, B-a-r-i,

20 G-r-e-e-n-f-e-l-d.

21 I'm here representing myself.

22 I am a law student, nature enthusiast,

23 and new Arizona resident.

24 Last week I visited the north rim of the

25 Grand Canyon for the first time. Like so many

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 107

 1 before me, I was awestruck and inspired by the

 2 spectacular views, and yet I know they could be so

 3 much better.

 4 EPA's regional haze requirements will

 5 help preserve the integrity of Arizona's national

 6 parks, which are among our country's most unique and

 7 scenic plays.

 8 Reducing emissions of smog-forming

 9 chemicals will also support thousands of local

10 park-related jobs and ensure countless moments of

11 wonder for future generations.

12 Someday, when I bring my children and my

13 grandchildren back to the Grand Canyon, I want them

14 to be able to experience vistas that are even more

15 magnificent in their natural state.

16 In addition, the regional haze

17 requirements will have significant public health

18 benefits. Every year, pollution from the Apache,

19 Coronado, and Cholla coal plants takes people's

20 lives causing heart attacks, asthma attacks, chronic

21 bronchitis, and other serious medical conditions.

22 This amounts to millions of dollars of

23 preventable health expenses. It's time to make

24 Arizona's air cleaner and more breathable.

25 The Clean Air Act recognizes that our

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 108

 1 health and welfare is priceless. These regional

 2 haze requirements are truly a step in the right

 3 direction, and I support the EPA's plan.

 4 Thank you.

 5 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

 6 Joe Murphy.

 7 JOE MURPHY: Hello. Joe Murphy, J-o-e,

 8 M-u-r-p-h-y.

 9 I'm here representing myself, though I

10 did get this neat T-shirt when I came in.

11 Unlike lobbyists and the funded

12 politicians, I don't get anything for being here,

13 but this T-shirt is cool.

14 I'm a little nervous. 

15 The regional haze requirements have more

16 to do than just haze. The equipment is there to

17 lessen the pollution that's coming out of the

18 plants. These are plants that have been known for

19 years to be the most polluting ones in Arizona.

20 The testimony by the lobbyists and the

21 politicians they fund is just a smoke screen for

22 their clients, who are the utilities who oppose the

23 regulations.

24 Their testimony is well-rehearsed and has

25 as its goal the higher profits for the utilities,

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 109

 1 which as a small businessman, I understand profits.

 2 But it's not for the well-being of the Arizonans.

 3 The EPA, by law, is responsible for

 4 determining the best practices for these plants, for

 5 the citizens, not for the higher profits of the

 6 corporations that own these plants.

 7 I understand they need to make a profit,

 8 but sometimes planning would have been better, since

 9 they are big corporations and they have lots of

10 people.

11 The legislators who support the utilities

12 won't support alternative forms of energy, which

13 would bring good-paying jobs to Arizona, yet they

14 continue to support coal-fired plants.

15 The majority on the Corporation

16 Commission opposes alternative forms of energy in

17 Arizona, one of the least producing states for

18 alternative energy in the country, even though we

19 have the most sun. Maine has a higher percentage.

20 And those alternative forms of energy

21 would actually bring good-paying jobs to Arizona,

22 which several of the lobbyists and the politicians

23 seemed to say that they thought was a good idea.

24 Utilities have not supported the

25 candidates who will encourage alternative forms of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 110

 1 energy generation, but only support candidates who

 2 oppose it. 

 3 If they really want to bring Arizona into

 4 the future and making more economically secure, they

 5 need to get behind that and not the candidates who

 6 oppose alternative forms of energy.

 7 The corporate lobbyists who have spoken

 8 here tonight have not supported candidates either

 9 who -- and, in fact, have supported candidates who

10 deny that the EPA has a right to set the standards,

11 which utilities oppose.

12 And I find it particularly interesting

13 that the -- representing the Attorney General on

14 this, who claims that the EPA's finding is contrary

15 to law -- happens to be also a person who is opposed

16 of the Voting Rights Act and acted on it and that

17 got rapidly thrown out of court.

18 Thank you very much.

19 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

20 Marshal Johnson.

21 MARSHAL JOHNSON: (Speaking in Native

22 tongue.)

23 I want to say thank you for allowing us

24 to give testimony and for us to express ourselves.

25 And I am representing To'Nizhoni and the grassroot

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 111

 1 organization based on Black Mesa. 

 2 And we -- the meaning of the To'Nizhoni

 3 is sacred water speaks. So we try to advocate on

 4 behalf of our environment, the elements.

 5 So at this time I want to also say that I

 6 support your ruling. I support Jared Blumenfeld's

 7 ruling of Region 9 EPA SCRs on these power plants,

 8 Cholla, Coronado, and Cochise. So I support that

 9 very much.

10 And we've provided our water and our coal

11 for Cholla for many years. And our springs are not

12 producing on the upper basin of the Colorado --

13 upper basin Colorado.

14 The Red Lake in Navajo has gone dry.

15 That was fed by aquifers and also by the snow and

16 rain. And that was used for mining purposes on

17 McKinley Mine to provide coal for Cholla.

18 So these areas are in violation of

19 environmental practices that should protect the

20 people. And we, as the original people of this

21 region and likewise the southern tribes of the

22 Chiricahuas, San Carlos, White Mountains, the Gilas,

23 and we continue to have the impacts that we have to

24 live within these unhealthy air.

25 Likewise, our homeland, the plant that

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 112

 1 you hold as your state plant, the saguaro, as it

 2 praises the sun, with the haze that it cannot --

 3 that it is miss -- it is not allowed to pray to the

 4 sun as it did and it's not breathing as it used to.

 5 So we are endangering our wilderness and

 6 likewise our national parks. So this is our

 7 violations to our environment.

 8 So I support this EPA ruling that should

 9 go across the board and allow all coal-fired power

10 plants to be implemented with SCRs best available

11 retrofit technology. Or better yet, transition to

12 renewable energy such as solar and wind, why it is

13 upon us each and every day.

14 Thank you.

15 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

16 We have heard from everyone who has

17 submitted a speaker card today. We still have time

18 to hear additional statements.

19 Is there anyone else who would like to

20 provide oral comment?

21 If there are no further comments, I will

22 conclude this public hearing.

23 As a reminder, the period for written

24 comment remains open until September 18th, 2012.

25 Thank you all for coming and

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 113

 1 participating in this hearing. We appreciate you

 2 taking the time to participate in the public hearing

 3 process.

 4 This hearing is now closed.

 5 (The hearing concluded at 8:32 p.m.)

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com
 114

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 I, MICHELLE D. ELAM, Certified Reporter 

 8 No. 50637 for the State of Arizona, do hereby 

 9 certify that the foregoing 113 printed pages 

10 constitute a full, true, and accurate transcript of 

11 the proceedings had in the foregoing matter, all 

12 done to the best of my skill and ability. 

13 

14 WITNESS my hand this 9th day of August, 

15 2012. 

16 

17 

18 

19 _________________________ 

 MICHELLE D. ELAM 

20 Certified Reporter 

 Certificate No. 50637 

21

22

23

24

25

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com