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.com2

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 fr om 15 the Region 9 Planning Office; Roberto Gutierrez f rom 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 rec ord 24 on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed 25 action to implement best available retrofit

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com3

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 proposin g 5 to require installation of new controls for nitro gen 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 summari zed 10 in the following manner: A proposal to approve t he 11 State's BART emission limits for sulfur dioxide a nd 12 particulate matter at the three facilities. 13 A proposal to disapprove the BART 14 emission limits for nitrogen oxides at most of th e 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 oxide s 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 o n 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.com4

1 Protection Agency receives your oral public comme nts 2 in an orderly fashion. I will not be involved in 3 assessing or responding to your comments. Likewi se, 4 I will not be involved in EPA's final 5 decision-making process for the three power plant s. 6 Instead, I am solely facilitating this proceedingto 7 make sure all community members have an equal 8 opportunity to submit oral comments on this issueas 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, 20 12, 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.com5

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 als o 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 permitte d. 14 Also please silence your cell phones. 15 And if you need to speak to take a call, either s tep 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 begi n 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 allo wed 24 in the hearing room. If you wish to carry a bann er 25 or poster with you to your seat, you will be aske d

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com6

1 to sit in the rear of the hearing room so that yo u 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 reques t 13 forms are received. 14 Please write your name legibly since the 15 court reporter will be relying on your card for t he 16 correct spelling of your name. Before giving us 17 your comment, please state your name for the reco rd. 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, whic h 24 is September 18th, 2012. 25 You may also submit written comments

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com7

1 today on a comment card or other paper. There is a 2 comment box at the registration table where you c an 3 leave your written comments. 4 If you submit comments, it is not 5 necessary for you to give the same oral comment a s 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 w ill 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 relatedto 23 this specific action. 24 EPA's decision on Clean Air Act rules are 25 typically made with the participation of a numberof

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com8

1 people within the organization. EPA staff cannot 2 commit to any specific decision to the proposed S IP 3 and FIP today. 4 The purpose of this hearing is for EPA to 5 listen to your comments. Therefore, EPA will notbe 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 comment s 14 submitted during the public comment period have b een 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 act ion 19 and available for inspection at EPA's office in S an 20 Francisco as well as on regulations.gov. 21 If you wish to purchase an official copy 22 of the transcript, please make arrangements direc tly 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 spea ker

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com9

1 request form. Speakers will be called in groups of 2 five in the order in which the forms were receive d. 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 the y 6 can make their presentations first, since they ma y 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 af ter 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 ma ke 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 n ext 24 to you at the microphone. Please say one sentenc e 25 and then wait for her to translate your statement

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com10

1 into English for everyone to hear before your nex t 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 th em 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 a nd 14 time permits, people can submit additional speake r 15 request cards for additional testimony if there w as 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 i n 19 this room. We have to leave by 9:00 and there ar e 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 refreshment s

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com11

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, a nd 7 House Majority Rep and State Representative Debbi e 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 th e 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.com12

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 lear ned 10 about this rule, what, 11 days ago and here we ar e 11 as state policy member -- makers supposed to prov ide 12 substantive feedback. 13 This truncated timeline is contrary to 14 the Clean Air Act's requirement that EPA give amp le 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 again st 23 them. 24 Second, the proposed FIP is totally 25 unnecessary. Arizona's SIP was adequate and woul d

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com13

1 have required these plants to install low NOx 2 burners, which you utilities have agreed to do, a t 3 great cost. 4 SCR technology is far too expensive to 5 justify the insignificant improvement in air qual ity 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 o f 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 onto 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.com14

1 nowhere; it comes out of the wallets and pocketbo oks 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 A ir 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 misl ed 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 yea rs 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.com15

1 opposition to the EPA's plans to require three 2 Arizona power plants to install selective catalyt ic 3 reduction technology to reduce regional haze. 4 Before I address the substance of the 5 proposed regulations, I would like to go on recor d 6 to express my disgust for the process used by the 7 EPA to develop this proposal. I find it outrageo us 8 that the EPA would hold a public hearing on this 9 highly complex and technical rule only 11 days af ter 10 making it available to the public. 11 This abbreviated public comment period 12 reflects lack of respect for the people of Arizon a. 13 Likewise, by proposing a FIP, the EPA has directl y 14 contradicted the Clean Air Act, which is supposedto 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 everythingto 20 do with EPA's relentless and reckless push to 21 eliminate coal as the source of cheap and reliabl e 22 energy. 23 Furthermore, it gives the appearance of 24 one more chance for the Obama administration to s lap 25 Arizona.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com16

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 improvemen t 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 location s. 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 tr uth 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 cos ts

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com17

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 dial og 5 with the State of Arizona, again, to constructive ly 6 move forward with the approval of the State's 7 regional haze implementation plan. Failure to doso 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 -- Generatin g 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.com18

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 highe r 7 electricity costs. 8 Let's look at the cost in my district in 9 Cochise County if EPA succeeds in implementing th is 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 cost s. 17 AEPCO's net profits or margins in 2011 18 were only $1.5 million. There is no way AEPCO ca n 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.com19

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 b e 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, whic h 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 f rom 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 tha t 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.com20

1 air. 2 I think it's worth pointing out that 3 those wildfires were the result of poor federal l and 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 Nation al 13 Parks Conservation Association, which for more th an 14 90 years has been the leading advocate for the 15 national park system in America. Some people cal l 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.com21

1 hazy days, our kids can't see across the canyons. 2 On those same days, the air is hard for some of u s 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 als o 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 qualityat 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 calculatio ns 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 ou r

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com22

1 air quality in our deserts and all of us who livein 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 heal th, 6 health of the plants, the animals, the water and the 7 land itself will also realize great and invaluabl e 8 benefits. Benefits that have not been taken into 9 account in the other cost-benefit assessments, bu t 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 park s. 14 Spiritually, we all need a place to 15 refresh and reconnect with the natural world. 16 Places that tell our stories, our cultural herita ge. 17 But we have an obligation to protect 18 these places so that our grand- -- our children a nd 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 pl an

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com23

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 o ver 8 100,000 Arizonans in my legislative district alon e 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 beha lf 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 t he 19 Arizona people, something our citizens just canno t 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 th at 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.com24

1 Station, for example, SRP and EPA already entered 2 into a consent agreement for the Coronado Generat ing 3 Station in 2008. SRP has already spent over 4 $500 million to satisfy that decree and now the E PA 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 th e 16 course of eight months, the EPA developed and 17 proposed their own federal plan, ignoring the man y 18 years of work spent by the State to develop its o wn 19 plan. Why? 20 The EPA is also proposing an emission 21 rate limit that is the most stringent NOx emissio ns 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.com25

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 t he 6 EPA's plan is inconclusive as to whether there wo uld 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 chairof 25 the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com26

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 doi ng 5 to properly administer state programs and to 6 implement federal and State environmental protect ion 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 regio nal 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 o f

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com27

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 purpo se 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 healt hy 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 t hat 18 the results are achieved. 19 The regional haze program -- Congress 20 made State/federal partnership very clear. In fa ct, 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.com28

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 Regiona l 13 Administrator Blumenfeld to withdraw the EPA's 14 proposed regional haze plan for Arizona and inste ad 15 adopt a regional haze plan prepared and submittedby 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.com29

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 quali ty 5 is concerned. 6 It is unfortunate that a lawsuit filed by 7 several environmental organizations against the E PA 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.com30

1 meetings with these organizations. 2 At no time during the negotiations were 3 the impacted states, including Arizona, invited t o 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 o n 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 un til 15 July 18th that the EPA provided affected parties the 16 technical support document that forms the basis f or 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 th e 25 written comment period as well as expanding the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com31

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 t he 16 Clean Air Act. It is also shown that the EPA has 17 not provided ample opportunity for proper analysi s 18 and comment of the proposed FIP. 19 Clearly states are best suited to 20 understand and balance the benefits associated wi th 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.com32

1 the proposed rule from 90 days from July 20th, 20 12. 2 This extension will allow the necessary technical 3 review and analysis of the proposed FIP and affor d 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 submit tal 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 SI P, 24 that penalizes Arizona, its citizens, and all power 25 users that rely on affordable energy.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com33

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 electrici ty 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 prepare d 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 establish es 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 an d 22 its source is the primary responsibility of state s 23 and local governments. 24 Even more specifically to the topic 25 today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Districtof

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com34

1 Columbia Circuit has held that the Clean Air Act 2 calls for states to play the lead role in designi ng 3 and implementing regional haze programs. 4 While states are required to develop 5 plans to ensure reasonable progress is made towar ds 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. Th e 21 cost of the controls proposed by EPA for these 22 stations is hundreds of millions of dollars and t he 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.com35

1 significant increase in the electricity bills tha t 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 emissi ons 6 that may result from EPA's proposal to install SC R 7 are not necessary or required to comply with the 8 human health standard. The installation of SCR w ill 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 Stateof 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 an d 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.com36

1 I am chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commissi on, 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 cooperati ves 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 provi de 16 safe, reliable, and inexpensive energy to new and 17 existing businesses. For this reason I am greatl y 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 describ e 21 the impact to AEPCO and its customers. 22 AEPCO is a generation cooperative that 23 owns the Apache Generating Station which is locat ed 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.com37

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 estimate s 6 developed by the EPA. AEPCO thinks the cost willbe 7 closer to 180 million. 8 To replace this in perspective, AEPCO -- 9 to place this in perspective, AEPCO recently file d a 10 rate case with our commission. And I can tell yo u 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 AEPC O 15 to increase its existing rate base by approximate ly 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 everythi ng 23 else by interest rates and operating expenses 24 remains the same, the utility would need a one-th ird 25 increase in its revenues during its next rate cas e.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com38

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 fo r 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 environment al 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 n ot 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.com39

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 negligibl e 6 human -- negligible benefit to human vistas. 7 In sum, EPA's FIP proposal will impose 8 significant costs upon Arizona utilities necessar ily 9 cause of electric rates in Arizona to skyrocket a nd 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 commen ts 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 t o 18 remedy any deficiencies in the SIP it has propose d. 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.com40

1 officer of PacifiCorp Energy. This is the divisi on 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 hundr ed 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 uni ts 10 that we own a portion of in other states. Fourte en 11 of these units that we have in Utah and Wyoming a re 12 BART eligible. We have a very significant BART 13 footprint, if you will, when it comes to coal-fir ed 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.com41

1 reject part of Arizona's carefully crafted SIP an d 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 require d 6 by the Clean Air Act. 7 The Arizona Department of Environmental 8 Quality conducted a robust BART analysis. In doi ng 9 so, it exercised the very discretion contemplatedby 10 the Clean Air Act in applying the relevant factor s 11 to its BART determinations. 12 However, rather than accepting the 13 State's thoughtful determinations, EPA has propos ed 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, includin g 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 Cl ean 21 Air Act. EPA is clearly and impermissibly 22 substituting its judgment for that of the State o f 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.com42

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 t he 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 sho uld 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 tonigh t 24 are not health-based standards. 25 This brings me to my third point.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com43

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 improvemen ts 5 will be imperceptible. Modeled visibility 6 improvement from adding an SCR to all three 7 BART-eligible units at the Cholla plant is predic ted 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.com44

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 Electr ic 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.com45

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 a nd 9 engineering challenges for the co-ops. 10 These factors make affordable rates even 11 more critical for Arizona Electric Power and thei r 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. averag e. 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 American s

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com46

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, includin g 4 EPA, are required to consider all potential impac ts 5 on minority populations and low-income population s. 6 This includes both the economic and the 7 environmental impacts of decisions such as how th e 8 selection of BART will affect Arizona Electric Po wer 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 the ir 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 sprea d 25 the cost of compliance. And transmission grid

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com47

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 Po wer 5 consumers that they foot the bill for the upgrade s. 6 While the State and EPA came up with 7 substantive -- substantially different cost 8 estimates for controls, there is no doubt the cos t 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 regulato ry 21 obligations. EPA should revisit the proposal wit h 22 these considerations in mind. 23 Thank you. 24 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you. 25 Sandy Bahr.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com48

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 fr om 12 coal-plant pollution, such as the thousands of to ns 13 of nitrogen oxides that are released into our ski es 14 every year. 15 The current EPA plan to reduce nitrogen 16 oxide in our state is a common-sense strategy tha t 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.com49

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 Stati on. 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 famil y 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 urba n 17 and rural landscapes alike. 18 We have waited far too long for this 19 cleanup already. More than 35 years. EPA and th e 20 utilities that operate these plants, APS, SRP, an d 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 mor e

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com50

1 like a branch of the utilities rather than an age ncy 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 o f 9 nitrogen oxide pollution every year. That's a lo t 10 of pollution. That is a significant impact on ou r 11 parks and other public lands as well as our healt h. 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 environmen tal 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 o f 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.com51

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 ot her 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 worsenin g 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 understandin g

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com52

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 littl e 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 w ill 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 i s 15 much more important to me than my wallet. I woul d 16 much rather pay the relatively small cost to clea n 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.com53

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 o ver 21 $300 million to enhance emission controls of SO2, 22 NOx and particulates at the power plant resultingin 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.com54

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 mad e 7 on a case-by-case site specific analysis followin g 8 the five factor BART factors. 9 Utilizing these five factors, the Arizona 10 Department of Environmental Quality analyzed vari ous 11 NOx technologies and determined that the combusti on 12 controls already on -- put on in the last five ye ars 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 a nd 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 conjur es 25 improved visibility where it doesn't exist by add ing

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com55

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 ra in 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 t he 9 model tends to magnify the actual visibility effe ct 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 rec ent 16 atmospheric chemistry models being developed. 17 Now seven years later, EPA continues to 18 use that flawed model. And it's unconscionable t hat 19 they do so, especially given the economic disrupt ion 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.com56

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 wa s 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.com57

1 improved visibility. Indeed, SRP is in the final 2 stages of installing extensive new pollution cont rol 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 eve n 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 l ess 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 ha ze 22 FIP. 23 There is no basis for SRP to dismiss 24 site-specific costs developed by engineering firm s 25 in favor of cost estimates based on generic

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com58

1 assumptions. 2 For example, the EPA estimated that the 3 cost of the SCR that is being installed currentlyat 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 n one 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 tha n 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 ha ze 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.com59

1 new state-of-the-art pollution control equipment at 2 the Coronado Generating Station coupled with lega l 3 and technical infirmities of the EPA's proposed r ule 4 warrant withdrawal of the FIP at this time in fav or 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 Denni s, 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.com60

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 e ast 5 of town, Chiricahua National Monument. And the f act 6 is that all three of these power plants we're 7 talking about tonight are as close as 40 miles toat 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 the se 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 everyon e 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 th is 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.com61

1 That leads to breathing problems, 2 hospital and doctor visits, heart attacks, even 3 death, according to the Clean Air Task Force. An d 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 po wer 10 plants already. 11 APS is committing to SCR on their units 12 at four corners. SRP is running SCR on their uni t 13 at Springerville. It's already installing SCR in 14 one of the units at Coronado right next to the ot her 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 matc h 20 their other gas unit, something they've been ableto 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, e ach 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.com62

1 APS customers would pay an extra $1.93 2 (sic) a month to clean up Cholla. That's less th an 3 the cost of this batch french fries. And it's 4 actually -- I'm an APS customer. They cost me mo re 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 wou ld 12 have to pay the equivalent of a milk shake, frenc h 13 fries, another set of fries. There you have it a nd 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.com63

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 pub lic 11 health and environmental health around these plan ts. 12 You know, I'm talking about proximity. 13 Like 50, a hundred-mile radius of these plants an d 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, t he 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 amoun t 24 of people and they talk about the urban areas. T hey 25 never talk about the communities out there that a re

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com64

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 kn ow 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 lan d. 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 beca use 12 I do see a lot of people in close proximity to th ese 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 reaso ns 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.com65

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 contribu te 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, a nd 25 Cholla coal plants cause nearly 41 death, 63 hear t

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com66

1 attacks, 747 asthma attacks, 30 hospital admissio ns, 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 a sh, 10 and neurotoxins like mercury. We must clean up 11 these dirty coal plants and start to transition t o 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 a nd 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.com67

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 lead er 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 can not 23 see where I live. I invite you to come out and s ee 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.com68

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 wh at 8 goes on out there. 9 As a religious leader, I have to go out 10 there and search for certain plants to fulfill ou r 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.com69

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 i t 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 thing s. 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 alwa ys 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 tha t. 25 Do the right thing. You're still going

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com70

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 generatio ns 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 w ith 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, co al 25 emissions, is one of the most common and the

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com71

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 th is 6 being strictly a haze issue. I don't know why th at 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 yo u 12 to speak up now and tell EPA that you support str ong 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 deali ng 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 mor e 25 sulfate particles than the West on average, large ly

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com72

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 of f 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 a ll 9 more or less informed about global warming and th e 10 catastrophe -- catastrophes that face us if we do n'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, h ave 14 to be complemented by paying attention to the wat er 15 issue. As you know, these high technology scrubb ers 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 go t 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.com73

1 give our court reporter some rest time and also t o 2 see if we have any progress on getting the mechan ic 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.com74

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 en d 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 t hat 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 everyb ody 20 where we can both protect the environment and sti ll 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 publ ic

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com75

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 multihundred s 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.com76

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 th e 6 national parks clean, and keep reasonable costs f or 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'r e 12 looking at the big picture, we can get there in 3 0 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 Environmen t 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 eve n 25 the environment. We're talking about our abilityto

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com77

1 see things. Albeit very beautiful things, but se e 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, a nd 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 looki ng 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 actua lly 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 a s a

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com78

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 procedure s 6 in making a decision on Arizona submissions, EPA 7 made a finding that many states failed to actuall y 8 submit their Regional Haze SIP at all. Arizona g ot 9 shoe-horned into this finding, with EPA identifyi ng 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 developme nt 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 o f 23 2011. 24 That same year a lawsuit was filed 25 against EPA for its failure to approve a SIP or t o

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com79

1 implement a FIP within two years of EPA's findingof 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 fora 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 wi th 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 opportun ity 17 to (inaudible). 18 So our question is, what happened to 19 Arizona due process? Where is the coregulator th at 20 Arizona is supposed to have and EPA has describedin 21 the Clean Air Act. And why can EPA's inaction an d 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.com80

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 o f 5 visual air quality in Arizona's national parks an d 6 wilderness areas. 7 Our next question. How can EPA make a 8 finding that Arizona SIPs are not complete and th en 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 th e 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 o f 16 the action as a whole. And the plan that this be ing 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.com81

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 w ith 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 outstandin g 15 issues related to regional haze SIP and not 16 undermine the cooperative approach that previousl y 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.com82

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 i ts 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 thatin 24 the permitting processes ten years ago. They act 25 like they are so surprised that they might have t o

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com83

1 do this. 2 And I also want to ask, wouldn't it be 3 unfair competition in business and trade for themto 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, wh ile 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 profi ts 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 be en 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.com84

1 And if money is really such an issue, 2 then the owners and operators of these power plan ts 3 would be well-advised to stop their millions in 4 financial support of ALEC, the American Legislati ve 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 o f 24 waste created while generating electricity. 25 We must pay the costs of using our

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com85

1 country's natural resources, and that cost includ es 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 referrin g 7 to required partnerships with the federal 8 government. These arguments are offered by the s ame 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 the ir 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.com86

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 int o 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 inste ad 17 work with ADEQ on a more realistic proposal that 18 truly takes into account the impacts on water rat es 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 remai n, 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.com87

1 The next five speakers are Gary Yaquinto. 2 I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. Gretchen Cong er, 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 investor s 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 highl y 21 expensive SCR technology on certain coal-fired po wer 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 t he

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com88

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 conductedon 6 implementing the expensive SCR technology being 7 required by EPA will have virtually no perceptibl e 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 emissio ns 12 that cause haze, and have also proposed other les s 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 wil l 17 do nothing but heap exorbitant and unnecessary co sts 18 on certain power plant operators. 19 Furthermore, simply by the nature of its 20 location and its unique natural environment, Ariz ona 21 has a preponderance of Class I visibility areas 22 compared with other states in other regions of th e 23 country. 24 EPA's proposal to mandate costly 25 technology requirements and overly aggressive

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com89

1 emission standards on power plant operators unfai rly 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 a nd 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 investme nts 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 effect s 21 that your rush to impose overly aggressive and 22 selective regulation of regional haze will have o n 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.com90

1 environmental matters here in Arizona and to the 2 families and the businesses that will suffer the 3 economic consequences from overreaching regulatio ns. 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 glo bal 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.com91

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 uncertain ty 5 into an especially precarious time, as the State is 6 attempting to recover from an economic downturn t hat 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 t o 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 w ith 25 State partners, like the Arizona Department of

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com92

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 pol icy 11 and that our concerns and desires to work with th e 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 businesse s 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 suc h 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.com93

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 healt h 9 issue. 10 Because of these reasons, the FIP 11 conjection (sic) of uncertainty into our regulato ry 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 wil l 15 not result in perceptible improvements in visibil ity 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 lik e 20 the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality t o 21 reach a mutually agreed-upon solution for how to 22 best reach the goals identified by the Regional H aze 23 Rule. 24 Thank you. 25 GERARDO RIOS: Thank you.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com94

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 i n 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 propose d 16 FIP for Arizona. 17 Specifically, our stakeholders believe 18 the proposed plan would negatively impact our sta te. 19 The proposed plan would mandate the installation of 20 very costly controls at three of the state's powe r 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 f or

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com95

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 thes e 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 eve n 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 lar ge 22 sums of money and control equipment that has alre ady 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.com96

1 raise the rates for users. 2 In addition, the proposed ruled proposes 3 significant concerns related to the engineering a nd 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 pla n. 8 The bottom line is that Arizona needs to 9 have some control over its destiny. Currently, t he 10 EPA is telling Arizona what the federal governmen t 11 thinks is best. 12 The EPA continues to push a 13 one-size-fits-all approach to improving visibilit y 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 abilit y 19 of our business leaders, government officials, an d 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.com97

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 a nd 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 li fe. 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. An d 24 once the haze reaches Supai Village, there's no a ir. 25 If there's no wind, the haze hangs over our villa ges

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com98

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 fina lly 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 t o 24 see them suffer like that, living in my Supai Can yon 25 home.

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS www.CourtReportersAz.com99

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 a s a 6 government official and I have made numerous trip s 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 livein 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 happe ns 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.com100

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 Powe r 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 g as 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 expens e. 25 Preliminary estimates prepared by AEPCO

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com101

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 serve s. 13 EPA has afforded AEPCO the opportunity to 14 provide it with information relating to its uniqu e 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.com102

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 mu st 9 run during key portions of the year. AEPCO canno t 10 abandon units and expect to serve its load adequa te 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 le ss 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.com103

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 no t 6 in the best economic interest of AEPCO, its membe r 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.com104

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 borde rs 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 f or 9 more than 15 years to reduce regional haze and me et 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 administrat ive 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.com105

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 addres s 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 rende r a 16 decision on Arizona's current full plan before th e 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 cour t 22 document recently filed, EPA is not required to 23 propose the remainder of its plan for Arizona unt il 24 well into next year. 25 By seeking to impose EPA's implementation

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com106

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 responsibil ity 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, acton 12 Arizona's full implementation plan, and uphold th e 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.com107

1 before me, I was awestruck and inspired by the 2 spectacular views, and yet I know they could be s o 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 th em 14 to be able to experience vistas that are even mor e 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, chro nic 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.com108

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 fo r 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 t he 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.com109

1 which as a small businessman, I understand profit s. 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, si nce 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 politician s 23 seemed to say that they thought was a good idea. 24 Utilities have not supported the 25 candidates who will encourage alternative forms o f

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com110

1 energy generation, but only support candidates wh o 2 oppose it. 3 If they really want to bring Arizona into 4 the future and making more economically secure, t hey 5 need to get behind that and not the candidates wh o 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 wh o 10 deny that the EPA has a right to set the standard s, 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 contra ry 15 to law -- happens to be also a person who is oppo sed 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 grassroo t

© AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS

www.CourtReportersAz.com111

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 n ot 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 Gil as, 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.com112

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 t he 4 sun as it did and it's not breathing as it used t o. 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 powe r 10 plants to be implemented with SCRs best available 11 retrofit technology. Or better yet, transition t o 12 renewable energy such as solar and wind, why it i s 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 ti me 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.com113

1 participating in this hearing. We appreciate you 2 taking the time to participate in the public hear ing 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.com114

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